wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > 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:
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.
> > >
> > > Only the intellectually lazy duck out of explaining their assertions
> > > by implying a lack of comprehension ability in their interlocutors.
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> Regardless....

It would be your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > > Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
> > > > > that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.
> > > >
> > > > In your opinion.
> > >
> > > No, in my words. I'm asking you for an explanation of the
> > > evidentiary basis for your assertion. You didn't state one. Perhaps you
> > > don't think one is required. That's a symptom of your larger problem.
> >
> > Sorry you do not like what I have written.
>
> Sorry you misunderstood my statement as being one based on
> aesthetics.

The opinions of man are based on aesthetics more than on the truth.

> > > > > I agree that your
> > > > > sentence is plain.
> > > >
> > > > And yet you do not understand it.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> Regardless...

Again, it remains your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 :-)
> > > >
> > > > Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
> > > > who have it would know this.
> > >
> > > You don't have it, or else you would have comprehended what I have
> > > told you several times now.
> >
> > Your choice to continue this discourse reveals your insincerity even to
> > the undiscerning.
>
> Your choice to stoop to slandering me with baseless charges of
> insincerity reveals you as a spiteful person. That hurt. I suppose you
> can have the other cheek.

Would be glad to look at your other cheek.

> > > > > Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
> > > > > restate your comment for comprehensibility.
> > > >
> > > > And so I have not.
> > >
> > > Excellent.
> >
> > The truth is excellent :-)
>
> Chocolate ice cream's pretty good too.

There is no comparison with the truth.

> > > This puts lie to your earlier comment that the problem is
> > > one of comprehension.
> >
> > Would suggest you reread the discourse if you desire to seek the truth.
>
> Would suggest you reread my words to you if you desire to profit
> from this experience in any way at all. At the outset, that's what I'd
> hoped about this little chat from the start.

Your hope is misplaced.

> > > Again, it's not. The problem is you make
> > > assertions, and you don't explain the basis for your assertions. That's
> > > not fair play.
> >
> > This is not a game for me.
>
> If you're free to metaphorize, I'm free to metaphorize.

It remains my choice to write truthfully.

> > > > > I understood your comment
> > > > > (e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
> > > > > different things).
> > > >
> > > > And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.
> > >
> > > Yes. Of the *evidentiary* *basis* of your assertion. I never asked
> > > for you to aid me in comprehending the assertion itself, and yet you
> > > continue to confuse the two. I'll continue to repeat myself if you
> > > like.
> >
> > Your choice.
>
> Asked you first.

Asked and answered.

> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > What you asked was:
> > > >
> > > > "Please clarify."
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > and not
> > > >
> > > > "Please show how they are different."
> > >
> > > You deliberately left out the full response.
> >
> > The period at the end of a sentence indicates that the writing of a
> > thought has been completed.
>
> The two sentences were clearly collapsed in the paragraph, and the
> second sentence clearly referred to the preceding one.

The second sentence was meaningless. Without the truth, there is no
meaning.

> > > Another disrespectful
> > > and disingenuous debating tactic. The full response was, "Please
> > > clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught disagrees with
> > > you."
> >
> > The first sentence is a request.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The second sentence is untrue even to
> > the undiscerning.
>
> If you mean we disagree on that point, yes. If you mean that my
> assertion is wrong on it's face, you're wrong on yours.

People and not things disagree.

> > > Did you miss that second sentence?
> >
> > No. It remains untrue.
>
> I disagree.

The truth is independent of your opinions.

> > > In it, the particular use of the
> > > word "clarify" is put in the obvious context of factual disagreement
> > > with your assertion.
> >
> > Untrue statements are meaningless.
>
> Actually, untrue statements merely mean someone has got their facts
> wrong, or the basis for their statement is deficient or innacurate
> somehow. "Meaningless" doesn't capture it.

In your opinion.

> > > Instead, you (deliberately?) misconstrue my
> > > comment in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Bravo.
> >
> > It remains my choice to stick with the truth and to ignore that which
> > is untrue.
>
> That's a poor way of excusing your way around snipping my statement
> to score a cheap rhetorical point.

Ignoring is not snipping.

> Kind of funny, I'm not a big fan of
> Pastorio, but he (and others) have accused you of that in the past and
> I've never actually had someone do that to me that I can recall in all
> my years on Usenet.

It is your choice to be bothered by my ignoring the untrue statements
that you make.

> > > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > Your choice.
> > >
> > > Yup. You can stop asking me now.
> >
> > It remains an offer and not a request.
>
> Whichever.

It remains your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > > unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
> > > > > basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
> > > > basis for what they see.
> > >
> > > <sigh> Is any of this sinking in with you at all? I still hold out
> > > hope it is. Look, Andrew, what's the point of you asking people to
> > > "chat" with you when you follow none of the common-courtesy rules of
> > > discourse that people follow when people have disagreements? You made a
> > > simple assertion about language, for crying out loud, one of the most
> > > subjective, and argue-able areas there is. And yet you can't help
> > > yourself, you're compelled to reduce it again to some sort of
> > > black-and-white biblical parable where you're the fount/vessel/channel
> > > of perfect truth, and everyone else is referred to in terms of
> > > contempt.
> > >
> > > You really are not of this world at all, you have that part correct.
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
> Me too. Like most folks.

That is not what I discern.

> > Sorry my choice
> > bothers you.
>
> Well, I suppose then I can extend the same apology to you. I'm sorry
> for trying to engage you in some honest debate.

Without truth there can be no honesty.

With truth there is no debate.

It remains my choice to stick with the latter.

> > Please forgive me for all my iniquities.
>
> No need. Better to fix your iniquities instead of just apologizing
> about them.

Only the LORD, Whom I love and serve with all my heart, soul, mind, and
strength has that power :-)

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

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for
how the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129