Howard Dean and the Gay Gene

Quit dodging and just give him the direct quote.

Oh please, he was being vague thats the point (Here inlies the problem). In order to be able to retract his implications later. I have shown him already how he implied a certain meaning, just as in this thread he implied his understand of biology is superior to that of vince without directly stating it.

What he is really asking for is a point by point reference to every implication he made. A task that would fill up this thread. I believe this to be inpart exactly what he is trying to do. Ergo i have told him to take this up with me on a personal level such that an actual discussion can take place here.
 
Paul said:
And i will undoubtly refrain from speaking to you. I don't mind that you call me a liar. You are nothing to me Natoma. Nor do you have any form of importance to me in my life or the lives of anyone else in this thread. You are simply, a homosexual, with over inflated sense of self.

Quit dodging and just give him the direct quote.

Exactly. This is what Legion accused me of saying in that other thread.

1) Iraq was capable of manufacturing it's own WMD
2) I would stay on topic
3) There is no difference between the lethal nature of Tear gas and Mustard Gas
4) I made a differentiation between Nerve Gas and Chemical Weapons
5) Information regarding Iraq's WMD programs in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before 1984, was viable
6) Since I said "common knowledge", I meant civilians, even though I repeatedly spoke about the UN, i.e. common knowledge at the UN
7) Other countries definitively manufactured WMD for Iraq

I want quotes where I stated any of that. Not allegations of saying those things. Not implied meanings. Flat out quotes, just as I asked in that other thread. And you know what? I'm going to post this same post in the other thread to and take it out of this one.

Just as Legion said I was referring to some "Anonymous Authority" earlier in this thread where I made no such statement, I want him to show me quotes where I made any of those 7 statements he said I made above.

I'm bumping that other thread to continue this there.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. When Legion has nowhere to go, he brings out the "Well I'm not going to talk to you anymore." instead of backing up his claims with these supposed statements I made. :rolleyes:

p.s.: Legion you made public accusations and statements attributed to me that I did not make. Why should we take it to PM to resolve this? Why should you post your IM information so people can come to you if they think you're wrong?

Why can't you vet this publicly since you had absolutely no problem accusing me publicly? You're so absurd.
 
Fred said:
The twin studies are IMO the best evidence for some sort of predisposition.

Either way, its still highly contended in Academia, and not well understood (yet).

Fred, with all due respect, you're way too smart of a guy to perpetuate this. This line is key:

[url=http://www.geocities.com/smooth_velvett/homosex.html said:
Genetics & Homosexuality[/url]]It is this evidence from these three studies that will be analyzed at length, and it will be shown that while there is no scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is a directly inherited trait, there is indeed sufficient basis for the belief that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

Lock either of us in a room with a laptop and some numbers for a few hours and we can demonstrate a "genetic predisposition" to anything. I've seen 'research' which has shown genetic predispositions to basketball! The day I find an evolutionary biologist which asserts that there is a neo-Darwinian reason for evolved basketball superiority in the natural world is the day I frickin' die. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics afterall.
 
Oh please, he was being vague thats the point (Here inlies the problem). In order to be able to retract his implications later. I have shown him already how he implied a certain meaning, just as in this thread he implied his understand of biology is superior to that of vince without directly stating it.

What he is really asking for is a point by point reference to every implication he made. A task that would fill up this thread. I believe this to be inpart exactly what he is trying to do. Ergo i have told him to take this up with me on a personal level such that an actual discussion can take place here.

Ok he was being vague, this was his fault. I would still like the quotes please.
 
RussSchultz said:
HOT DAMN! THE 'NATURAL' DEBATE! COME ON GUYS! RE-RUNS ARE ON!

Heh, I got a shit load of pop corn for this one. I don't even want to bother. There is no gay gene yet that science knows about though and they will never find one. I don't think it is predetermined. That is all I have to say.. [/rant]
 
Vince said:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/smooth_velvett/homosex.html said:
Genetics & Homosexuality[/url]]It is this evidence from these three studies that will be analyzed at length, and it will be shown that while there is no scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is a directly inherited trait, there is indeed sufficient basis for the belief that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

Lock either of us in a room with a laptop and some numbers for a few hours and we can demonstrate a "genetic predisposition" to anything. I've seen 'research' which has shown genetic predispositions to basketball! The day I find an evolutionary biologist which asserts that there is a neo-Darwinian reason for evolved basketball superiority in the natural world is the day I frickin' die. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics afterall.

Why does it have to relate to basketball directly?

If you have a genetic predisposition to the following, you have a leg up on being a good basketball player. Actually a good athlete overall:

1) Density of twitch muscle fibers
2) Lung capacity
3) Hand-Eye coordination

If you notice, the greatest athletes have excelled in multiple sports. A few notables:

Michael Jordan: Pro Basketball (obviously), and Baseball (when he was a child)
Jim Brown: Pro Football, College Track and Field, College Baseball, College Lacrosse, etc etc etc
Jackie Joyner-Kersee: Heptathlete
Jim Thorpe: Football, Pro Baseball, Decathlete, Heptathlete
Bo Jackson: Pro Football, Pro Baseball

They probably all had a genetic predisposition to excelling in physical activity. That is certainly darwinian given the fact that in an evolutionary blink of an eye, we went from hunter-gatherer to technology.

Hell my doctors have all told me that I have an unusually low heart and breathing rate, as well as a abnormal level of hemoglobin in my blood. I played many sports in high school and have a high level of physical activity today, as my biological father did. Obviously not enough for me to reach a pro level, but certainly more than the "average joe".

So yes, you can have a genetic predisposition to basketball (or any sport for that matter), as it is a physical activity that is dependent on lung capacity, twitch muscle fibers for quick jumping and change of direction (or non-twitch muscle fibers good for endurance sports like long distance track), and hand-eye coordination for shooting, dribbling, and passing.

All these are genetic gifts that would have helped ensure your survival, and subsequently the survival of your DNA to the next generation, in a hunter-gatherer society. ;)
 
Sabastian said:
RussSchultz said:
HOT DAMN! THE 'NATURAL' DEBATE! COME ON GUYS! RE-RUNS ARE ON!

Heh, I got a shit load of pop corn for this one. I don't even want to bother. There is no gay gene yet that science knows about though and they will never find one. I don't think it is predetermined. That is all I have to say.. [/rant]

Hmm.. We will never fly. We will never split the atom. We will never break the sound barrier.

One thing I've found out in science is to never say never. ;)

p.s.: We will never break the light speed barrier. We will never travel in time. We will never find a "gay gene". Want to place a 400 year bet on those? :p
 
1) Iraq was capable of manufacturing it's own WMD

Please show me where i asserted you said this. Remember the topic of the conversation was Iraq's capacity to develope WMD and our involvment in their development by the provision of biology and chemical samples with direct intent. It is rather common knowledge now that Iraq did infact have the capacity to develop WMD. It has been said they had the most advanced chemical production capacity of all the middle east. My contention with your statements has mainly been over your assertions of common knowledge in the past. We hadn't the knowledge of the extent of Iraq's chemical capacities until well after 1990. Futhermore, nothing has been presented illustrating anything by private sector involvment.

I rightfully assumed when you stated Iraq's ownership of Chemical weapons you meant people knew of Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. I took this to be you saying with this knowledge we shouldn't have provided then chemicals which could be turned into weapons being that having chemical weapons some how implies a capacity to develope them. Hense i challenged this notion and to what degree these matters were common knowledge.

2) I would stay on topic

If i did infact accusse of you being off topic it was more than likely do to some vague comments you were making.

3) There is no difference between the lethal nature of Tear gas and Mustard Gas

Again, you provided a list which included Tear Gas and Mustard Gas in the same category. I contested this. Even if you were simply quoting from a list of known chemical weapons in Iraq's possession i'd still challenge the notion Mustard Gas and Tear Gas should be included in the same category of weaponry. Tear Gas, being nonlethal, hardly carries the same implications as Mustard Gas. Remembering that the original topic surrounded the transmission of chemical weapons (and or their precursors) know as WMD i'd say the inclusion of Tear Gas is a tad bit superfluous.

4) I made a differentiation between Nerve Gas and Chemical Weapons

I don't recall making this statement at all. You are going to have to show me where i said this. I recall stating your presented list of chemical weapons provided absolutely no differentiation between Nerve Gas and Chemical Weapons. I suggested tear gas should be classified differently and not included in the same list of threatening chemical weapons as Serin or Mustard Gas.

5) Information regarding Iraq's WMD programs in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before 1984, was viable

You stated during 1984 at least some of Iraq's WMD programs were common knowledge. You didn't imply as to whom it was commonly known so i assumed you were stating it was so to everyone including the public. I disagreed with your belief it was common knowledge and presented a quote from the author of your link who felt most of the information circulating wrt to the Iraqi WMD or their programs were mostly self contradictory post 1960. With that said i found it hard to believe people could have had a real idea of what Iraq had or their intentions when surrounded by media misrepresentations let alone the real picture be common knowledge.

Your link also provided at least one quote from a US governmental source stating the US gov was sure Iraq didn't have anything beyond tear gas IIRC. You replied wrt the quote the US gov could have been lying. Lying? Why would they have been lying if not to provide some general misinformation to provide for a cover up? Many others in this thread alone have accussed the US gov and many other western agencies of being involved in some form of chem weapons traficing, why should i have assumed anything but you suggesting the same? Again, why accuse them of lying if you believe they had no involvment?

6) Since I said "common knowledge", I meant civilians, even though I repeatedly spoke about the UN, i.e. common knowledge at the UN

Come now, you stated common knowledge on very vague terms. Even if certain programs were common knowledge to various UN nations i'd still assume some weren't convinced of the allegations that Iran made. Again the usage of chem weapons is a far cry from producing them. Even your linked article suggested the notion of Iraqi development was a possibility, but yet unconfirmed. The topic of this whole conversation has been around the traficing of various chemicals with the direct intent of providing Iraq precusors to WMD chemical weapons. A later portion of this debate surrounded issues of various agencies knowing this or that which were apparently evidence of Iraq's creation of WMD. This discussion fit directly into that portion of the debate. Note that the individual (IIRC Pax) i was debating with prior to Natoma appearance was making the suggestion that the very knowledge of Iraq's possession of chemical weapon was some how indicative of a governmental collusion. I took Natoma to be reinforcing this idea.

7) Other countries definitively manufactured WMD for Iraq

When did i accuse you of stating other countries definitively manufactured WMD of Iraq?

I recall stating your link suggested this may be a possibility though at that time an undetermined one.

I want quotes where I stated any of that. Not allegations of saying those things. Not implied meanings. Flat out quotes, just as I asked in that other thread. And you know what? I'm going to post this same post in the other thread to and take it out of this one.

What you are asking for are direct quotes of you stating these things word for word all the while knowing i stated you were vague and were implying certain things. What good would be providing you direct quotes when you would simply deny the implications stating you really meant something else? Am i ultimately a liar because i may have mistook your vague assertions to mean something they weren't intended to inlight of all previous discussions?

Just as Legion said I was referring to some "Anonymous Authority" earlier in this thread where I made no such statement,

Now this is a stretch:

a·non·y·mous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nn-ms)
adj.
Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: an anonymous author.
Having an unknown or withheld authorship or agency: an anonymous letter; an anonymous phone call.
Having no distinctive character or recognition factor: “a very great, almost anonymous center of people who just want peace†(Alan Paton).

Natoma was mentioning Howard Dean's educational factor as a valid reason to disregard Vince's statements above. We do not know anything about his man's knowledge or understanding of various elements of homosexuality or their psychological implications. These reasons are inpart why i stated Howard Dean was an "Anonymous Authority".

Since Natoma feels the need to try and point to some alleged misrepresentation i made of his statements in this thread i would like to point out an instance of Natoma's use of implication in my defense:

Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now? Yeah, I think I'll trust our interpretations much more than yours Vince, and leave it at that.

p.s.: I notice no commentary in the "Powell says no Al-Qaeda links with Iraq" thread I started yesterday. You were so sure about that one in the "it's getting drafty thread" as well vince. ;)

0-3 now? :p

After reading these statements from Natoma i took him to be suggesting his understanding/education of/in biology, as well as that of Dean's, to be superior to that of Vince's. Such an understanding of his statements comes from the way they read and the over all condescending nature of the whole post. You have only to look further up the page to see Natoma ridiculing another person's understanding of biology and ultimately all those whom agree with him. Needless to say i called him on this to which he later replied with these statements:

Uhm, first off I never said I knew more than Vince. I said that with my knowledge, and Doctor Dean's knowledge, I would take our interpretation over Vince's, especially considering Dean has been practicing for decades. He made a comment about my level of knowledge and I responded to that in particular.

Interestingly enough i wasn't the only one to make the same interpetation of Natoma's words:

Here is a quote from Silent_One

I was a biology student at the University of New Haven. The first year of General Biology 1 & 2, Chemistry 1 & 2, ect... the next year had Zoology, Organic 1 & 2, Micro biology, ect. Third year had Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy (loved the Cats!), Biochemistry, Genetics, ect...Pre-Med students did not differ too much in course selection, at least in the first two years. So, since you seem to believe your more qualfied than Vince tell us what courses did you take as a first year bio student???

Vince has related to me he also interpreted Natoma in the same fashion via AOL.

Are Silent_One and Vince guilty of lying and misrepresenting Natoma? Could there possibly be a valid reason why they'd interprit Natoma's words in such a fashion? Is it possible Natoma is simply attempting to retract his previous statements by being vague or suggestion some form of misrepresentation?

I want him to show me quotes where I made any of those 7 statements he said I made above.

Why, so you can deny all possible implications but the ones you choose? How will my possible misunderstanding (if there was infact a misunderstanding) be an indication of me lying?

This is precisely what I'm talking about. When Legion has nowhere to go, he brings out the "Well I'm not going to talk to you anymore." instead of backing up his claims with these supposed statements I made. :rolleyes:

If you take this to be an admittion of failure on my part then you open yourself up to the exact same scrutiny as well as others. If i were to scour the archieves of this webpage i would undoubtly find a similiar statement made by yourself indicating exactly what you are suggesting as well as possible disappearances from threads.

Could it be that I am being rather matter of fact with you Natoma? That you are making rather personal attacks against my character to which i feel should not be used to derail this thread? I provided you with many possibly media in which you can reach me. How can you possibly take my statements to be saying i refuse to speak to you? I simply refuse to waste time in this thread.

p.s.: Legion you made public accusations and statements attributed to me that I did not make.

Come now, i hardly called you anything akin to a liar in that other thread. Your take on me "accusing" you seems more to me a reflection of a misunderstanding you are choosing to exagerate.

Why should we take it to PM to resolve this? Why should you post your IM information so people can come to you if they think you're wrong?

Anyone of them can discuss these vary matters with me. I will even partake in a group chat conference. As i said before i provided you with media to reach me such that this thread wouldn't be derailed. I am not dodging answering your allegations.

Why can't you vet this publicly since you had absolutely no problem accusing me publicly? You're so absurd.

Lol, I have agreed to appear in a chat conference to with you. Is this not public? Again you over exaggerate my statements to be accussations applying some form of insidious emphasis that simply wasn't present in my posts. Yet you come out publically and accusse me of lying when it is clear i did anything but that. Yours' is a personal attack. One you propegate for sake of bolstering your ego.
 
Don't worry. I'm providing everything for you since you're too lazy to do so. I can't deny what is on written record can I?
 
Natoma said:
Don't worry. I'm providing everything for you since you're too lazy to do so. I can't deny what is on written record can I?

Laziness has nothing to do with it. This is an act of futility. I simply will not go about statement to statement explaining what i was thinking and why at the time i made them. More than a few quotes reflect my interpretation of your words.
 
I've already finished Legion. I've posted all of the quotes where you made your accusations and attributions. Couldn't find anywhere I made statements for you to make your accusations.

Feel free to find them. I sure couldn't. And you'll notice there's no "last edited by" in any comment recently, just in case there's some paranoid "Oh well you just removed it!" comment from you in desperation.

Now on to the things that matter to this thread.
 
Natoma said:
I've already finished Legion. I've posted all of the quotes where you made your accusations and attributions. Couldn't find anywhere I made statements for you to make your accusations.

And i have responded accordingly. I think we may have been misunderstanding each other by not being more percise.

Feel free to find them. I sure couldn't. And you'll notice there's no "last edited by" in any comment recently, just in case there's some paranoid "Oh well you just removed it!" comment from you in desperation.

Oh don't worry Natoma. i explained my position as far as i can remember at the time. No desperation here. Just a little aggitation at your willingness to jump to conclusions that i was lying about what you were saying when in fact i may have been misunderstanding you. Are you willing to apologize for accussing me of lying. It was rather quick of you to jump to such a conclusion.

Now on to the things that matter to this thread.


Like replying to Vince's statements? :D
 
Legion said:
Natoma said:
Just as Legion said I was referring to some "Anonymous Authority" earlier in this thread where I made no such statement,

Now this is a stretch:

a·non·y·mous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nn-ms)
adj.
Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: an anonymous author.
Having an unknown or withheld authorship or agency: an anonymous letter; an anonymous phone call.
Having no distinctive character or recognition factor: “a very great, almost anonymous center of people who just want peaceâ€￾ (Alan Paton).

Natoma was mentioning Howard Dean's educational factor as a valid reason to disregard Vince's statements above. We do not know anything about his man's knowledge or understanding of various elements of homosexuality or their psychological implications. These reasons are inpart why i stated Howard Dean was an "Anonymous Authority".

Hmm. Howard Dean has practiced medicine for years is all I stated, with the implication that he finished medical school. I stated my own educational factor on top of that. Dean made a statement that I agreed with. Yet he's an "anonymous authority". Yeah.... :?

Legion said:
Since Natoma feels the need to try and point to some alleged misrepresentation i made of his statements in this thread i would like to point out an instance of Natoma's use of implication in my defense:

Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now? Yeah, I think I'll trust our interpretations much more than yours Vince, and leave it at that.

p.s.: I notice no commentary in the "Powell says no Al-Qaeda links with Iraq" thread I started yesterday. You were so sure about that one in the "it's getting drafty thread" as well vince. ;)

0-3 now? :p

After reading these statements from Natoma i took him to be suggesting his understanding/education of/in biology, as well as that of Dean's, to be superior to that of Vince's. Such an understanding of his statements comes from the way they read and the over all condescending nature of the whole post. You have only to look further up the page to see Natoma ridiculing another person's understanding of biology and ultimately all those whom agree with him.

Actually, as I stated earlier, Vince made a comment that I was at a freshman high school level, to which I replied that I had actually studied through my freshman year. You did read the part of Vince's post that I quoted right?

If not, this is what he wrote:

Vince said:
Oh, right, criticize others for their understanding of Biology when yours is on par with a freshmen in High school.

to which I responded

Natoma said:
Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now?

meaning what? my level of knowledge is higher than some freshman in high school. And after that, I said that Dean has been practicing for decades, and I agreed with his assessment. Now because of Doctor Dean's experience in the field of medicine, and my own education on the matter, I said that I trusted our opinion on the matter more than Vince's.

And when did I ridicule the guy who wrote the article? When he stated that Howard Dean was obviously advocating the existence of a "gay gene" which was not the case at all.

This is what I wrote, full context:

Natoma said:
He never said that there is a "Gay Gene" that some have and others don't. Whoever wrote the article doesn't understand biology it seems since they extrapolated that meaning.

What meaning did they extrapolate that I was ridiculing? That Howard Dean was advocating the existance of a "Gay Gene". But this is of course if you read in context Legion.

Legion said:
Needless to say i called him on this to which he later replied with these statements:

Uhm, first off I never said I knew more than Vince. I said that with my knowledge, and Doctor Dean's knowledge, I would take our interpretation over Vince's, especially considering Dean has been practicing for decades. He made a comment about my level of knowledge and I responded to that in particular.

And I have been quite consistent in that regard, but you just dismiss it nonetheless. Anyways.....

Legion said:
Interestingly enough i wasn't the only one to make the same interpetation of Natoma's words:

Here is a quote from Silent_One

I was a biology student at the University of New Haven. The first year of General Biology 1 & 2, Chemistry 1 & 2, ect... the next year had Zoology, Organic 1 & 2, Micro biology, ect. Third year had Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy (loved the Cats!), Biochemistry, Genetics, ect...Pre-Med students did not differ too much in course selection, at least in the first two years. So, since you seem to believe your more qualfied than Vince tell us what courses did you take as a first year bio student???

Vince has related to me he also interpreted Natoma in the same fashion via AOL.

Are Silent_One and Vince guilty of lying and misrepresenting Natoma? Could there possibly be a valid reason why they'd interprit Natoma's words in such a fashion? Is it possible Natoma is simply attempting to retract his previous statements by being vague or suggestion some form of misrepresentation?

I responded to Vince in pm regarding the comments and told him that my response was in regard to his "high school" comment, with a ;). He didn't continue to assert that I was trying to say I "knew more than him", and Silent_One hasn't said anything either.

There is a difference between making an assumption and having it cleared up, then letting it go, and making an assumption, having it cleared up, then making another assumption, having that cleared up, then making yet another assumption, then having that cleared up, then making yet another assumption. All just to dodge the original questions. That is what you did in the other thread back-to-back-to-back-to-back. That is why I was so upset.

Can't support one claim? Just make another. Can't support that claim either? Just create another. What? That one is unsupportable too? Let's just make another one up. And when the other person gets upset? Just say you're going to ignore them because obviously they're trying to make everything vague and indecipherable, even when they're trying to clear the air. :rolleyes:
 
Legion said:
Natoma said:
I've already finished Legion. I've posted all of the quotes where you made your accusations and attributions. Couldn't find anywhere I made statements for you to make your accusations.

And i have responded accordingly. I think we may have been misunderstanding each other by not being more percise.

You made quite precise statements that you attributed to me. When I said no I didn't, and asked you to please find where I did, you moved on to another baseless attributed statement. When I said no I didn't to that one, and asked you to please find where I did, you moved on to yet another baseless attributed statement.

Obviously discussion can bog down quite quickly if that happens back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back.

Legion said:
Feel free to find them. I sure couldn't. And you'll notice there's no "last edited by" in any comment recently, just in case there's some paranoid "Oh well you just removed it!" comment from you in desperation.

Oh don't worry Natoma. i explained my position as far as i can remember at the time. No desperation here. Just a little aggitation at your willingness to jump to conclusions that i was lying about what you were saying when in fact i may have been misunderstanding you. Are you willing to apologize for accussing me of lying. It was rather quick of you to jump to such a conclusion.

I didn't do it quickly. It took about 5 of your accusations one after another for me to get to that point.

Legion said:
Now on to the things that matter to this thread.


Like replying to Vince's statements? :D

Oh I responded to his statements a little up this page. Though I don't expect him to die. ;)
 
Hmm. Howard Dean has practiced medicine for years is all I stated, with the implication that he finished medical school. I stated my own educational factor on top of that. Dean made a statement that I agreed with. Yet he's an "anonymous authority". Yeah.... :?

Did you read what i stated? His educational factor wrt to homosexuality and its psychological facots are things unkown to us. So yes i was correct in saying the definition in bold of anonymous does apply.

Actually, as I stated earlier, Vince made a comment that I was at a freshman high school level, to which I replied that I had actually studied through my freshman year. You did read the part of Vince's post that I quoted right?

Here is the full quote.

Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now? Yeah, I think I'll trust our interpretations much more than yours Vince, and leave it at that.

p.s.: I notice no commentary in the "Powell says no Al-Qaeda links with Iraq" thread I started yesterday. You were so sure about that one in the "it's getting drafty thread" as well vince

meaning what? my level of knowledge is higher than some freshman in high school.

I took it to mean you were implying your understanding was superior to his following the over all condecending nature of the post.

And after that, I said that Dean has been practicing for decades, and I agreed with his assessment. Now because of Doctor Dean's experience in the field of medicine, and my own education on the matter, I said that I trusted our opinion on the matter more than Vince's.

His experience in the field doesn't equate him him being correct in his thinking. There are many just like him who disagree with with the very notions of orienation predetermination. Neither are correct simply because they have been practicing medicine for a while

I responded to Vince in pm regarding the comments and told him that my response was in regard to his "high school" comment, with a ;). He didn't continue to assert that I was trying to say I "knew more than him", and Silent_One hasn't said anything either.

Vince has told me quite the opposite accord in PMs and Silent One hasn't been here to respond. This hardly disregards the reasoning for their interpretations.

You may have infact meant exactly what you just said. I pointed out out the possible interpretations of what you said by them to suggest they may interprit something the opposite of what you intended without being a liar.

There is a difference between making an assumption and having it cleared up, then letting it go, and making an assumption, having it cleared up, then making another assumption, having that cleared up, then making yet another assumption, then having that cleared up, then making yet another assumption. All just to dodge the original questions. That is what you did in the other thread back-to-back-to-back-to-back. That is why I was so upset.

It seems to me that you misunderstood a lot of what i said as well. Yet i didn't accuse you of lying. Now that you know it was a misunderstanding will you apologize for accusing me of lying when i clearly was not?

Can't support one claim? Just make another. Can't support that claim either? Just create another. What? That one is unsupportable too? Let's just make another one up. And when the other person gets upset? Just say you're going to ignore them because obviously they're trying to make everything vague and indecipherable, even when they're trying to clear the air. :rolleyes:

Right, clearing the air by accusing another of lying while making many misinterpretations of what the other individual was saying himself. All the while demanding evidence for exaggerated claims and making a scene.
 
You made quite precise statements that you attributed to me. When I said no I didn't, and asked you to please find where I did, you moved on to another baseless attributed statement.When I said no I didn't to that one, and asked you to please find where I did, you moved on to yet another baseless attributed statement.

Much like you did with your assertion that i stated you stated other countries provided Iraq with WMDs? Come now Natoma. My statements were hardly baseless and i have provided justifications for my reasonings.

Obviously discussion can bog down quite quickly if that happens back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back.

Of course, and it was complicated by your contribution to it as well as accusing me of lying when i was infact not.

I didn't do it quickly. It took about 5 of your accusations one after another for me to get to that point.

As did you misunderstanding which compounded your own frustrations which lead you to believe i was accusing you of something.

Oh I responded to his statements a little up this page. Though I don't expect him to die. ;)

well i will have to look and see.

Now that i have responded to your allegations shall we continue on with the topic of this thread and take any further discussions to Yahoo, AIM, or MSN? I personally feel no need to hide behind barrier that is this forum when personal matters are concerned. If you wish to continue this i am more than willing to speak to you in voice chat about it on Yahoo. I have already tried several times tonight to reach you via your instant messaging services. If you wish to continue this discussion further we can discuss it via those media. Feel free to pm me tomorrow. I will be looking forward to discussing this with you. If infact i miss you i will try again to reach you. The best time to reach me will be around 8:00 PM or later EST. Remember, you have the capacity to save/record your conversations via the media presented if you so choose to use it later.
 
Back
Top