On 30 Oct 1998 04:22:37 GMT, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever)
wrote:
>In <36392ac7.273972053 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>>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"
Sure, I'm that naive. Everyone that I know of, besides you that is,
searches for a "site" to reference on Medline. By the way, is Pubmed
o.k. by you for my search engine?
>>>(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?
>>>"John Burgin" replieds (in part):
>>>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?
>>Can't be a very rigorous board exam.
Boy did you screw up now. This is going straight to the board
certification people, and I'm sure they WON'T be happy. You'll
probably get a call from them tomorrow. Now you're indicting the
board certification program, the very same certification program that
determines the qualification for a pathologist to determine the type
and staging for a malignancy that has a tiny bit of relevance in day
to day life, kind of like, being HIV + or having AIDS and not just
being found to have an AIDS indicator disease and being HIV-.
May be adequate for the basics of
>clinical practice, but evidently not for cutting edge
You may just be the recipient of the rapier itself by your boorish
arrogance.
of research (not
>even cutting edge, given that one review article was published in 1982,
>if I recall correctly). Maybe you do not pick your associates wisely
Now you're starting to alienate the very people that you need to
bolster up this bean bag science that you practice.
,
>if they are so ignorant of current literature.
Ooh, I think they heard that!
Well, no, maybe you do
>pick them wisely, for your narrow purpose: finding someone on your own
>level
I assure you, if I've heard of something like "enhancing" antibodies
before they have, they are definitely not on my level.
, unable to criticize your obvious lack of critical thinking or
>objective reading.
So, just who will then qualify to criticize my obvious lack of
critical thinking or objective reading, YOU?
You're not that impressive, you don't even know what spontaneous
generation is. jb
>>On the other hand, maybe these board-certified professionals are
>fictions. Either deliberate fictions (i.e. lies) or "all in your
>head".
>>F. LeFever
>
