Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > are two different things."
> > > >
> > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > assertion.
> > > >
> > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > NGs, by the way.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
>
> The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> very plainly.

Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
speaker. Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis. I agree that your
sentence is plain.

>
> > If this is
> > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
>
> Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)

Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
today :-)

Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
restate your comment for comprehensibility. I understood your comment
(e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
different things).

I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
other.... OK?

>
> > If this is
>
> It is :-)

Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.

>
> Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
> week:

Probably not, unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
here. Show your audience some respect.