On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:10:57 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
Bosch) wrote:
>In article <363a0b6e.331491986 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:05:29 -0700, marnix at u.washington.edu (Marnix L.
>> Bosch) wrote:
>>>> >In article <36392ac7.273972053 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 29 Oct 1998 03:48:12 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I've tried to clear away some of the clutter. "John Burgin" ridiculed
>> >> >the terrm "enhancing antibodies" as unheard of, claimed it could not be
>> >> >found in a Medline search. Bosch easily found it (400 or so articles
>> >> >used it in title or abstract, and about 10% of these did so in the
>> >> >context of AIDS).
>> >> >
>> >> >Whereupon "John Burgin" challenges him ("big boy") to show him some
>> >> >"sites". Is it just a matter of mis-spelling, or is he really so naive
>> >> >as to think one goes to Medline to find websites? If he means "cites"
>> >> >(as a vulgar abbreviation for "citations"), why doesn't he ask how to
>> >> >do the Medline search properly and read a few of the articles cited?
>> >>
>> >> F., I'm not naive enough to waste my time searching through a mountain
>> >> of b.s. for "enhancing" antibodies when medical pathologists who have
>> >> just finished their board exams(successfully I might add) don't recall
>> >> even a question on their exam or reference to such terms. Can't be
>> >> very important now can it? Ever read the book by Stephen Hawking, "A
>> >> Brief History of Time". Make any sense to you, big boy? Understand
>> >> String Theory, smart guy? Or, is it more likely that you spend your
>> >> entire life smelling like the lab you grow old in and don't have a
>> >> clue about anything outside of your lab coat. Page 10, first
>> >> paragraph. jb
>> >
>> >At least you yourself now indicate that a search for knowledge is not why
>> >you came to this newsgroup. You were shown to be plain wrong and pointed
>> >into the direction where you might learn more about a subject that in your
>> >gross ignorance you feel perfectly comfortable posting about. I can see
>> >the tears welling up in your eyes while you stamp with your foot on the
>> >floor muttering 'I am right, I am right, I am right !'.
>> >
>> >Marnix Bosch
>> Back to the same old Marnix. I missed you, guy! No foot stamping
>> here, just the steady, methodical, unending pursuit of the truth which
>> you and Bill Clinton seem to be so inescapably void of. jb
>>I think my characterization of your reactions is rather mild compared to
>what you tend to produce here.
You mean, I'm having an effect upon you? Why, thank you Marnix!
But perhaps I was a little harsh,
Well, there were a few times I almost reached for my kleenex.
I'll let
>others be the judge of that. If you feel fit to parrot that antibodies
>signify protection and can't be bothered to look up citations that clearly
>demonstrate the contrary we don't even have to question your motives, do
>we ?
And just what do you suppose that my motives could be? I kind of feel
like I'm the last man in the Alamo(but that always mutates into more
like me, kind of like HIV, to use a parody). When I come across
something that you use, like "enhancing" antibodies I stop, put my
finger to my chin, and ask out loud, who could help me with this. But
you know, I'll bet if God himself would tell you that I was right,
you'd still spin off into molecular biological butter and go babbling
about trying to put your fingers in all of the holes in the AIDS
dogma.
All we know is that while it may be steady, it's not methodical and
>has little to do with pursuit of the truth.
Whose getting paid for this, me or you? Ergo, who has the correct
incentives to be objective? Uh-huh, thought you'd understand that.jb
>>Marnix Bosch
