[Wiccan Spells] Moon Phase II (Return)

I am a wolf running in the night, my legs carry me faster than the wind.
Spirits mortal bodies die to teach me and lead the way, forcing me to
believe.
Open my eyes. I am awake. I understand.
Look around you; your head is like cotton, you don’t understand. You
whimper at the impossible.
I know the call of the wild.
Can you hear it?
It talks to me.
It can’t talk through your cotton head, and your cotton mind, always
thinking, seething, dreaming of infinitum.
It can’t dream with you, your mind is too eaten up, too devoured.
This is not the way of the dream, oh warrior one, dreaming up dreams
to see by.
Only you can reflect the past, in ways which are unseen, are you open?
Dreaming Seeing?
I can hear by your heartbeat and your warmth, you are ready to eat, to
feel, to devour.
I alone can call you to your rightful call, open your mind and hear you.
I call you, I eat you, I warm you. I complete you. I dine.
On your waste and eat you. I alone can breathe you and steal you. I am
the divine, opening you up to your calling. I awaken that which is
beneath you, in you and outside of you.
I look down and I pretend that I can’t hear you, because you call with
the broken wind of the raging race. I adore you, and yet I devour you.
You, my baby of the world. I provoke you and listen all at once, to
the same tune that your own ears listen to. But I am the World, I am
animal, I hear all that is to hear and I am much more to you then you
will ever know. I am past that which you have shared and past that
which you have adored, and will ever hope to reach when you are
playing on your throne. I adore you and I invoke you, seek out that
which destroys you. I awaken in your, all that ever could be and I ram
it down you like the breaking waters of the world, in full motion. I
beseech you; I ask of you, do now what I ask of you. For I am all that
will ever be, and I am all that I am to you. I am Me. Free and easy.
Can you come to me?
Open to me?
See me in thy night’s eyes?
Speak to me as you should and not how you would have if I was your
princess.
Not as a lamb, but as a ram. For I am all…all that will ever be, and
all that I can be. I am Canadian! Hehe.

Rhyanon

2004-05-08 12:24:05 UTC

"HY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
I am a
[El SLAPPO]

--
"Oh honey, Canadians don't matter!"
~Kitty Forman~

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-08 15:27:39 UTC

HY <***@shaw.ca> wrote in news:***@shaw.ca:

[snip]

It cant talk through your cotton head, and your cotton mind, always
thinking, seething, dreaming of infinitum.

[snip]

Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way to
go. Admitting it is the first step to getting help...

Not as a lamb, but as a ram. For I am allall that will ever be, and
all that I can be. I am Canadian! Hehe.

You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

2004-05-09 07:01:55 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
[snip]
Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way to
go.

I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
words strung together, not a statement of belief.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-09 16:39:49 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way
to go.

I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
words strung together, not a statement of belief.

Random sentences, perhaps. Random words would look like gibberish.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

2004-05-09 19:10:54 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way
to go.

I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
words strung together, not a statement of belief.

Random sentences, perhaps. Random words would look like gibberish.

They are all random.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.

I don't do drugs either.

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-09 21:40:45 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way
to go.

I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
words strung together, not a statement of belief.

Random sentences, perhaps. Random words would look like gibberish.

They are all random.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.

I don't do drugs either.

That makes it worse.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-10 00:15:21 UTC

"Shadow Dancer [Magik]" <***@peacefulhaven.net> wrote in message news:***@uni-berlin.de...
|
| "HY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
| > [ Doc Jeff ] wrote:
| > > HY <***@shaw.ca> wrote in news:***@shaw.ca:
| > >
| > >
| > >>>Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way
| > >>>to go.
| > >>
| > >>I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
| > >>words strung together, not a statement of belief.
| > >
| > >
| > > Random sentences, perhaps. Random words would look like gibberish.
| >
| > They are all random.
| >
| >
| > >>>You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?
| > >>
| > >>I don't drink alcohol.
| > >
| > >
| > > Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.
| >
| > I don't do drugs either.
| >
|
| That makes it worse.

She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

Jack Sparrow

2004-05-10 15:59:33 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

That reminds me, chupa de puerco, I hope your love sow uses protection!
Jack

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-10 20:33:34 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

2004-05-10 20:42:45 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

Jani

2004-05-10 21:23:19 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.

The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be generated
by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

Jani

2004-05-10 21:53:44 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.
The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be generated
by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

Suppose you are right, there needs to be other factors involved in
order to get cancer. If an individual person had those factors, but
wouldn't normally get cancer without the corporate person dumping
toxins into the environment, then that corporate person is responsible
for individual(s) getting cancer.

This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
claim is needed).

Doctors who cause cancer in animals in order to stimulate cancer in
humans are just like the corporate employee who cause cancer in humans
and others in the environment by dumping toxins into the environment.

There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to the
reactions other have to our actions.

Jani

2004-05-10 22:18:53 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.
The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be generated
by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make responsibility
a one-way street.

Post by HY
This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
claim is needed).

Nope, I said a genetic predisposition. That doesn't mean one specific
genetic code.

Post by HY
Doctors who cause cancer in animals in order to stimulate cancer in
humans are just like the corporate employee who cause cancer in humans
and others in the environment by dumping toxins into the environment.

Doctors don't "cause cancer in animals". Maybe you're referring to research
scientists? And I think you meant "simulate", not "stimulate".

Post by HY
There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to the
reactions other have to our actions.

Of course there's no "out", if you mean that there's no point at which one
can shelve responsibility. This is very basic and obvious stuff, Hy, what
are you trying to get at?

Jani

2004-05-10 22:30:08 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a

hereditary

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.
The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be

generated

Post by Jani
by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make responsibility
a one-way street.

Jani, are you saying it is their fault for living?
Polluting one place doesn't effect only one place, Jani, it effects so
much more. Polluting doesn't have to happen. Neither does living have
to happen, but that is really rather a silly point to argue. Yes, it
is our fault for living, but do we need to make it our fault for other
peoples deaths?

Post by HY
This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
claim is needed).

Nope, I said a genetic predisposition. That doesn't mean one specific
genetic code.

fine..."with or without the genetic predisposition...."

Doctors don't "cause cancer in animals". Maybe you're referring to research
scientists?

What? I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that
research scientists are not doctors? Many have their doctorate degree
or they are trying to obtain one through this research.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
And I think you meant "simulate", not "stimulate".

Yes. I had a different sentence saying stimulate cancer in animals, to
simulate cancer in humans. When I shortened the sentence, I didn't
realize that I changed the word in my mind when I typed it out. Not a
big deal as you knew what I meant.

Post by HY
There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to the
reactions other have to our actions.

Of course there's no "out", if you mean that there's no point at which one
can shelve responsibility. This is very basic and obvious stuff, Hy, what
are you trying to get at?

I was refuting Doc Jeff's point, that people can't give others humans
cancer. You refuted my point. I tried to show that my statement was true.

zayton

2004-05-11 14:16:21 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she denies
that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated that
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of cancer
in another person. I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group looking
for any opportunity to attack her statements. To what degree this might be
an expression of your own past experience with her and to what degree it
might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HAY" club I
don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HAY rather
than to what she said.

Joe

Jani

2004-05-11 16:19:04 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved. My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice to
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of government
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in this
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors giving
cancer to animals. I queried this, she clarified that what I'd call a
research scientist in the UK is called a doctor in Canada - over here,
"doctor" always means physician, unless otherwise stated. With that
clarification, her remarks made sense. She then made another convoluted
comment about responsibility, which to me was stating a principle so basic
that it didn't need saying - namely, that one is responsible for one's own
actions.

I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group looking
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer. Doctors (in
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals. Saying you
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that for
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same criticisms
to someone else, but not to Hy? Would you like to make a list of those
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that my
posts meet with your approval?

To what degree this might be

Post by HY
an expression of your own past experience with her and to what degree it
might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HAY" club I
don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HAY rather
than to what she said.

It's a reaction to what she said. Anyone else saying it would have got the
same response, because it doesn't *matter* who posted it, if it's not clear
or not right, then it's not clear or not right. As for "dumping on Hy", I
couldn't care less what other people are saying to her, or about her. I saw
what I considered to be inaccurate statements and I questioned them. If you
find that objectionable for some reason, then by all means ignore my posts.

Jani

2004-05-11 20:48:43 UTC

Post by Jani
No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved.

It's like drunk driving. You may not hurt someone while driving drunk,
but you still drove while being drunk. Just because someone didn't
have the presisposition to walk in front of a car which may be driving
on the sidewalk, doesn't mean that the person driving isn't driving
drunk. It does mean that they are acting irresponsible.

Post by Jani
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice to
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of government
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in this
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

It is not too simplistic a view. Responsible businesses wouldn't dump
toxins, regardless of governmental laws acceptance of dumping toxins.
Many wildflife (including that which is in the soil and water near
what is dumped), don't have a choice to be where they live and can't move.

The only one with the choice, is the company. Water moves, and
transports these chemicals elsewhere, which means that usually, it
isn't the persons choice as to where to live at all that matters.

Post by Jani
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors giving
cancer to animals. I queried this, she clarified that what I'd call a
research scientist in the UK is called a doctor in Canada - over here,
"doctor" always means physician, unless otherwise stated.

Do you not call your professors in university, who have obtained their
doctorate degree, "Dr?". Are you sure that there no medical doctors
who would run clinical tests like this in the UK?

Post by Jani
I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

I never said that it was due only to pollution. However, if you break
down that statement you just said, it could very well be true that it
is caused by pollution, if even only through pollution of the body
with an inneffective ability to cope with cancerous agents.

Post by Jani
Doctors (in
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals. Saying you
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that for
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same criticisms
to someone else, but not to Hy? Would you like to make a list of those
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that my
posts meet with your approval?

Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.

Jani

2004-05-12 00:14:24 UTC

Post by Jani
No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved.

No, that was not what I was talking about. A company which pollutes the
environment is responsible for polluting the environment. They might *also*
be *partly* responsible for someone's illness, but there are other factors
involved, always.

It is not too simplistic a view. Responsible businesses wouldn't dump
toxins, regardless of governmental laws acceptance of dumping toxins.
Many wildflife (including that which is in the soil and water near
what is dumped), don't have a choice to be where they live and can't move.
The only one with the choice, is the company. Water moves, and
transports these chemicals elsewhere, which means that usually, it
isn't the persons choice as to where to live at all that matters.

Hang on. You were not talking about "wildlife", you were talking about
companies - run by humans - making a choice to dump toxins, and thereby
deliberately giving other human beings cancer.

Do you not call your professors in university, who have obtained their
doctorate degree, "Dr?". Are you sure that there no medical doctors
who would run clinical tests like this in the UK?

In the UK, "doctor" means a physician, working in the mainstream healthcare
system. And, as I said above, that is the accepted meaning, unless otherwise
stated. You said that doctors induce cancer in animals, I asked if you meant
researchers, and that does appear to be what you meant. And no, doctors
don't run clinical tests in the sense that you're using the term, because
that kind of research into cancer is not the province of doctors within the
healthcare system. Even oncologists don't run private labs.

Post by Jani
I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

I wasn't breaking down semantics, though, I was questioning your statement
that companies polluting the environment were solely responsible for cancer.

Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.

Well, I think I've explained that adequately to him. I didn't jump on you, I
saw a lot of vague general assertions which you were making, and I
questioned them. I've no doubt that any further exchange will simply be more
hermeneutics, so I'll leave you to it.

Jani

zayton

2004-05-12 01:19:20 UTC

Post by HY
Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.

I agreed in an earlier post that it would probably be wiser for me just to
ignore your posts to Hy; however, never having been noted for showing any
wisdom, I will go on record that your explanation not withstanding, It is
still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and would
not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if they
had been posted by others.

Joe

2004-05-12 05:31:27 UTC

Post by HY
Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.

Well, I think I've explained that adequately to him. I didn't jump on you,

Post by Jani
saw a lot of vague general assertions which you were making, and I
questioned them. I've no doubt that any further exchange will simply be

Post by Jani
hermeneutics, so I'll leave you to it.
Jani

Well Joe, I clearly lacked that same wisdom yesterday, or I wouldn't
have had such a lengthy thread by today. I certainly had the little
voice in my head whispering "shut up, shut up" to me. But did I
listen? Noooo. So here I am today, with my big foot in my mouth. I
rather acted on compulsion, I knew I shouldn't act when feeling
compelled, however I also felt that a lot of stress would be
alleviated, and some wrongs righted to other people through
communication. Which of course is another one of my great faults that
leads to getting my ass kicked on arw every single time. Two strikes
for me.

I am lucky that I am able post and breathe at the same time, with that
sort of stupidity.

err, maybe I should say that you didn't have the same lack of wisdom,
as you clearly show higher wisdom for only having 2 posts! hehe

Jani

2004-05-12 09:37:31 UTC

Post by HY
Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.

Well, I think I've explained that adequately to him. I didn't jump on

you,

Post by zayton
I

Post by Jani
saw a lot of vague general assertions which you were making, and I
questioned them. I've no doubt that any further exchange will simply be

Post by Jani
hermeneutics, so I'll leave you to it.
Jani

I agreed in an earlier post that it would probably be wiser for me just to
ignore your posts to Hy; however, never having been noted for showing any
wisdom,

Oh, I thought you were going to ignore *all* my posts. Thanks for clarifying
;)

I will go on record that your explanation not withstanding, It is

Post by zayton
still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and would
not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if they
had been posted by others.

Like I said, have a look at some of my discussions with Parse. I'm a
nitpicker, and I admit it, but sweeping generalisations irritate me
immensely. It's *so* much easier to say what you mean in the first place
than throw out something vague and inaccurate and spend the next twenty
posts explaining what you actually *did* mean. If I had time to read
everything everyone posts, there'd probably be a lot more people on the
receiving end of the nitpicks.

Jani

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:46:02 UTC

Post by zayton
still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and would
not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if they
had been posted by others.

Yeah! See? Selective reading. People should be flattered with my
responses! See, if I bothered reading Trevor Naismith's posts, I
wouldn't have any time to nitpick other people. Or do anything else for
that matter.

Jani

2004-05-13 16:44:17 UTC

Post by zayton
still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and would
not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if they
had been posted by others.

You do read Trev's posts. It just irks you that you can't get away with
using spin and hermeneutics on him, like you do with everyone else :)

Jani

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 00:05:56 UTC

Post by zayton
still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and

would

Post by zayton
not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if

they

Post by zayton
had been posted by others.

You do read Trev's posts.

No, I really don't. When it comes to style, I place him at the very
bottom of ARW. As for content, it would be at the bottom if it weren't
for people like Shez, who enjoy randomly spewing ignorance.

Post by Jani
It just irks you that you can't get away with
using spin and hermeneutics on him, like you do with everyone else :)

Oh, I'd have no problem with that. He's not very intelligent, you know.
I think Janet is far more challenging.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:10 UTC

"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:7Weoc.540$***@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
|
| "Jani" <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
| news:40a16bd4$0$20508$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
| >
| > "HY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
| > >
| > > Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
| > > not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.
| >
| > Well, I think I've explained that adequately to him. I didn't jump on
you,
| I
| > saw a lot of vague general assertions which you were making, and I
| > questioned them. I've no doubt that any further exchange will simply be
| more
| > hermeneutics, so I'll leave you to it.
| >
| > Jani
| >
| >
|
| I agreed in an earlier post that it would probably be wiser for me just to
| ignore your posts to Hy; however, never having been noted for showing any
| wisdom, I will go on record that your explanation not withstanding, It is
| still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and would
| not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if they
| had been posted by others.

Wow, Jane, this is like the tenth person to see through your flimsy
fear-biting act. Isn't about time for "something important" to come up so
you can have an excuse to leave UseNet until everyone forgets?

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

zayton

2004-05-13 03:22:43 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
|
| >
| > >
| > > Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others but
| > > not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial reasons.
| >
| > Well, I think I've explained that adequately to him. I didn't jump on
you,
| I
| > saw a lot of vague general assertions which you were making, and I
| > questioned them. I've no doubt that any further exchange will simply be
| more
| > hermeneutics, so I'll leave you to it.
| >
| > Jani
| >
| >
|
| I agreed in an earlier post that it would probably be wiser for me just to
| ignore your posts to Hy; however, never having been noted for showing any
| wisdom, I will go on record that your explanation not withstanding, It is
| still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and would
| not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if they
| had been posted by others.
Wow, Jane, this is like the tenth person to see through your flimsy
fear-biting act. Isn't about time for "something important" to come up so
you can have an excuse to leave UseNet until everyone forgets?

Hmmm, Somehow UKRP had gotten added to the newsgroups this post was
addressed to. Do you suppose that's Tales way of indicating that he feel
that even I have more credibility on pagan groups than he does?

Joe

Jani

2004-05-13 16:45:21 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
|
| >
| > >
| > > Joe didn't say that it was unacceptable to post critisms at others

but

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > > not me. He noted that you jumped on me for seemingly trivial

reasons.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| >
| > Well, I think I've explained that adequately to him. I didn't jump on
you,
| I
| > saw a lot of vague general assertions which you were making, and I
| > questioned them. I've no doubt that any further exchange will simply

just

Post by HY
to

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| ignore your posts to Hy; however, never having been noted for showing

any

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| wisdom, I will go on record that your explanation not withstanding, It

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| still my perception that you jumped on Hy because of who she is and

would

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| not have found the same statements either unclear or objectionable if

they

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| had been posted by others.
Wow, Jane, this is like the tenth person to see through your flimsy
fear-biting act. Isn't about time for "something important" to come up so
you can have an excuse to leave UseNet until everyone forgets?

I don't think anyone on URP has a problem with you, Joe. Well, they don't
have a problem with Tales either, since 99% of them have killfiled him :)

Jani

zayton

2004-05-12 01:07:58 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved.

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say they
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.

My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice to
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of government
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in this
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors giving
cancer to animals. I queried this, she clarified that what I'd call a
research scientist in the UK is called a doctor in Canada - over here,
"doctor" always means physician, unless otherwise stated. With that
clarification, her remarks made sense. She then made another convoluted
comment about responsibility, which to me was stating a principle so basic
that it didn't need saying - namely, that one is responsible for one's own
actions.
I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group looking
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.

Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

And, I suspect Hy was thinking of research scientists and used an imprecise
label, then tried to justify it by observing that the research scientists
probably had PHD's. Did you honestly have trouble understanding her, or were
you looking for things to attack in what she said?

Saying you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that for
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same criticisms
to someone else, but not to Hy?

No Jani, I am saying that if someone else, indeed, most other posters, had
made exactly the same statements I do not believe you would have found any
reason to criticize them for making them.

Would you like to make a list of those

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that my
posts meet with your approval?

Actually, Jani, my post is a sort of a backhanded complement. You and kate
are about the only ones currently posting to this thread who I would think
might be objective enough for me to bother trying to communicate with in
this manner.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
To what degree this might be

Post by HY
an expression of your own past experience with her and to what degree it
might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HY" club I
don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HY

rather

Post by HY
than to what she said.

I think that might be for the best.

2004-05-12 06:52:52 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved.

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say they
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
cancer to animals. I queried this, she clarified that what I'd call a
research scientist in the UK is called a doctor in Canada - over here,
"doctor" always means physician, unless otherwise stated. With that
clarification, her remarks made sense. She then made another convoluted
comment about responsibility, which to me was stating a principle so basic
that it didn't need saying - namely, that one is responsible for one's own
actions.
I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by HY
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, all the way through you were
right.
Can I hire you as my translator? :)

Jani

2004-05-12 09:29:21 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved.

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say they
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.

The way it was phrased indicated that it was the only factor. That's what I
questioned.

Post by zayton
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

If I said "cigarette manufacturers give people cancer", I would expect
someone to point out that many people smoke cigarettes throughout a very
long life, and don't get cancer (my great-aunt being a case in point :) It's
a sweeping generalisation, and not accurate.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by HY
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.

As I said above, the phrasing implied it.

Post by zayton
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

I honestly did not understand the comment. It may well be a case of "divided
by a common language", but in the UK, "doctor" means a medical doctor,
either in general practice or hospital. So much so, that if someone is
introduced as "doctor" at a social gathering, they will probably have to put
up with half a dozen people describing their symptoms before they can get
across the concept that they're actually a doctor of something else, and
haven't read a medical textbook in their life.

Post by zayton
Saying you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that

for

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same

criticisms

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
to someone else, but not to Hy?

No Jani, I am saying that if someone else, indeed, most other posters, had
made exactly the same statements I do not believe you would have found any
reason to criticize them for making them.

Perhaps you should read some of my exchanges with Parse.

Post by zayton
Would you like to make a list of those

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
posts meet with your approval?

And I have always respected your striving for objectivity, which is why I
took the trouble to respond.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
To what degree this might be

rather

Post by HY
than to what she said.

It's a reaction to what she said. Anyone else saying it would have got the
same response, because it doesn't *matter* who posted it, if it's not

clear

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
or not right, then it's not clear or not right. As for "dumping on Hy", I
couldn't care less what other people are saying to her, or about her. I

saw

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
what I considered to be inaccurate statements and I questioned them. If

you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
find that objectionable for some reason, then by all means ignore my

posts.
I think that might be for the best.

OK.

Jani

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:44:40 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she

denies

Post by HY
that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say

they

Post by zayton
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.

The way it was phrased indicated that it was the only factor. That's what I
questioned.

Post by zayton
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

You don't understand what causation is. Please take a class on
statistics before making factually incorrect statements like the above.

Post by zayton
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

And, I suspect Hy was thinking of research scientists and used an

imprecise

Post by zayton
label, then tried to justify it by observing that the research scientists
probably had PHD's. Did you honestly have trouble understanding her, or

were

Post by zayton
you looking for things to attack in what she said?

I honestly did not understand the comment. It may well be a case of "divided
by a common language", but in the UK, "doctor" means a medical doctor,

No it doesn't. Why are you lying?

Post by zayton
Saying you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that

for

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same

criticisms

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
to someone else, but not to Hy?

No Jani, I am saying that if someone else, indeed, most other posters, had
made exactly the same statements I do not believe you would have found any
reason to criticize them for making them.

Perhaps you should read some of my exchanges with Parse.

Now that's not fair! I'm very selective of who I read in the first place.

kate

2004-05-12 10:08:35 UTC

You can Believe me Joe, when I say that if Jani found fault with anything
that *I* posted, she'd question me on it too! *heh* In fact, I do think she
may have a time or two. There's no 'jump on hy club', only a 'high' club
here. ;p

kate~

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other factors
involved.

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say they
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by HY
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that

for

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same

criticisms

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
to someone else, but not to Hy?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
posts meet with your approval?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
To what degree this might be

rather

Post by HY
than to what she said.

It's a reaction to what she said. Anyone else saying it would have got the
same response, because it doesn't *matter* who posted it, if it's not

clear

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
or not right, then it's not clear or not right. As for "dumping on Hy", I
couldn't care less what other people are saying to her, or about her. I

saw

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
what I considered to be inaccurate statements and I questioned them. If

you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
find that objectionable for some reason, then by all means ignore my

posts.
I think that might be for the best.

Jani

2004-05-12 10:46:59 UTC

Better not be a mile-high-club, I don't like flying :)

Jani

Post by kate
You can Believe me Joe, when I say that if Jani found fault with anything
that *I* posted, she'd question me on it too! *heh* In fact, I do think she
may have a time or two. There's no 'jump on hy club', only a 'high' club
here. ;p
kate~

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she

denies

Post by HY
that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say

they

Post by zayton
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

basic

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
that it didn't need saying - namely, that one is responsible for one's

own

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
actions.
I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by HY
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

And, I suspect Hy was thinking of research scientists and used an

imprecise

Post by zayton
label, then tried to justify it by observing that the research scientists
probably had PHD's. Did you honestly have trouble understanding her, or

were

Post by zayton
you looking for things to attack in what she said?
Saying you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that

for

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same

criticisms

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
to someone else, but not to Hy?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
posts meet with your approval?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
To what degree this might be

Post by HY
an expression of your own past experience with her and to what

degree

Post by kate
it

Post by HY
might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HY" club I
don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HY

rather

Post by HY
than to what she said.

It's a reaction to what she said. Anyone else saying it would have got

the

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
same response, because it doesn't *matter* who posted it, if it's not

clear

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
or not right, then it's not clear or not right. As for "dumping on

Hy",

Post by kate
I

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
couldn't care less what other people are saying to her, or about her. I

saw

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
what I considered to be inaccurate statements and I questioned them. If

you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
find that objectionable for some reason, then by all means ignore my

posts.
I think that might be for the best.

kate

2004-05-12 12:14:02 UTC

*g Only three miles high!

katie~

Post by Jani
Better not be a mile-high-club, I don't like flying :)
Jani

Post by kate
You can Believe me Joe, when I say that if Jani found fault with anything
that *I* posted, she'd question me on it too! *heh* In fact, I do think

she

Post by kate
may have a time or two. There's no 'jump on hy club', only a 'high' club
here. ;p
kate~

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she

denies

Post by HY
that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can

Post by HY
contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only

stated

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say

they

Post by zayton
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility",

Post by zayton
this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this

factor

Post by zayton
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

convoluted

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
comment about responsibility, which to me was stating a principle so

basic

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
that it didn't need saying - namely, that one is responsible for one's

own

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
actions.
I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by HY
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or,

Post by Jani
my

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

And, I suspect Hy was thinking of research scientists and used an

imprecise

Post by zayton
label, then tried to justify it by observing that the research

scientists

Post by zayton
probably had PHD's. Did you honestly have trouble understanding her, or

were

Post by zayton
you looking for things to attack in what she said?
Saying you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying

that

Post by zayton
for

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same

criticisms

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
to someone else, but not to Hy?

No Jani, I am saying that if someone else, indeed, most other posters,

had

Post by zayton
made exactly the same statements I do not believe you would have found

any

Post by zayton
reason to criticize them for making them.
Would you like to make a list of those

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure

that

Post by zayton
my

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
posts meet with your approval?

Actually, Jani, my post is a sort of a backhanded complement. You and

kate

Post by zayton
are about the only ones currently posting to this thread who I would

think

Post by zayton
might be objective enough for me to bother trying to communicate with in
this manner.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
To what degree this might be

Post by HY
an expression of your own past experience with her and to what

degree

Post by kate
it

Post by HY
might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HY"

club

Post by Jani
I

Post by HY
don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HY

rather

Post by HY
than to what she said.

It's a reaction to what she said. Anyone else saying it would have got

the

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
same response, because it doesn't *matter* who posted it, if it's not

clear

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
or not right, then it's not clear or not right. As for "dumping on

Hy",

Post by kate
I

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
couldn't care less what other people are saying to her, or about

her.

Post by Jani
I

Post by zayton
saw

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
what I considered to be inaccurate statements and I questioned them.

Post by zayton
you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
find that objectionable for some reason, then by all means ignore my

posts.
I think that might be for the best.

zayton

2004-05-12 14:11:43 UTC

Post by Jani
Better not be a mile-high-club, I don't like flying :)
Jani

Well then, you probably need some sort of activity to take your mind off the
flying!

Joe

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:10 UTC

"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Xdqoc.1050$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
|
| "Jani" <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
| news:40a20017$0$20518$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
| > Better not be a mile-high-club, I don't like flying :)
| >
| > Jani
|
| Well then, you probably need some sort of activity to take your mind off
the
| flying!

They don't allow dogs in the cabin

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

zayton

2004-05-13 03:17:05 UTC

And just how, pray tell, did you learn that?

Joe

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-13 01:34:26 UTC

That's what I can't figure out, folks. Why does Hy take criticism of her
phrasing or statements as personal criticism? So far, what I've seen here
is a challenge of *ideas* rather than a *personal* challenge.

Joe, you really had no grounds to ass|u|me any of us were attacking Hy,
personally. Hy is a big girl and she can stand up for herself as well as
her ideas, so why not allow her to?

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she

denies

Post by HY
that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Do you deny that there is any responsibility involved? She did not say

they

Post by zayton
were solely responsible, only that they were responsible.
My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

There was nothing in her post contrary to this. She focused on this factor
withour acknowledging other factors; but she did not deny those factors.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

basic

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
that it didn't need saying - namely, that one is responsible for one's

own

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
actions.
I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to

Post by HY
me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by HY
for any opportunity to attack her statements.

I'm "attacking" them in the sense that they're either unclear, or, in my
opinion, inaccurate. Pollution isn't the sole cause of cancer.

Nor did she say that it was.
Doctors (in

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
the British usage of the word) don't induce cancer in animals.

And, I suspect Hy was thinking of research scientists and used an

imprecise

Post by zayton
label, then tried to justify it by observing that the research scientists
probably had PHD's. Did you honestly have trouble understanding her, or

were

Post by zayton
you looking for things to attack in what she said?
Saying you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
have responsibility for self is stating the obvious. Are you saying that

for

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
some reason it would be quite acceptable for me to post the same

criticisms

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
to someone else, but not to Hy?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
people whose remarks you feel I shouldn't criticise, just to ensure that

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
posts meet with your approval?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
To what degree this might be

Post by HY
an expression of your own past experience with her and to what

degree

Post by kate
it

Post by HY
might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HY" club I
don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HY

rather

Post by HY
than to what she said.

It's a reaction to what she said. Anyone else saying it would have got

the

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
same response, because it doesn't *matter* who posted it, if it's not

clear

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
or not right, then it's not clear or not right. As for "dumping on

Hy",

Post by kate
I

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
couldn't care less what other people are saying to her, or about her. I

saw

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
what I considered to be inaccurate statements and I questioned them. If

you

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
find that objectionable for some reason, then by all means ignore my

posts.
I think that might be for the best.

zayton

2004-05-13 02:37:38 UTC

Post by Shadow Dancer [Magik]
That's what I can't figure out, folks. Why does Hy take criticism of her
phrasing or statements as personal criticism? So far, what I've seen here
is a challenge of *ideas* rather than a *personal* challenge.
Joe, you really had no grounds to ass|u|me any of us were attacking Hy,
personally. Hy is a big girl and she can stand up for herself as well as
her ideas, so why not allow her to?

I have not noticed her needing my permission to do so.

Joe

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-13 06:46:07 UTC

I have not noticed her needing my permission to do so.
Joe

Then why feed her victim mentality?

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-14 01:54:49 UTC

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-14 01:54:49 UTC

"Shadow Dancer [Magik]" <***@peacefulhaven.net> wrote in message news:***@uni-berlin.de...
| That's what I can't figure out, folks. Why does Hy take criticism of her
| phrasing or statements as personal criticism? So far, what I've seen here
| is a challenge of *ideas* rather than a *personal* challenge.

I have never seen you say anything nice to her. You deride her, judge her,
and demand she comply with your twisted sense of morality, yet you never ask
how she is or talk about the weather.
Something else to think about as you are going down, hypocrite

|
| Joe, you really had no grounds to ass|u|me any of us were attacking Hy,
| personally. Hy is a big girl and she can stand up for herself as well as
| her ideas, so why not allow her to?
|

Why don't you shut the fuck up, bully?

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:10 UTC

"kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@uni-berlin.de...
| You can Believe me Joe, when I say that if Jani found fault with anything
| that *I* posted, she'd question me on it too! *heh* In fact, I do think
she
| may have a time or two. There's no 'jump on hy club', only a 'high' club
| here. ;p

Oh PUHlease! You are a Suzy Sucker just like her. You could say you ate live
babies and Jani would agree that it is important to get enough protein and
say she "knew" someone who said it was okay for you to do it.

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 03:17:30 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| You can Believe me Joe, when I say that if Jani found fault with anything
| that *I* posted, she'd question me on it too! *heh* In fact, I do think
she
| may have a time or two. There's no 'jump on hy club', only a 'high' club
| here. ;p
Oh PUHlease! You are a Suzy Sucker just like her. You could say you ate live
babies and Jani would agree that it is important to get enough protein and
say she "knew" someone who said it was okay for you to do it.

GASP! I thought Xan was the only person on ARW that ate babies.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-12 01:58:12 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one, I
believe).

Research scientists tend to have MD's or degrees in biochemistry and so on.

2004-05-12 06:54:44 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one, I
believe).
Research scientists tend to have MD's or degrees in biochemistry and so on.

I never would have thought that people with doctorates were not called
doctors in other parts of the world.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:40:55 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one,
I believe).
Research scientists tend to have MD's or degrees in biochemistry and so on.

I never would have thought that people with doctorates were not called
doctors in other parts of the world.

They are called doctors. It appears that Jani is simply ignorant of the
English language.

Jani

2004-05-12 10:21:48 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

I was reading Hume last week. I don't want to look at causation again for a
while, thanks.

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one, I
believe).

It is here, yes - but in common parlance, anyone referred to as "doctor" is
assumed to be an MD, unless they specify otherwise.

Jani

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:53:17 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
involved. My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that

there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

I was reading Hume last week. I don't want to look at causation again for a
while, thanks.

Oh gosh. And I'm a Humian, too!

Anyway, since the necessary connexion isn't demonstrable, it's based on
statistics.

That's how they determine if something causes something else or not.

For example, if you take a random group of people that smoke and a
random group that don't smoke, and the people that smoke tend to have
cancer more frequently, then that can possibly show causation (depending
on how the study was conducted, the sample size, and the differences in
the cancer rates). There's also confounding, bias, and various types of
error, but those are usually minor in an experiment like that.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one, I
believe).

It is here, yes - but in common parlance, anyone referred to as "doctor" is
assumed to be an MD, unless they specify otherwise.

Thank you for admitting that you were lying.

Jani

2004-05-13 17:01:59 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
involved. My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that

there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

I was reading Hume last week. I don't want to look at causation again for a
while, thanks.

Oh gosh. And I'm a Humian, too!

Really? I thought you were an empiricist.

Post by Uchiha Itachi
Anyway, since the necessary connexion isn't demonstrable, it's based on
statistics.
That's how they determine if something causes something else or not.
For example, if you take a random group of people that smoke and a
random group that don't smoke, and the people that smoke tend to have
cancer more frequently, then that can possibly show causation (depending
on how the study was conducted, the sample size, and the differences in
the cancer rates). There's also confounding, bias, and various types of
error, but those are usually minor in an experiment like that.

Yeah, I do know a bit about research methodology. Not a lot, admittedly, but
enough ... That was partly my beef with Hy's original comment; she wasn't
saying that pollution had been shown as a significant factor in cancer
studies, she was phrasing it as "this individual does A and it has B effect
on C number of people" with nothing else taken into account as contributing.
F'r instance, why are the people there in the first place? Did someone round
them up and force them to live next door to the factory? If not, what
cultural and/or economic reasons did they have for choosing to be there? ..
and so on.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one, I
believe).

It is here, yes - but in common parlance, anyone referred to as "doctor" is
assumed to be an MD, unless they specify otherwise.

Thank you for admitting that you were lying.

No, I wasn't. Anyone here with a doctorate is *entitled* to call themselves
"doctor", same as in North America, but a phrase such as "doctors do XYZ"
will always be taken as meaning medical doctors, unless clarified, since
that's the popular usage of the word. Hy seems to be saying that in Canada,
"doctors do XYZ" will automatically be understood as "people with
doctorates", as opposed to MDs. If MDs are usually referred to as
"physicians" in Canada, for instance, then she's simply using "doctor" in a
different way from Brits.

Jani

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 00:12:04 UTC

Post by Jani
So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make

responsibility

Post by Jani
a one-way street.

I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she

denies

Post by HY
that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated

that

Post by HY
one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of

cancer

Post by HY
in another person.

No, she stated that anyone who dumped toxins in the environment was
"responsible for giving people cancer", as if there were no other

factors

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
involved. My point was that this was too simplistic a view, and that

there

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
were many contributory factors - including the individual's own choice

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
live in a polluted area (which, in turn, might be the result of

government

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
choices regarding housing policies ... and so on). "Responsibility", in

this

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
context, is a lot more complex than simple causation.

You don't understand causation, Jani. I'd recommend statistics 201.

I was reading Hume last week. I don't want to look at causation again

for a

Post by Jani
while, thanks.

Oh gosh. And I'm a Humian, too!

Really? I thought you were an empiricist.

No, I'm a pure rationalist. I simply set it aside for the sake of
debate, in most cases. When someone else is an empiricist (of which the
majority are), then it does no good to argue from a rationalist perspective.

Also, there are problems with the use of words like reason, logic and
proof since in the rational context, they're far different than the
empirical one. I tend to use the empirical one unless otherwise stated,
since that's the framework of default.

Actually it's all taken into account with the original study. They're
simply nullified so that they have no effects on the result. It's like
saying all other things being equal, then such and such. In this case,
all other things being equal, pollution causes cancer.

Post by zayton
F'r instance, why are the people there in the first place?

Unless the effects of the pollution are forever confined to private
property, and do not effect people invited on to that property, then
that's a nonissue.

Post by zayton
Did someone round
them up and force them to live next door to the factory? If not, what
cultural and/or economic reasons did they have for choosing to be there? ..
and so on.

While those are interesting questions, they really don't address the
fact that pollution can cause cancer (depending on the type of
pollution, of course). It's also unlikely that we'll be able to move
away from pollution since the creation of it is a result of population
effects.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Hy then went on to make some rather confusing comments about doctors

giving

In Canada a doctor is someone with a doctorate (of which an MD is one, I
believe).

It is here, yes - but in common parlance, anyone referred to as "doctor"

Post by Jani
assumed to be an MD, unless they specify otherwise.

Thank you for admitting that you were lying.

It could be either. MDs do research too.

Post by zayton
If MDs are usually referred to as
"physicians" in Canada, for instance, then she's simply using "doctor" in a
different way from Brits.

They're usually referred to as doctors. I'm just going to assume that
you're not very familiar with the research process and so on.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:09 UTC

"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Ba5oc.97220$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
|
| "Jani" <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
| news:409fff40$0$20510$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
| >
| >
| > So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make
| responsibility
| > a one-way street.
| >
|
| I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she denies
| that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
| contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated
that
| one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of
cancer
| in another person. I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to
| me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group looking
| for any opportunity to attack her statements. To what degree this might be
| an expression of your own past experience with her and to what degree it
| might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HAY" club I
| don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HAY
rather
| than to what she said.

Looks like someone else is getting fed up with Jane's bullshit
Let's watch her kiss his ass

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

Legalize Freedom

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

© 2004 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved

zayton

2004-05-13 03:15:49 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
|
| >
| >
| > So is the individual, for living there. You're trying to make
| responsibility
| > a one-way street.
| >
|
| I've seen nothing in HY's posts which would suggest that that she denies
| that a genetic predisposition and the individual's own actions can be
| contributing factors in the development of cancer. She has only stated
that
| one person's actions can be a causative factor in the development of
cancer
| in another person. I'm sorry Jani, but your posts to this thread appear to
| me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group looking
| for any opportunity to attack her statements. To what degree this might be
| an expression of your own past experience with her and to what degree it
| might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HAY" club I
| don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HAY
rather
| than to what she said.
Looks like someone else is getting fed up with Jane's bullshit
Let's watch her kiss his ass

I appreciate the suggestion; but I'm not counting on anything.
And, I responded to Jani because it appeared to me that she was being less
objective and more readily judgmental than I was used to her being.

Joe

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 03:28:27 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| for any opportunity to attack her statements. To what degree this might

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| an expression of your own past experience with her and to what degree it
| might be an expression of support for the "lets all dump on HAY" club I
| don't know. Your participation is, however, clearly a reaction to HAY
rather
| than to what she said.
Looks like someone else is getting fed up with Jane's bullshit
Let's watch her kiss his ass

Don't read her posts, eh? Well, to each their own, I suppose.

Jani

2004-05-13 17:03:39 UTC

appear

Post by zayton
to

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| me to verify Hay's perception that there are persons on the group

looking

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| for any opportunity to attack her statements. To what degree this

might

Post by zayton
be

I *am* judgmental - everyone is. I wasn't being judgmental in this instance,
however, I was being picky at sweeping statements.

Jani

zayton

2004-05-14 02:10:15 UTC

, I responded to Jani because it appeared to me that she was being less

Post by zayton
objective and more readily judgmental than I was used to her being.

I *am* judgmental - everyone is. I wasn't being judgmental in this instance,
however, I was being picky at sweeping statements.
Jani

OK. I guess I'm dumb enough to wade in at least one more time.

HY's statement did not strike me as being particularly sweeping in nature.

As I recall, she stated that dumping toxins causes cancer.
She neither said or suggested, so far as I saw, that this was the sole
cause; or that it operated without genetic predisposition.

She was responding to a statement, I don't recall from whom, that one cannot
"cause" cancer.

In response to her statements, Shadow Dancer has, for example, claimed that
there is no evidence that cigarettes can cause cancer, and that the whole
idea that they might is merely a claim of former Surgeon General Koop, which
she suggests can be disregarded as he has been judged to be mentally ill.
This does seem to be a rather sweeping claim; and in fact, a rather absurd
one.

You have "nitpicked" Hy's statement;but, if you have commented on Shadow
dancer's, which appears to me to be eminently more nitpickable, I missed it.

Joe

(who really does know better, but can't keep his mouth shut anyway)

Jani

2004-05-14 06:23:27 UTC

Post by zayton
, I responded to Jani because it appeared to me that she was being less

Post by zayton
objective and more readily judgmental than I was used to her being.

I *am* judgmental - everyone is. I wasn't being judgmental in this

instance,

Post by Jani
however, I was being picky at sweeping statements.
Jani

OK. I guess I'm dumb enough to wade in at least one more time.
HY's statement did not strike me as being particularly sweeping in nature.
As I recall, she stated that dumping toxins causes cancer.
She neither said or suggested, so far as I saw, that this was the sole
cause; or that it operated without genetic predisposition.
She was responding to a statement, I don't recall from whom, that one cannot
"cause" cancer.
In response to her statements, Shadow Dancer has, for example, claimed that
there is no evidence that cigarettes can cause cancer, and that the whole
idea that they might is merely a claim of former Surgeon General Koop, which
she suggests can be disregarded as he has been judged to be mentally ill.
This does seem to be a rather sweeping claim; and in fact, a rather absurd
one.
You have "nitpicked" Hy's statement;but, if you have commented on Shadow
dancer's, which appears to me to be eminently more nitpickable, I missed it.
Joe
(who really does know better, but can't keep his mouth shut anyway)

I haven't commented on SD's statements (or Jeff's, which I think are along
the same lines as regards cigarettes and cancer) because they're already
being nitpicked by others. My personal opinion is that whilst there is
certainly evidence to show that cigarette smoking is a factor in the
development of cancer, like pollution, it can't be the *only* factor,
otherwise there would not be anomalies. I've got no idea whether SD is right
about the surgeon general's mental health, but in any event, unless he was
directly responsible for every single research study into smoking, he could
be a raving nutbar and it still wouldn't be relevant.

Jani

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-11 05:39:40 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.
The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be generated
by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

Suppose you are right, there needs to be other factors involved in
order to get cancer. If an individual person had those factors, but
wouldn't normally get cancer without the corporate person dumping
toxins into the environment, then that corporate person is responsible
for individual(s) getting cancer.
This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
claim is needed).
Doctors who cause cancer in animals in order to stimulate cancer in
humans are just like the corporate employee who cause cancer in humans
and others in the environment by dumping toxins into the environment.
There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to the
reactions other have to our actions.

Take your own advice.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-11 17:59:53 UTC

Post by Jani
No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.
The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be
generated by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

You have a very nice way of attempting to fit facts around your hypothesis
but your hypothesis is still incorrect, ma'am.

Post by HY
This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
claim is needed).

The claim is valid, ma'am. For a majority of people, there has to be a
genetic predisposition to cancer. I had colorectal cancer. My father had
skin cancer. My paternal aunt had breast cancer. My maternal great aunt had
brain cancer. My paternal grandmother had stomach cancer. See the pattern?
It is most assuredly genetically linked.

Liberal fear mongering like that does nothing to prove your prior claim,
ma'am.

Post by HY
There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to the
reactions other have to our actions.

Are you saying that you're one of the dumpers, ma'am? The second sentence
there would seem to imply as much - at least as it is written.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:29:47 UTC

You have a very nice way of attempting to fit facts around your hypothesis
but your hypothesis is still incorrect, ma'am.

You are wrong. Hypothesis testing has been conducted numerous times on a
variety of carcinogenic substances.

Post by HY
This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
claim is needed).

How laughable. It's funny when people try to refute valid statistical
evidence that demonstrates certain things to be carcinogenic by citing
silly anecdotal evidence.

Liberal fear mongering like that does nothing to prove your prior claim,
ma'am.

You are factually incorrect. Why are you spreading your ignorance? Keep
it to yourself.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:11 UTC

"[ Doc Jeff ]" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:***@127.0.0.1...
| HY <***@shaw.ca> wrote in news:***@shaw.ca:
|
| >> No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
| >> individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as
| >> well.
| >>
| >> The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be
| >> generated by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.
| >
| > Suppose you are right, there needs to be other factors involved in
| > order to get cancer. If an individual person had those factors, but
| > wouldn't normally get cancer without the corporate person dumping
| > toxins into the environment, then that corporate person is responsible
| > for individual(s) getting cancer.
|
| You have a very nice way of attempting to fit facts around your hypothesis
| but your hypothesis is still incorrect, ma'am.
|
| > This is especially true, since so many people are susceptible for
| > getting cancer (with or without considering a special genetic code you
| > claim is needed).
|
| The claim is valid, ma'am. For a majority of people, there has to be a
| genetic predisposition to cancer. I had colorectal cancer. My father had
| skin cancer. My paternal aunt had breast cancer. My maternal great aunt
had
| brain cancer. My paternal grandmother had stomach cancer. See the pattern?
| It is most assuredly genetically linked.

Most assuredly my ass. T Since this is family, you have shared a common
environment with them which could have the carcinogen in it. Who knows,
Granny's house could be sitting on a big pile of radium.
Plus differenct cancers are different diseases. Someone in your lineage
having liver cancer does not predispose you to ass cancer.

|
| > Doctors who cause cancer in animals in order to stimulate cancer in
| > humans are just like the corporate employee who cause cancer in humans
| > and others in the environment by dumping toxins into the environment.
|
| Liberal fear mongering like that does nothing to prove your prior claim,
| ma'am.
|

How the fuck do you think they do medical research?

| > There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to the
| > reactions other have to our actions.
|
| Are you saying that you're one of the dumpers, ma'am? The second sentence
| there would seem to imply as much - at least as it is written.

You can be so fucking stupid

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-13 23:26:54 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| brain cancer. My paternal grandmother had stomach cancer. See the
| pattern? It is most assuredly genetically linked.
Most assuredly my ass. Since this is family, you have shared a
common environment with them which could have the carcinogen in it.
Who knows, Granny's house could be sitting on a big pile of radium.

That would be a viable theory if I had ever been anywhere near some of
them. However, unless the carcinogen(s) are transmissible through mere
touch, I never shared an environment with some of them, sir.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > There is no "out". Dumping doesn't eliminate the responsibility to
| > the reactions other have to our actions.
|
| Are you saying that you're one of the dumpers, ma'am? The second
| sentence there would seem to imply as much - at least as it is
| written.
You can be so fucking stupid

And you, sir, can butt in where your ignorance is clearly unnecessary. Why
not go back to pestering the women who keep spanking your tail for you? You
seem to enjoy that...

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-11 03:56:48 UTC

"Jani" <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:409ff23a$0$20507$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
|
| "HY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
| > [ Doc Jeff ] wrote:
| > > "The Cunning Linguist :?" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in
| > > news:tQznc.14649$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
| > >
| > >
| > >>| > I don't do drugs either.
| > >>|
| > >>| That makes it worse.
| > >>
| > >>She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog
| > >
| > >
| > > One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary
| > > link.
| >
| > That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
| > toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.
|
| No, they're responsible for dumping toxins. Whether or not particular
| individuals develop cancer as a result depends on other factors as well.
|
| The original post was to do with Talesin's fear that cancer can be
generated
| by magic alone, without any genetic predisposition to it.

The only fear here is in your biting. You can give people cancer with magick
(just ask Debbie the Witch) and you can get it without any genetic
predisposition.
Now off with you, haustumor

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-11 05:38:52 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

I don't own such a company.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-11 12:13:56 UTC

"Shadow Dancer [Magik]" <***@peacefulhaven.net> wrote in message news:***@uni-berlin.de...
|
| "HY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
| > [ Doc Jeff ] wrote:
| > > "The Cunning Linguist :?" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in
| > > news:tQznc.14649$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
| > >
| > >
| > >>| > I don't do drugs either.
| > >>|
| > >>| That makes it worse.
| > >>
| > >>She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog
| > >
| > >
| > > One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary
| > > link.
| >
| > That's not true. Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
| > toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.
| >
|
| I don't own such a company.

You do it directly, Plague Dog
But not much longer

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-11 17:59:51 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary link.

That's not true.

Actually, is IS true, ma'am. I've had cancer and have had it all explained
to me ad nauseum.

Post by HY
Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

An interesting hypothesis you have there, ma'am. Have any proof to go along
with it?

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:27:09 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary link.

That's not true.

Actually, is IS true, ma'am. I've had cancer and have had it all explained
to me ad nauseum.

Oh my! I hope you got a different doctor. They shouldn't have been
peddling those falsehoods to you.

Post by HY
Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

An interesting hypothesis you have there, ma'am. Have any proof to go along
with it?

I have never before encountered anyone who didn't believe in
carcinogens. I mean, the cigarette companies pretend that cigarettes
don't cause cancer, but I don't think they pretend that it's genetic,
either.

You should educate yourself. There are quite a few places to find the
information you're looking for.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-13 23:26:52 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary link.

That's not true.

Actually, is IS true, ma'am. I've had cancer and have had it all
explained to me ad nauseum.

Oh my! I hope you got a different doctor. They shouldn't have been
peddling those falsehoods to you.

They aren't falsehoods, sir. The fact is that for a majority of people who
are diagnosed with cancer, the link to its cause is genetic rather than
environmental.

Post by HY
Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

An interesting hypothesis you have there, ma'am. Have any proof to go
along with it?

I have never before encountered anyone who didn't believe in
carcinogens.

Where did I say that I didn't believe in carcinogens, sir?

Post by Uchiha Itachi
I mean, the cigarette companies pretend that cigarettes
don't cause cancer, but I don't think they pretend that it's genetic,
either.

Third time, sir. *I* do not believe that cigarettes cause cancer. I have
yet to see any convincing proof that would make me change my mind about
that.

Post by Uchiha Itachi
You should educate yourself.

I truly wish you knew just how goofy that sentence is with regard to me,
Parse.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 01:19:50 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary link.

That's not true.

Actually, is IS true, ma'am. I've had cancer and have had it all
explained to me ad nauseum.

Oh my! I hope you got a different doctor. They shouldn't have been
peddling those falsehoods to you.

They aren't falsehoods, sir. The fact is that for a majority of people who
are diagnosed with cancer, the link to its cause is genetic rather than
environmental.

You are incorrect.

http://www.us.novartisoncology.com/info/page/about-what?subject=1&article=16234

For one thing, different cancers are different diseases.

For another, the genetic factors are often the result of mutated genes
to begin with.

That's why if your mom had lung cancer, you won't necessarily have it
too, and so on for the rest of your family.

Post by HY
Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.

An interesting hypothesis you have there, ma'am. Have any proof to go
along with it?

I have never before encountered anyone who didn't believe in
carcinogens.

Where did I say that I didn't believe in carcinogens, sir?

You claimed that cancer was genetic. Hence, no carcinogens.

Post by Uchiha Itachi
I mean, the cigarette companies pretend that cigarettes
don't cause cancer, but I don't think they pretend that it's genetic,
either.

Third time, sir. *I* do not believe that cigarettes cause cancer. I have
yet to see any convincing proof that would make me change my mind about
that.

Do a google search. There's countless information available.

I'm guessing you simply reject any information, even though it comes
from reputable sources.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact04.html

Post by Uchiha Itachi
You should educate yourself.

I truly wish you knew just how goofy that sentence is with regard to me,
Parse.

Sorry, you should go to a university and be educated by someone
qualified to instruct you.

zayton

2004-05-14 02:25:14 UTC

"[ Doc Jeff ]" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:***@127.0.0.1...

. The fact is that for a majority of people who

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
are diagnosed with cancer, the link to its cause is genetic rather than
environmental.

This statement, even if true it were, assumes that only one causitive factor
exists; which is an invalid assumption.

Joe

Jani

2004-05-14 05:40:03 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
. The fact is that for a majority of people who

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
are diagnosed with cancer, the link to its cause is genetic rather than
environmental.

This statement, even if true it were, assumes that only one causitive factor
exists; which is an invalid assumption.

Hey. Didn't you just jump on me for jumping on Hy for saying only one
causative factor exists??

Jani

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:10 UTC

"[ Doc Jeff ]" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:***@127.0.0.1...
| HY <***@shaw.ca> wrote in news:***@shaw.ca:
|
| >>>| > I don't do drugs either.
| >>>|
| >>>| That makes it worse.
| >>>
| >>>She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog
| >>
| >> One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
| >> hereditary link.
| >
| > That's not true.
|
| Actually, is IS true, ma'am. I've had cancer and have had it all explained
| to me ad nauseum.

Then someone explained it to you wrong. While people whose families have a
history of cancer do have a predisposition toward it as well but there are
also those who have absolutely no genetic link to anyone with cancer yet die
of it just the same.
At any rate, I hope this does not discoutage Plague Dog from smoking

|
| > Anyone who owns or operates a company which dumps
| > toxins into our environment is responsible for giving people cancer.
|
| An interesting hypothesis you have there, ma'am. Have any proof to go
along
| with it?

Yeah like 50 years of research. Go look up "polychlorinated biphenyls" on
Google

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-11 03:56:48 UTC

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-11 17:59:55 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog
|
| One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
| link.
Tell that to Philip Morris

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up, sir. Thank you kindly
for doing so.

My grandmother's boyfriend smoked cigarettes from the time he was twelve
until the time he died at ninety-eight. He averaged two packs per day for
most of those years. People attempted to get him to stop many, many times.
I, myself, tried to get him to quit a few times. He was very probably the
toughest old bastard I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. To my
knowledge, short of the average common cold, he was never sick a day in his
life. Care to make a guess as to how he died? He walked outside one
afternoon after lunch, sat down on a lawn chair and went to sleep,
ostensibly for a nap. He never woke up. He died right underneath the oak
tree he planted himself when he was a kid. My grandmother insisted on an
autopsy because she couldn't believe someone could just go to sleep and die
like that. The report and the death certificate listed the cause of death
as natural causes. There was no sign of disease or malady to be found.

Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor was he
given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand Winston which, I
believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company. Now then ... please
explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory is that he wasn't
genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute this if you are able.

By the way, thank you very kindly, sir, for helping me to recall this
memory. I miss that guy. (sigh)

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Shez

2004-05-11 18:18:05 UTC

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up, sir. Thank you kindly
for doing so.
My grandmother's boyfriend smoked cigarettes from the time he was twelve
until the time he died at ninety-eight. He averaged two packs per day for
most of those years. People attempted to get him to stop many, many times.
I, myself, tried to get him to quit a few times. He was very probably the
toughest old bastard I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. To my
knowledge, short of the average common cold, he was never sick a day in his
life. Care to make a guess as to how he died? He walked outside one
afternoon after lunch, sat down on a lawn chair and went to sleep,
ostensibly for a nap. He never woke up. He died right underneath the oak
tree he planted himself when he was a kid. My grandmother insisted on an
autopsy because she couldn't believe someone could just go to sleep and die
like that. The report and the death certificate listed the cause of death
as natural causes. There was no sign of disease or malady to be found.
Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor was he
given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand Winston which, I
believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company. Now then ... please
explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory is that he wasn't
genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute this if you are able.
By the way, thank you very kindly, sir, for helping me to recall this
memory. I miss that guy. (sigh)
Doc
irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

My own Grandmother smoked and she lived into her nineties, and she was
rarely if ever ill... I think genetic disposition has got a great deal
to with it, no doubt they will sort out what in time, In same way some
people are genetically disposed towards addictions like alcohol,
gambling ect.
If your genetically predisposed towards cancer then cigarettes might
well bring about a cancer earlier than would otherwise have happened.
I am worried about the amount of drugs, hormones, and what have you
pumped into meat animals.

--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
Shez's Garden at http://www.oldcity.f2s.com/shez/

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-12 01:18:11 UTC

Post by Shez
My own Grandmother smoked and she lived into her nineties, and she was
rarely if ever ill... I think genetic disposition has got a great deal
to with it, no doubt they will sort out what in time, In same way some
people are genetically disposed towards addictions like alcohol,
gambling etc.

I agree completely.

Post by Shez
I am worried about the amount of drugs, hormones, and what have you
pumped into meat animals.

Aside from my inability to digest meat, that is another part of why I'm
vegan now.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Shez

2004-05-12 12:26:59 UTC

I agree completely.

Post by Shez
I am worried about the amount of drugs, hormones, and what have you
pumped into meat animals.

Aside from my inability to digest meat, that is another part of why I'm
vegan now.
Doc
irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

I like my meat to much to give it up, I buy from the real meat CO, the
farmers who keep their animals, don't use growth hormones keep the
animals as naturally as possible, on grass or in the case of chickens
outside, they are not fed inappropriate foods with animal proteins they
are not given drugs without good reason.
Its more expensive and I eat a lot less meat than I would once have
done, but I know at least where the meat is from, and how its been
treated.

--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
Shez's Garden at http://www.oldcity.f2s.com/shez/

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:31:37 UTC

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up, sir. Thank you kindly
for doing so.
My grandmother's boyfriend smoked cigarettes from the time he was twelve
until the time he died at ninety-eight. He averaged two packs per day for
most of those years. People attempted to get him to stop many, many times.
I, myself, tried to get him to quit a few times. He was very probably the
toughest old bastard I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. To my
knowledge, short of the average common cold, he was never sick a day in his
life. Care to make a guess as to how he died? He walked outside one
afternoon after lunch, sat down on a lawn chair and went to sleep,
ostensibly for a nap. He never woke up. He died right underneath the oak
tree he planted himself when he was a kid. My grandmother insisted on an
autopsy because she couldn't believe someone could just go to sleep and die
like that. The report and the death certificate listed the cause of death
as natural causes. There was no sign of disease or malady to be found.
Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor was he
given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand Winston which, I
believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company. Now then ... please
explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory is that he wasn't
genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute this if you are able.

Oh my. I had no idea you were that ignorant. You clearly don't
understand what causation is, and how it is evaluated. Do us a favour
and spare infecting any more people with your ignorance. Whenever the
topic of 'cancer' is raised, please keep silent.

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-13 06:51:58 UTC

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up, sir. Thank you kindly
for doing so.
My grandmother's boyfriend smoked cigarettes from the time he was twelve
until the time he died at ninety-eight. He averaged two packs per day for
most of those years. People attempted to get him to stop many, many times.
I, myself, tried to get him to quit a few times. He was very probably the
toughest old bastard I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. To my
knowledge, short of the average common cold, he was never sick a day in his
life. Care to make a guess as to how he died? He walked outside one
afternoon after lunch, sat down on a lawn chair and went to sleep,
ostensibly for a nap. He never woke up. He died right underneath the oak
tree he planted himself when he was a kid. My grandmother insisted on an
autopsy because she couldn't believe someone could just go to sleep and die
like that. The report and the death certificate listed the cause of death
as natural causes. There was no sign of disease or malady to be found.
Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor was he
given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand Winston which, I
believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company. Now then ... please
explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory is that he wasn't
genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute this if you are able.

You are the idiot, Parse, and you could all do us the favour of shutting up
on this thread. Until you experience cancer for yourself, you really have
no basis for criticism.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 00:43:39 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog
|
| One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a

hereditary

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| link.
Tell that to Philip Morris

Ah, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up, sir. Thank you

kindly

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
for doing so.
My grandmother's boyfriend smoked cigarettes from the time he was twelve
until the time he died at ninety-eight. He averaged two packs per day

for

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
most of those years. People attempted to get him to stop many, many

times.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
I, myself, tried to get him to quit a few times. He was very probably

the

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
toughest old bastard I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. To my
knowledge, short of the average common cold, he was never sick a day in

his

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
life. Care to make a guess as to how he died? He walked outside one
afternoon after lunch, sat down on a lawn chair and went to sleep,
ostensibly for a nap. He never woke up. He died right underneath the oak
tree he planted himself when he was a kid. My grandmother insisted on an
autopsy because she couldn't believe someone could just go to sleep and

die

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
like that. The report and the death certificate listed the cause of

death

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
as natural causes. There was no sign of disease or malady to be found.
Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor was

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand Winston which, I
believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company. Now then ... please
explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory is that he wasn't
genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute this if you are able.

You are the idiot, Parse,

You're an idiot. You think that someone having cancer suddenly makes
them an expert on the disease? It does no such thing. Doc Jeff was
completely wrong, and his post was a disservice to anyone who knows
someone who has cancer, who knows anyone who will have cancer, or who
will have cancer themselves.

He might as well have said that cancer was caused by having sex before
marriage, for about as much sense as his nonsense made.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
and you could all do us the favour of shutting up
on this thread. Until you experience cancer for yourself, you really have
no basis for criticism.

As for you, considering you don't believe cigarettes cause cancer, even
though the amount of evidence rivals that that indicates that the sun
will rise tomorrow just goes to show that you're not qualified to talk
in this conversation.

I have no problem with you being completely ignorant about this topic so
long as you don't try to infect others with your needless ignorance.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-13 23:26:53 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor
was he given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand
Winston which, I believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company.
Now then ... please explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory
is that he wasn't genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute
this if you are able.

Parse, your inability to refute what I said is noted. If you don't like
being educated by me on this topic then I suggest you use your killfile.
You and Hy are both incorrect and I will continue to point this fact out
every time you attempt to show the world your ignorance.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 01:23:47 UTC

Parse, your inability to refute what I said is noted.

I don't need to refute anything you said. You committed the fallacy of
anecdotal evidence, and as such, it's worthless. Now perform a study to
show that smokers have the same incidence of lung cancer and then it
will mean something. Otherwise it's meaningless.

It's like saying that Bob drank and drove, and he didn't die, so
drinking and driving doesn't cause automobile accidents.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
If you don't like
being educated by me on this topic then I suggest you use your killfile.

You have no factual information with which to educate me, or anyone
else. You are entirely ignorant of the subject of cancer.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You and Hy are both incorrect and I will continue to point this fact out
every time you attempt to show the world your ignorance.

Yes, all the studies that show causal connections between cigarettes and
cancer are wrong. All the studies that show causal connections between
cancer and other environmental factors are wrong. Statistics itself is
wrong. All because you knew some guy that didn't get cancer and smoked.

You are ignorant about this subject. Hopefully everyone knows that you
are not fit to comment on this subject.

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-13 02:30:12 UTC

"[ Doc Jeff ]" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:***@127.0.0.1...
| "The Cunning Linguist :Þ" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in
| news:4aYnc.17213$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
|
| >| > She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog
| >|
| >| One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary
| >| link.
| >
| > Tell that to Philip Morris
|
| Ah, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up, sir. Thank you kindly
| for doing so.
|
| My grandmother's boyfriend smoked cigarettes from the time he was twelve
| until the time he died at ninety-eight. He averaged two packs per day for
| most of those years. People attempted to get him to stop many, many times.
| I, myself, tried to get him to quit a few times. He was very probably the
| toughest old bastard I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. To my
| knowledge, short of the average common cold, he was never sick a day in
his
| life. Care to make a guess as to how he died? He walked outside one
| afternoon after lunch, sat down on a lawn chair and went to sleep,
| ostensibly for a nap. He never woke up. He died right underneath the oak
| tree he planted himself when he was a kid. My grandmother insisted on an
| autopsy because she couldn't believe someone could just go to sleep and
die
| like that. The report and the death certificate listed the cause of death
| as natural causes. There was no sign of disease or malady to be found.
|
| Now by my reckoning, sir, he smoked for 86 years. He didn't get, nor was
he
| given, cancer. And, for the record, he smoked the brand Winston which, I
| believe, is a product of the Philip Morris company. Now then ... please
| explain how he didn't get cancer. My own theory is that he wasn't
| genetically predisposed to it. Feel free to refute this if you are able.
|
| By the way, thank you very kindly, sir, for helping me to recall this
| memory. I miss that guy. (sigh)

Okay forget all that claptrap. I have a question for you. How can a cancer
survivor want to have anything to do with a stinking smoker? Aside from the
above mentioned stink and the fact that kissing her would be like stick your
mouth into an ashtray, how can a man who is so particular about what he
eats, drinks, and does show such wild abandon when it comes to staying
alive?
Oh, that's right. You're enthralled

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-13 23:26:55 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Okay forget all that claptrap. I have a question for you. How can a
cancer survivor want to have anything to do with a stinking smoker?

Did you miss all the replies I made,sir? I do not believe any of the hooey
being spewed forth that cigarettes cause cancer. I simply don't see any
valid proof of the claim.

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Aside from the above mentioned stink and the fact that kissing her
would be like stick your mouth into an ashtray, how can a man who is
so particular about what he eats, drinks, and does show such wild
abandon when it comes to staying alive?

When it becomes any of your business, you will be informed, sir. Until
then, I suppose you'll just have to sit there and wonder. Won't you?

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Oh, that's right. You're in love.

Indeed.

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 01:25:13 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Okay forget all that claptrap. I have a question for you. How can a
cancer survivor want to have anything to do with a stinking smoker?

Did you miss all the replies I made,sir? I do not believe any of the hooey
being spewed forth that cigarettes cause cancer. I simply don't see any
valid proof of the claim.

You are ignorant of empirical proof then, and thus I find it ridiculous
that you believe in gravity, considering your rejection of the
methodology that demonstrates its validity.

zayton

2004-05-14 02:28:14 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
Okay forget all that claptrap. I have a question for you. How can a
cancer survivor want to have anything to do with a stinking smoker?

Did you miss all the replies I made,sir? I do not believe any of the hooey
being spewed forth that cigarettes cause cancer. I simply don't see any
valid proof of the claim.

The entire scientific community, except those paid to publish by the tobacco
industry, does see valid proof.

Joe

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 02:01:42 UTC

It's Altria now.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-13 00:51:55 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
| > I don't do drugs either.
|
| That makes it worse.
She does not give babies cancer, either, Plague Dog

One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a hereditary
link.

I sincerely doubt that most cancer is hereditary considering the high
causal rate of lung cancer and cigarettes. Let alone other things that
are known cancer causing agents.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-13 23:26:50 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary link.

I sincerely doubt that most cancer is hereditary considering the high
causal rate of lung cancer and cigarettes.

I am entirely unconvinced of that, Parse, sir. As I said, I know at least
one person who smoked for the majority of his life and was never sick even
for one day of it. No cancer. No stroke. No heart attack. And ... he ...
smoked! Explain, please...

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-14 01:10:48 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
One does not give someone cancer, sir. In most people it is a
hereditary link.

I sincerely doubt that most cancer is hereditary considering the high
causal rate of lung cancer and cigarettes.

You don't understand causation. Just because A causes B doesn't mean
that if A happens, B must necessarily happen. There are a few different
cases. For extreme cases, the likelyhood of it happening is virtually
certain (see the sun rising for an example). In other cases, it just
indicates an increase in likelyhood with respect to if that factor was
removed. So cigarettes cause cancer in that if you took two random
people, and had one smoke, and the other not, then it's more likely that
the person who smoked would contract lung cancer. If you repeat that
many, many times, then the differences become significant.

What this means is that it's possible to get lung cancer without having
smoked, and it's also possible to smoke and not get lung cancer. It
also means that you're increasing your risk, rather than containing and
controlling it. Considering the risk is pretty much unnecessary, it's
very foolish to do so. It's like crossing on a red instead of a green.

Also, think of a rigged coin where 3/4 of the time it lands heads up.
That's what it's like.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-09 22:38:14 UTC

Post by HY
I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
words strung together, not a statement of belief.

Random sentences, perhaps. Random words would look like gibberish.

They are all random.

No, they're not. There is a pattern.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.

I don't do drugs either.

Marijuana isn't a drug - it's an herb. This is why is should be
decriminalised...

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

Uchiha Itachi

2004-05-11 02:21:24 UTC

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.

I don't do drugs either.

Marijuana isn't a drug - it's an herb. This is why is should be
decriminalised...

Now that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Of course it's a drug.
And just because something's a drug, doesn't mean it should be criminal.

Rhyanon

2004-05-10 11:54:27 UTC

Don't blame friend ganja for her extreme stupidity. She was born that way.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
Good day, HY. I see you finally admit to the cotton in your head. Way
to go.

I was inspired to free flow. What you are reading is a bunch of random
words strung together, not a statement of belief.

Random sentences, perhaps. Random words would look like gibberish.

Post by [ Doc Jeff ]
You've been at the sacrificial wine again, haven't you, HY?

I don't drink alcohol.

Right, I forgot. BC - you do the marijuana... Sorry for the mistake.
Doc
irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge
--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-10 20:33:37 UTC

Post by Rhyanon
Don't blame friend ganja for her extreme stupidity. She was born that way.

I'm beginning to agree. It's too natural to be chemically-induced. How very
sad for her. (sigh)

Doc

irc2.peacefulhaven.net -or- http://www.peacefulhaven.net
Home of the Official DocJeff Challenge

--
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

ren

2004-05-11 02:08:51 UTC

Thank you, HY!

The Cunning Linguist :Þ

2004-05-11 03:56:48 UTC

"[ Doc Jeff ]" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:***@127.0.0.1...
| "Rhyanon" <***@uberbitch.com> wrote in
| news:***@corp.supernews.com:
|
| > Don't blame friend ganja for her extreme stupidity. She was born that
| > way.
|
| I'm beginning to agree. It's too natural to be chemically-induced. How
very
| sad for her. (sigh)

That was mean, Jeffy

Shadow Dancer [Magik]

2004-05-11 05:41:38 UTC

Post by The Cunning Linguist :Ã
|
| > Don't blame friend ganja for her extreme stupidity. She was born that
| > way.
|
| I'm beginning to agree. It's too natural to be chemically-induced. How
very
| sad for her. (sigh)
That was mean, Jeffy

A ghost, who "died" as a result of his own mean-ness, is in no position to
judge.

[ Doc Jeff ]

2004-05-11 18:00:03 UTC