I dunno, Raf, I'm thinking that lovematters sounds rather tense, and that his prior responses to me may have been somewhat less than sincere.
Perhaps in addition to blowing bubbles through a straw into his bottle of water, he should maybe consider adding a couple of shots of whiskey? or maybe even not adding the water?
There is a "health drink" that is growing in popularity in India and in various places in the US. It is said that this drink cures a variety of ills and prevents a variety of other ills, even athlete's foot.
This drink is sterile.
Hundreds of thousands of people absolutely swear by this drink, and testimonials abound. Hundreds of thousands of people can't be wrong, can they?
So to echo posts by you - before you go naysaying the health benefits of this beverage, please drink one bottle of it a day for 5 months, and then come back and tell us what you've experienced. Remember, YOU set this standard.
No lie, this drink is - are you ready? - your own urine.
So if you are unwilling to subject yourself to the rigorous testing that you yourself have demanded of others, you have no grounds on which to disagree with hundreds of thousands of other people, some of which may be reading this thread! Therefore, BY *YOUR* STANDARDS, you *absolutely must* accept this as true, unless you do the testing yourself.
Oakspear, I spent a half hour or so looking at the link on "Actual Errors" you cited. Unfortunately, the premise was developed from a strawman that supposedly said PFAL was the "God-breathed word", and such a strawman I never met in my tenure with twi in the sixties and early seventies. Everyone I ever meet knew it was not the "God-breathed" word- including V.P., and Karen, his daughter, who actually wrote the book "Power For Abundand Living"- from the transcript of the film.
Obviously, if the premise is bogus the development to knock it down is worthless- a straining about words to no profit.
You are incorrect. The premise was drawn not from a strawman argument, but from the views of an actual GS poster, known as Mike. I don't doubt that you never met such a person, I've only met one! But he is very real, if very UNreal in his views :P-->
Oakspear, I spent a half hour or so looking at the link on "Actual Errors" you cited. Unfortunately, the premise was developed from a strawman that supposedly said PFAL was the "God-breathed word"
You should really do a little bit of research before declaring as "strawman" a position that someone on this board actually holds. Strawman implies that I made up that position, which is not true. Had you been a real investigative engineer, you'd have known that.
I've scanned my grocer's water section looking for oxygenated water but haven't seen any. I'm typically a tap drinker but if I find it, I'll try it.
How much oxygen does a fish tank aerator add?
Lovematters: If the water you bubble air into is close to freezing, you will end up with about 15 ppm oxygen in it. That's about double what you get in tap water- not a trivial improvement. But if you take the same cold water and the same aerator but have a source of oxygen rather than air to feed the aerator (an oxygen tank or an oxygen generator), the water will hold 75 ppm oxygen, or about five times as much (since air is normally only 21% oxygen by weight).
Some of the bottled water folks must do exactly that since both Pepsi's and Coke's water product measures around 15 ppm contained oxygen. They just don't tell you they add oxygen on the label. They do inform you (in very small print) that they add no carbon dioxide and leave you to wonder what the pssst is when you open a relatively warm bottle of their water.
Thanks for the question and the possibility that my success rate may go up 50%. Love not only matters, my Bible says it NEVER FAILS! (It just sometimes looks like it fails).
You should really do a little bit of research before declaring as "strawman" a position that someone on this board actually holds. Strawman implies that I made up that position, which is not true. Had you been a real investigative engineer, you'd have known that
Raf, I probably could find someone who said they drank water out of a sewer and claimed it was no different from any other water, and then develope a whole thesis based on this "eyewitness" account, showing that he mentioned the wrong sewer, or didn't include various other facts he should have included in his report, like it's good to pick ones nose when drinking sewer water. But he would still be a strawman and anyone reading the thesis would still be straining over words to no profit.
For the life of me, I don't understand how this topic of oxygen saturated water turned into a debate by those who have never tried it.
It would be different if someone have been drinking it, and found it to be useless.
Dave's not selling water, just dicussing it.
Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When a claim is made that a product does something, why should it be a problem to question those claims?
Several posters found inconsistancies between the claims of oxygenated water proponents and what they knew about chemistry and/or physics.
Trying something has nothing to do with an understanding of the laws of nature. Why would a knowledge of the laws governing how much oxygen can be dissolved in water be dependent on trying said water?
The chief drum beater for oxygen saturated water and founder of this thread has belittled things like double blind tests as uneccessary and comapared his belief in the benefits of oxy saturated water to a belief in the bible.
When a claim is made that a product does something, why should it be a problem to question those claims?
There isn't a problem, but something as simple as water won't hurt to try it and find out for yourself. It's not like taking a med, or something. It's fricken water.
quote:
Several posters found inconsistancies between the claims of oxygenated water proponents and what they knew about chemistry and/or physics.
Several posters have no life outside of greasespot, and would argue the necessity of using barbless hooks when fishing because it hurts the fish's fealings.
quote:
Trying something has nothing to do with an understanding of the laws of nature. Why would a knowledge of the laws governing how much oxygen can be dissolved in water be dependent on trying said water?
I agree, before they knew of gravity, going up a mountain was harder than going down. It was just the way it was. I don't think a little oxygen in water is worth all the hub bub portrayed by the skeptics.
quote:
The chief drum beater for oxygen saturated water and founder of this thread has belittled things like double blind tests as uneccessary and comapared his belief in the benefits of oxy saturated water to a belief in the bible.
Then we better run for the hills, oxygenated water is from the anti-Christ. Come on, it's just fricken water with more oxygen in it.
Most of the people here who have tried it say it's benificial. That's a pretty good test if ya don't say.
Most of the people here who have tried it say it's benificial. That's a pretty good test if ya don't say.
Hey Chuck, my apologies to you and CM (whoever he is) since I got you confused with him last week when he posted on this thread for the first time and I replied to it. I thought you'd shortened your username from CWF to CM in the interest of brevity. Guess I knew after his next two posts that it wasn't you. But by then it was too late.
Anyway, thanks for the post- otherwise I wouldn't know that Oakspear considers me the "founder" of this thread. No telling how many threads he "founded" amidst his 4,066 posts since he started here almost three years ago- whoever he (or she) is. Seems that Raf and Steve! started about the same time as he did back in June, 2002. Maybe they are the Trinity, more or less co-equal, what with Raf's 5,700 posts and Steve!'s 4,483 posts and all. Sure does put our "founding" and "membership" at this site to shame, what with your measly 86 posts and my measly 95 posts. My hat's off to you since you've put up with them far longer than I have.
Actually, CM appears to have great potential at GSC since he's already posted 264 posts since arriving a month after I did in December. Had I looked at that number before replying to his post I would have known it wasn't you. Sorry about that.
I did read CM's "The near 50 and older club" this morning. Ah, if only he knew that we were his "elders" by quite a few years (well, I should speak for myself)! George Aar had a post on that thread lamenting his need for laxatives. For those late to the party here, George was one of the first to post on this thread and introduced us to "The Amazing Randi" and Penta Water being bunk. Too bad, had he tried Penta Water, or made his own oxygenated water, he might well have discovered (probably not with the first glass) that his need for laxatives went away. But hey, listen to The Amazing Randi and buy laxatives if that's where stubbornness or laziness takes you George. I'm not the one needing laxatives- and I'm older!
Hope I'm not betraying a confidence Chuck, but I have to tell the folks that you drank some of my home brew oxygenated water before I ever started this thread. So I haven't included you in the list of "successes" here. Why if I included you and Kit my success rate would double! And I'm still hoping Lovematters finds some Penta Water amidst all that bottled water on the grocery shelves (all of which is mere bunk according to Raf.) Imagine that, millions upon millions of folks not listening to what Raf has to say about bottled water being bunk!
But to go back for a minute to the beginning (or at least the beginning as I know it of the subject). Dr. Pakdaman, in Germany, gave 50ppm distilled water to his cancer patients back around 1970- almost 40 years ago. He found the plasma oxygen pressure went up from around 20 mmHg to 30 mmHg within six minutes of their drinking the water, and stayed up for over an hour. More importantly, he found that every member in the test group improved while every member in the control group deteriorated over the length of the test, as expected. No doubt he terminated the test as soon as he was sure the oxygenated water helped cancer patients, however long that took. To do otherwise would have been unethical and immoral- withholding something of value from a patient just for the sake of having a control group- something that some folks here think should be done again forty years later just to satisfy their presumed interest.
It took thirty years or so for bottled water to show up in mass on the grocery shelves- including some that actually contain 40-50 ppm oxygen like Dr. Pakdaman's. The next step is for folks to make their own highly oxygenated water and so avoid the cost while enjoying the benifit. All I've done is show folks an easy way to do that and give them some idea of what they'll end up with (instead of pot-luck at the grocery store), and the kinds of reported scientific data available on the subject, as well as my own experience with it. No one here has paid my wage for doing so nor is it likely that anyone here will. Seems that after all these years since Dr. Pakdaman's work, many still want to claim that it is a "controversial" subject. But then after 2000 years there are plenty of jerks around that still want to claim that Jesus Christ is controversial- and it's not one wit easier to convince the gain-sayers to try out what Jesus had to say than it is to convince the gain-sayers here to try oxygen saturated water.
There are no end of people that want to put words in Jesus' mouth and then call him a liar. And so I expect no less a defaming myself from the same kind of folks here. A servant doesn't rise to the level of his master after all and there is a war going on! But then a servant doesn't have to be as gracious as his master either, even though it's a good idea to try!
When a claim is made that a product does something, why should it be a problem to question those claims?
There isn't a problem, but something as simple as water won't hurt to try it and find out for yourself. It's not like taking a med, or something. It's fricken water.
First chance I get, I'll try some, but no one is claiming that it's harmful, just that it's claims are bogus
Several posters found inconsistancies between the claims of oxygenated water proponents and what they knew about chemistry and/or physics.
Several posters have no life outside of greasespot, and would argue the necessity of using barbless hooks when fishing because it hurts the fish's fealings.
Wow! A strawman and and an ad hominem in one sentence. Brilliant! -->
The chief drum beater for oxygen saturated water and founder of this thread has belittled things like double blind tests as uneccessary and comapared his belief in the benefits of oxy saturated water to a belief in the bible.
Then we better run for the hills, oxygenated water is from the anti-Christ. Come on, it's just fricken water with more oxygen in it.
--> Where did you get that from? None of the skeptics are claiming that oxy water is "evil". It's only David Anderson who compares his stance to that of Jesus Christ.
quote:
Most of the people here who have tried it say it's benificial. That's a pretty good test if ya don't say.
Actually no. Confirmation bias and pre-conceived notions are among the things that can cause someone to think that a product is doing something when it is no more than wishful thinking.
Edited by Oakspear
Anyway, thanks for the post- otherwise I wouldn't know that Oakspear considers me the "founder" of this thread.
Well, you did start the thread, didn't you?
quote:
No telling how many threads he "founded" amidst his 4,066 posts since he started here almost three years ago- whoever he (or she) is.
He.
What's your point?
quote:
Seems that Raf and Steve! started about the same time as he did back in June, 2002. Maybe they are the Trinity, more or less co-equal, what with Raf's 5,700 posts and Steve!'s 4,483 posts and all.
June 2002 was when we switched from the "old" GS to the "new".
What's your point?
quote:
Sure does put our "founding" and "membership" at this site to shame, what with your measly 86 posts and my measly 95 posts. My hat's off to you since you've put up with them far longer than I have.
Oh...the point! Steve!, Raf and I are annoying!
quote:
Seems that after all these years since Dr. Pakdaman's work, many still want to claim that it is a "controversial" subject.
Not controversial, just dubious.
quote:
But then after 2000 years there are plenty of jerks around that still want to claim that Jesus Christ is controversial- and it's not one wit easier to convince the gain-sayers to try out what Jesus had to say than it is to convince the gain-sayers here to try oxygen saturated water.
There it is! The claim to divine authority (or at least divine comparison!)
quote:
There are no end of people that want to put words in Jesus' mouth and then call him a liar. And so I expect no less a defaming myself from the same kind of folks here.
Sure, since Jesus was defamed and called a liar, therefore David Anderson will be defamed and called a liar!
quote:
A servant doesn't rise to the level of his master after all and there is a war going on! But then a servant doesn't have to be as gracious as his master either, even though it's a good idea to try!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
72
106
68
48
Popular Days
Jan 29
30
Apr 26
21
Jan 18
17
Feb 9
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 72 posts
David Anderson 106 posts
krys 68 posts
oldiesman 48 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2005
30 posts
Apr 26 2005
21 posts
Jan 18 2005
17 posts
Feb 9 2005
16 posts
Raf
Did I ask how it sounds?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
I don't have to wait for you to beg me for an opinion before I offer mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I dunno, Raf, I'm thinking that lovematters sounds rather tense, and that his prior responses to me may have been somewhat less than sincere.
Perhaps in addition to blowing bubbles through a straw into his bottle of water, he should maybe consider adding a couple of shots of whiskey? or maybe even not adding the water?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Steve!,
My replies have been terse not tense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I sit corrected. Sometimes it's difficult to convey - and receive - tone via text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Indeed, Steve!, "sometimes" one can be considered an airhead just for speaking airily. Especially one with a bubbly personality.
glug glug
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
David -
There is a "health drink" that is growing in popularity in India and in various places in the US. It is said that this drink cures a variety of ills and prevents a variety of other ills, even athlete's foot.
This drink is sterile.
Hundreds of thousands of people absolutely swear by this drink, and testimonials abound. Hundreds of thousands of people can't be wrong, can they?
So to echo posts by you - before you go naysaying the health benefits of this beverage, please drink one bottle of it a day for 5 months, and then come back and tell us what you've experienced. Remember, YOU set this standard.
No lie, this drink is - are you ready? - your own urine.
So if you are unwilling to subject yourself to the rigorous testing that you yourself have demanded of others, you have no grounds on which to disagree with hundreds of thousands of other people, some of which may be reading this thread! Therefore, BY *YOUR* STANDARDS, you *absolutely must* accept this as true, unless you do the testing yourself.
And if you disagree, you are a jerk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You should really do a little bit of research before declaring as "strawman" a position that someone on this board actually holds. Strawman implies that I made up that position, which is not true. Had you been a real investigative engineer, you'd have known that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
For the life of me, I don't understand how this topic of oxygen saturated water turned into a debate by those who have never tried it.
It would be different if someone have been drinking it, and found it to be useless.
Dave's not selling water, just dicussing it.
Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I've tried it, and I like it.
Penta Water
Taste great, less filling...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Lovematters: If the water you bubble air into is close to freezing, you will end up with about 15 ppm oxygen in it. That's about double what you get in tap water- not a trivial improvement. But if you take the same cold water and the same aerator but have a source of oxygen rather than air to feed the aerator (an oxygen tank or an oxygen generator), the water will hold 75 ppm oxygen, or about five times as much (since air is normally only 21% oxygen by weight).
Some of the bottled water folks must do exactly that since both Pepsi's and Coke's water product measures around 15 ppm contained oxygen. They just don't tell you they add oxygen on the label. They do inform you (in very small print) that they add no carbon dioxide and leave you to wonder what the pssst is when you open a relatively warm bottle of their water.
Thanks for the question and the possibility that my success rate may go up 50%. Love not only matters, my Bible says it NEVER FAILS! (It just sometimes looks like it fails).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Raf, I probably could find someone who said they drank water out of a sewer and claimed it was no different from any other water, and then develope a whole thesis based on this "eyewitness" account, showing that he mentioned the wrong sewer, or didn't include various other facts he should have included in his report, like it's good to pick ones nose when drinking sewer water. But he would still be a strawman and anyone reading the thesis would still be straining over words to no profit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Several posters found inconsistancies between the claims of oxygenated water proponents and what they knew about chemistry and/or physics.
Trying something has nothing to do with an understanding of the laws of nature. Why would a knowledge of the laws governing how much oxygen can be dissolved in water be dependent on trying said water?
The chief drum beater for oxygen saturated water and founder of this thread has belittled things like double blind tests as uneccessary and comapared his belief in the benefits of oxy saturated water to a belief in the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Try it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
There isn't a problem, but something as simple as water won't hurt to try it and find out for yourself. It's not like taking a med, or something. It's fricken water.
Several posters have no life outside of greasespot, and would argue the necessity of using barbless hooks when fishing because it hurts the fish's fealings.
I agree, before they knew of gravity, going up a mountain was harder than going down. It was just the way it was. I don't think a little oxygen in water is worth all the hub bub portrayed by the skeptics.
Then we better run for the hills, oxygenated water is from the anti-Christ. Come on, it's just fricken water with more oxygen in it.
Most of the people here who have tried it say it's benificial. That's a pretty good test if ya don't say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Hey Chuck, my apologies to you and CM (whoever he is) since I got you confused with him last week when he posted on this thread for the first time and I replied to it. I thought you'd shortened your username from CWF to CM in the interest of brevity. Guess I knew after his next two posts that it wasn't you. But by then it was too late.
Anyway, thanks for the post- otherwise I wouldn't know that Oakspear considers me the "founder" of this thread. No telling how many threads he "founded" amidst his 4,066 posts since he started here almost three years ago- whoever he (or she) is. Seems that Raf and Steve! started about the same time as he did back in June, 2002. Maybe they are the Trinity, more or less co-equal, what with Raf's 5,700 posts and Steve!'s 4,483 posts and all. Sure does put our "founding" and "membership" at this site to shame, what with your measly 86 posts and my measly 95 posts. My hat's off to you since you've put up with them far longer than I have.
Actually, CM appears to have great potential at GSC since he's already posted 264 posts since arriving a month after I did in December. Had I looked at that number before replying to his post I would have known it wasn't you. Sorry about that.
I did read CM's "The near 50 and older club" this morning. Ah, if only he knew that we were his "elders" by quite a few years (well, I should speak for myself)! George Aar had a post on that thread lamenting his need for laxatives. For those late to the party here, George was one of the first to post on this thread and introduced us to "The Amazing Randi" and Penta Water being bunk. Too bad, had he tried Penta Water, or made his own oxygenated water, he might well have discovered (probably not with the first glass) that his need for laxatives went away. But hey, listen to The Amazing Randi and buy laxatives if that's where stubbornness or laziness takes you George. I'm not the one needing laxatives- and I'm older!
Hope I'm not betraying a confidence Chuck, but I have to tell the folks that you drank some of my home brew oxygenated water before I ever started this thread. So I haven't included you in the list of "successes" here. Why if I included you and Kit my success rate would double! And I'm still hoping Lovematters finds some Penta Water amidst all that bottled water on the grocery shelves (all of which is mere bunk according to Raf.) Imagine that, millions upon millions of folks not listening to what Raf has to say about bottled water being bunk!
But to go back for a minute to the beginning (or at least the beginning as I know it of the subject). Dr. Pakdaman, in Germany, gave 50ppm distilled water to his cancer patients back around 1970- almost 40 years ago. He found the plasma oxygen pressure went up from around 20 mmHg to 30 mmHg within six minutes of their drinking the water, and stayed up for over an hour. More importantly, he found that every member in the test group improved while every member in the control group deteriorated over the length of the test, as expected. No doubt he terminated the test as soon as he was sure the oxygenated water helped cancer patients, however long that took. To do otherwise would have been unethical and immoral- withholding something of value from a patient just for the sake of having a control group- something that some folks here think should be done again forty years later just to satisfy their presumed interest.
It took thirty years or so for bottled water to show up in mass on the grocery shelves- including some that actually contain 40-50 ppm oxygen like Dr. Pakdaman's. The next step is for folks to make their own highly oxygenated water and so avoid the cost while enjoying the benifit. All I've done is show folks an easy way to do that and give them some idea of what they'll end up with (instead of pot-luck at the grocery store), and the kinds of reported scientific data available on the subject, as well as my own experience with it. No one here has paid my wage for doing so nor is it likely that anyone here will. Seems that after all these years since Dr. Pakdaman's work, many still want to claim that it is a "controversial" subject. But then after 2000 years there are plenty of jerks around that still want to claim that Jesus Christ is controversial- and it's not one wit easier to convince the gain-sayers to try out what Jesus had to say than it is to convince the gain-sayers here to try oxygen saturated water.
There are no end of people that want to put words in Jesus' mouth and then call him a liar. And so I expect no less a defaming myself from the same kind of folks here. A servant doesn't rise to the level of his master after all and there is a war going on! But then a servant doesn't have to be as gracious as his master either, even though it's a good idea to try!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
[
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wow! A strawman and and an ad hominem in one sentence. Brilliant!
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What's your point?
June 2002 was when we switched from the "old" GS to the "new".What's your point?
Oh...the point! Steve!, Raf and I are annoying! Not controversial, just dubious. There it is! The claim to divine authority (or at least divine comparison!) Sure, since Jesus was defamed and called a liar, therefore David Anderson will be defamed and called a liar! Good excuse for being a rude twit, David.Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
This seems like an appropriate point to post a couple of definitions (again):
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
and:
http://skepdic.com/selfdeception.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Why is this thread still going David?
You made your points on the first pages.
Why haven't you posted anywhere else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
More like critical thinking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.