Raf

Avoiding the no hanging fruit... er, the low hanging fruit from Fatal Attraction... Anne Archer Clear and Present Danger Willem Dafoe

Richard Dreyfuss What About Bob Bill Murray

My cats don't let me live in their house, but they do let me sleep there eight hours a night. Sometimes more.

DOH! PEAR juice!

I also don't believe in voo-doo, although I've heard there are eyewitnesses who will endorse it.

Never looked at any of those things with a discerning eye to tell how they are supposed to work and what the claims are, so I don't have an honest answer. I went to a chiropractor in my 20s. He said it would do A, B, and C. It did A. It did not do B or C. I think the "success" of my chiropractic treatment had more to do with the foot pads they had me wear than the little gizmo that snapped on my back three or four times per session. As an eyewitness, my belief is that chiropractic is bunk. But that doesn't mean I have the slightest idea whether or how it works for other people. I don't know how accupuncture is supposed to work or whether it does. I don't know the mechanics of hypnotism and how that's supposed to work. I've never heard of reflexology until reading your post.

You haven't tried Littlehawk's pair juice.

The complete Jude Law filmography, annotated with trivia

Now that I've got a few minutes... What the bloody well does that have to do with murder trials? And why do you feel the need to promote expertise on the subject, as if no one else is familiar with the concept of murder trials. I've covered about a dozen murder trials, a few rape, etc. The trial I cited above was a vehicular homicide case: two people died. BINGO! Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily reliable. You can tell me that you drank Penta Water and afterward you felt good. But just because B (I felt good) follows A (I drank Penta Water) doesn't mean that A caused B. That's what they call a logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo procter hoc (forgive the misspelling). I have more than reasonable doubt on Penta Water. I've got eyewitness testimony from you and a few others, and I've got eyewitness testimony from objective sources with no bone to pick who say it doesn't work. With conflicting eyewitnesses, I turn to science, which says this stuff is bunk. Physiologists say it's bunk. MD's say it's bunk. The AMA says it's bunk. Who says it works? Two groups of people: those who are trying to sell it, and those who really want to believe it. Hey, maybe I'm wrong on this. But you're far, far, far from proving anything about this stuff, except that you believe in it. $12 a gallon for a placebo? No thanks. I'd rather drink some of Littlehawk's Pair Juice. Now you talk about stuff that works! :)-->

That would imply the others did not know. But they did.

Something's been creeping into the discussion, and should be stopped: To oppose Mike or his message is to oppose it, not to fear it or him.

David, you're missing my point: the power of eyewitness testimony is its power to deceive. Thank you for the rest of your post. I'm not here to pass judgment on the manner of other people's posts, including yours, so forgive me for getting into that above.

Todd, I don't agree with all you've written, but I appreciate the time you took to write it. It's late, so I'm only going to answer one point: If you honestly don't see the difference between telling someone he's wrong and telling him he's lying, then I think you're... wrong. :)--> But thanks for the admonishment. I'll keep it in mind.

Dudley Moore Best Defense Eddie Murphy

So that I'm not accused of singling out one thing in Todd's post for criticism... Preach it, brother. The only one who sets rules here is Paw. If I violate 'em, there's a notify button at the top of this post. Please feel free to alert him. Nice start, accusing us of getting "frothy," while Dave is, what, the very model of a modern major general? Of course he's not trying to start a cult. Who said he was? However, he has equated the mindset of rejecting his claims about oxygen saturated water with the mindset of rejecting Christ. They SAY they've benefitted from the water, yes. They THINK it's great, yes. But science doesn't bear out that oxygen saturated water has any benefit being claimed. So we're asking, where's the proof? Testimony is great, and more power to them, but in order for something to be beneficial, the results have to be able to be duplicated in a controlled setting. Those who have tried to duplicate the results in a controlled setting have found that the claims are untrue. The only people insisting that the claims are true are (1) those who are selling it, and (2) those who really want to believe it. I presume Dave falls into the latter category. IF there are liars involved here, they are in the former group, not the latter. Because to call her a liar "too," we would have to have called Dave a liar, and we haven't. Ditto. That's what you say. And you're entitled. I say $12 a gallon for a placebo is pretty steep. They are. They're not. But that's where we disagree. We don't think a placebo helps people: it fleeces them. I don't want to see people get fleeced. I'm confused: are you describing those who are interested in verifying the claims being made about oxygen saturated water, or those who pounce on truly significant and relevant matters like screen names? True. Neither are the sellers of Penta Water. Neither is "You have the same mindset that rejected Christ." What's so baffling? He's making claims about the benefits of a product: we're asking him to prove it. He's offering his proof and we're challenging it. You're right. I don't see any need to criticize this thread on others, or to badmouth Dave (on this thread or others). But when you use a word like demonization, please note who bashed people over the heads with Bible verses on this thread, and who's saying, "please prove your claims." That an offer? We're mentally ill now? Name one thing we have "misrepresented." Umm, discussion board. That means we discuss. If he didn't want it discussed, he shouldn't have put it on a discussion board. YOU would think. I never associated the two. As implied earlier, you seem to be awfully selective in this accusation. People have been ridiculed for using screen names, accused of not paying attention in the ninth grade, knowing nothing about biology... And you're here criticizing those same people for showing that their screen names are irrelevant, that they did pay attention in the ninth grade, and that they know a thing or two about biology. So really, if you're going to criticize people on this point, at least be fair and criticize both sides of this debate. What exactly do you want people to change here? Do you want us all to be just a bit more gullible? I don't think anyone here is being stupid, so your "compliment" is misplaced. Well, let me know when you've made your decision. I eagerly await it. :)-->

No one has accused David of lying, that's why. Lying would imply ill intent. As I said, I did not read every thread on this post, but those I did read all seemed to say "David, you're really, really, really mistaken." David has responded, "oh yeah, well I use my real name. Why are you hiding?" I don't see you criticizing him for that. But for challenging the basis of the claims he's making, we get (falsely) accused of calling him a liar? I just wanted to see how this worked. As I said, please correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm not above saying so when I'm wrong.

Todd, Where did anyone all David a liar? I haven't read every post, but I don't see where anyone accused him of lying. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

You've dealt with much worse than Def??? Sigh.

Ah. That explains it. We usually get around it by calling it the turn-of-the-century or the early 21st century.

Quite. :)--> Maggie Smith Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone Richard Harris

I ended up posting the 5000th on the THE thread.

Actually, I planned it this way. Strange just caught me in the act. :)-->

My 5,000th post on GSCAFE!

4,999....

4,998