Re: WHAT A SMELLY WORLD! ff
Posted by ff on 4/17/04
Not being argumentative, but that's not what I said. I reached
a "broad conclusion" regarding many issues, and my personal
experiences support that conlclusion as well. I'm not saying this
based on personal experience. ot's the other way around.
I'd have to agree, that as framed, your cop out allegation likely has
merit. My statement, however, does not meet you criteria for a cop
out. GWI, Pfiesteira (PEAS), and others, were referenced.
As for being right, even some of the time - just joking. I get
criticised for it, but I do respect your position.
Have a good weekend.
On 4/17/04, mary wrote:
> Goofing off is good. Let's come back to this key point you made:
> "...only those that have experienced it can understand or believe
> If you say this based on personal experience, well okay, but I think
> you should distinguish that from a broader conclusion. I've never
> been shot in the leg, but I believe it can be very painful and
> scary. (I've shot myself in the foot a few times, but that is a
> different issue...) I've had plenty of pain before, so I can relate
> to that. I've had blood flowing from wounds, so I know what that is
> like. As I've told you before, I'm allergic to mold, and I have
> asthma, so I know what that is like. So, my point is, I think it is
> wrong to assume that others cannot relate to your experience. Now,
> this isn't really a big deal for me, it is just that I see way too
> many people here saying things like, 'well until you've experienced
> it, you don't know/can't comment. That's a cop out, and I think it
> reduces the credibility of the person saying it. Here, I will give
> you a variation on the theme for your amusement: "The complainers on
> this board can't relate to being right all the time like me until
> they have experienced it."
> Wishing you the best on a nice weekend,
>>> Okay, now what is your basis for this statement? We see things
>>> like this all the time here, but no factual support is offered.
>>> Have you done some research on this? Have studies been
>>> published? A survey perhaps? Is this something that can be, or
>>> has been, quantified? I know you embrace the scientific method,
>>> so let's hear more about this please.
>>> Best Spring Regards and hope the day finds you well.
>>> On 4/13/04, ff wrote:
>>>> Yeah, it says a lot. I've always said that as many
>>>> individuals experience environmental illnesses, it's their
>>>> first time of entering into other disciplines, fields of
>>>> expertise, science, whatever. Each one of these individuals
>>>> sounds nuts. In total, as a 'group' they discredit and
>>>> destroy hope of credible, capable scientists ever gaining
>>>> legitimate interest in the subject.
>>>> Another complicating factor is that, as legitimate as it may
>>>> be, only those that have experienced it can understand or
>>>> believe it.
>>>> Finally, it goes back to cause and effect, and the lack of any
>>>> hope of immediate feedback. If people fell over dead every
>>>> time they had an exposure (the same exposure), or fell over
>>>> dead everytime thay walked into the same building, it would
>>>> not be long before they concluded "something" was present and
>>>> it will kill you. With MCS, mold, etc., most affected people
>>>> look OK to everyone else, they're not falling over dead.
>>>> Compare it to a severe automobile accident, and rolling he
>>>> victim into the courtroom all mangled up, in traction, limbs
>>>> missing, etc. Now that's something that can easily be seen -
>>>> "Oh my God, look at that poor injured person, damn near dead"
>>>> OK Mary, it's easy to see why an ambulance chaser could be all
>>>> that's required to win big in PI cases.
Posts on this thread, including this one