Re: Caoimhin: An issue and an audience = opportunity
Posted by Deborah D. on 1/20/04
do any of you remember the rule about playground bullies? if you
ignore them, they will finally go away. they thrive on attention,
any attention, even if it is negative. the more often he sees his
name in print, the bigger his thrill; the more often others see it,
the more often they will remember it, but not necessarily what he had
to say right or wrong. don't all of you get tired of helping this
to put closure in this matter, does anyone know of any cases that
Connell testified in? if so, please direct me to them as I would
like to see his 'expert' testimony.
On 1/08/04, ff wrote:
> Applying the Deputy Dawg analogy, did Deputy Dawg ever see the
> need to exhibit professional conduct or follow procedure when
> drawing his weapon? I know this analogy is a good one because Mr.
> Connell commented that he enjoyed people shooting their feet, it
> saved him work.
> I would say he is hardly a scientist, possessing some knowledge
> does not make one a scientist. Trying to force convenient bits
> and pieces that he likes into something useable towards reaching
> the conclusion he demands, is that science?
> On 1/08/04, johncodie wrote:
>> It really is this simple Frank.
>> How many scientist do you know that have ever been able to give
>> press release that has'nt previously been cleared by the
>> On 1/08/04, ff wrote:
>>> It is probably that simple. I doubt that right or wrong, good
>>> science or bad science matters. Taking a position in a
>>> controversial issue which offers an audience, best explains
>>> what is seen here.
>>> On 1/08/04, john codie wrote:
>>>> The membership that gives him credibility has been trying to
>>>> get him to conform to the guidelines that the EPA, New York
>>>> Department Of Health has recommended for ripout. He has
>>>> already gone on record in public form with informing his
>>>> memberships president how wrong they all are, and that mold
>>>> is not a problem, and should not be ripped out. I don't
>>>> if you could call him an outcast since he is in a world of
>>>> his own, but since he has no independent degrees with his
>>>> name on them, sheep skins; he depends upon his associations
>>>> to groups to justify what he sees as his credentials. Who
>>>> awarded the man his credentials? They are figments in his
>>>> own imagination. Most all hollywood actors are gifted in
>>>> protraying their characters as a deeply religious man or
>>>> women can protray, a druken salior, or halot of the night.
>>>> We understand it is their job, and their job is to
>>>> entertain. Same is true for Caoimhin, he is an actor, or
>>>> clown as he protrays his character as this great scientist
>>>> wonderful knowledge. He can probably come across in the
>>>> field as superman. His problem he never picked up the
>>>> nor the skills to put 2 plus 2 together to come up with
>>>> four. He might be able to work some problems in statistics
>>>> but we all know that that math can be manipulated by either
>>>> including data, or excluding data to skew the precived
>>>> problem, or conditions. Look real close to see if his IH
>>>> degree if there is one is certifed by the state of Colorado
>>>> to be practicing what he is preaching on the internet. I
>>>> believe that is why he is working for a converted scientist
>>>> that recently became a member of the American Board of
>>>> Toxicology. As much as we have found the man in error
>>>> concerning his other preceived areas of expertise, and he
>>>> still desparatly needs to validate his character on this
>>>> board. I have a diagnosis of his condition. It is called
>>>> the Joe Newman Conolly syndrome. Do a public seach of Joe
>>>> Newman, and you can see the similar traits in the actor gone
>>>> On 1/07/04, Fed up with the Caoimhin's of the world wrote:
>>>>> I have spent the last six months searching the internet
>>>>> (and other sources)to gain information on "toxic mold". I
>>>>> have encountered several chat boards that address "toxic
>>>>> mold". It seems Mr. Connell thinks it is his own
>>>>> personnel mission to argue with anyone on the Internet
>>>>> that believes in "toxic mold". I have found him on
>>>>> several sites and each time he is saying that "we" are all
>>>>> wrong and he is right. I question someone's motives (and
>>>>> hidden agenda) who goes to such great lenghts.
>>>>> Also, he must be an outcast in his own profession because
>>>>> in September 2003, Industrial Hygentist's in the U.S.
>>>>> ackowledged the existent of "toxic mold" and adopted
>>>>> guidelines to deal with it.
Posts on this thread, including this one