Re: Diversion tactics
Posted by Mike B. on 2/15/08
So, you're willing to defend your statement based upon "the paper
and the transcripts" even though there has been a finding by a
court which says that the doctor did not alter his testimony?
You are willing to defend your statement even though you had
knowledge of, and even commented on, that court's finding?
Remember, it was posted on here by me sometime back, and all the
Sharon supporters (including you)made comments?
On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
> I read the paper and the transcripts, did you?
> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>> Wow. You may get your chance to be like Sharon.
>> You made this statement yesterday:
>> "Do you really think that any statement made by Sharon
>> regarding alteration of testimony, which the good doc
>> What is YOUR proof to back up your statement that the doctor
>> altered his testimony?
>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>> I guess Sharon is used to the tactics now. This is the
>>> price that a decent person pays for having the courage and
>>> backbone to stand up to such a horrendous atrocity that
>>> impacts every one in this country regardless of any SES
>>> considerations save ability to seek help when one finally
>>> discovers that mold is making them or their loved ones ill.
>>> Attacking for one word, I believe it was "substantially",
>>> not the altered part, to deflect the greater outrage that
>>> the entire premise for the promulgated paper was based on
>>> one faulty rodent study and reached conclusions that are not
>>> supported by other lofty organizations.
>>> What Sharon has done as an advocate is admirable, what her
>>> detractors have done is despicable. Perhaps they think
>>> everyone will conveniently "forget" their serious
>>> transgressions if they keep hammering on her for the use of
>>> an adjective; guess it depends on what your definition of
>>> "substantially" is.
Posts on this thread, including this one