Badlyshavedmonkey equation is dissproved!

Hans your tone is a commanding tone, a General is ordering to his sepoy. If you will not do it then I will do it this and that.... You are behaving like a cat who is a lion at home. :D

I will explain it further and will also point out various locations where randi forum given the statement but before that edit your threating mail.

when you remove my signature then also remove the signature of rolfe. That statement is totally wrong.
 
Dr. Sheikh, you have promised to prove homoeopathy works or to permanently cease practicing it. If you wish to take the first step towards keeping your promise, there's a thread here for you to post your proposed protocol.

Off you go.
 
Dr. A Sheikh said:
Hans your tone is a commanding tone, a General is ordering to his sepoy. If you will not do it then I will do it this and that.... You are behaving like a cat who is a lion at home. :D

I will explain it further and will also point out various locations where randi forum given the statement but before that edit your threating mail.

when you remove my signature then also remove the signature of rolfe. That statement is totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the derail, but Dr Sheikh (or may I just call you A?), can you post a good recipe for homeopathic chile? You see, the football games are on this afternoon, and I'd like to make a batch to enjoy. Thanks!

OK, now back to this: :hb:
 
Dr. A Sheikh said:
I will explain it further and will also point out various locations where randi forum given the statement but before that edit your threating mail.
Click to expand...
Why? Here is your chance to prove yourself. It's difficult to imagine why you would put a roadblock up to yourself.
 
Rolfe's sig is not only entirely true, it contains a link to the H'pathy forum pages which demonstrate clearly just how true it is.

Sheikh, nobody has ever said that 1X preparations are incapable of having any physiological effect, or that a "1X" preparation of a recognised medicine will not have exactly the same effect as a 10% solution. If I'm wrong about this, how about a link?

(What has been said of course is that just because it's possible that a 1X or 10% preparation might have a physiological effect, that doesn't prove that such a preparation of any substance whatever will have such an effect, or that any homoeopathic claim of cure is justified. Personally, I don't think Sheikh is bright enough to tell the difference between those statements.)

Rolfe. (So happy the sig line is having its desired effect, you know.)
 
Rolfe said:
Rolfe's sig is not only entirely true, it contains a link to the H'pathy forum pages which demonstrate clearly just how true it is.

Sheikh, nobody has ever said that 1X preparations are incapable of having any physiological effect, or that a "1X" preparation of a recognised medicine will not have exactly the same effect as a 10% solution. If I'm wrong about this, how about a link?

(What has been said of course is that just because it's possible that a 1X or 10% preparation might have a physiological effect, that doesn't prove that such a preparation of any substance whatever will have such an effect, or that any homoeopathic claim of cure is justified. Personally, I don't think Sheikh is bright enough to tell the difference between those statements.)

Rolfe. (So happy the sig line is having its desired effect, you know.)
Click to expand...

Your link does not go to hpathy forum. This is also wrong.

In your statement you first denied my sig statement and you also accepted in the next para.
 
No, actually the link does not go to the H'pathy forum, but to a saved copy at another place. Probably the original damaging post has been removed, and has been preserved for posterity at this place.

I am sure it is not faked, but the trustworthiness is definitely lowered when it is not hosted at the original site.
 
ReFLeX found it in about two minutes, here. Simply scroll down to the 16th post on the thread, or search the page for the word "mistake" (Sheikh, if you're using Internet Explorer, click on edit and select Find (on This Page); other browsers should work in a similar way).
 
Clarification. The original link went to the H'pathy thread, but at some point it was found to be broken. I thought it had been emiminated by Stalin's airbrush, and repaired it with a link to a saved copy. However, it appears that the thread is still there, it was just moved. It looks a lot different, but it is the same text.

Sheikh seems smart enough when it suits him. So where is the problem with understanding the calculations that demonstrate Avogadro's limit?

(By the way, does anyone know if the "Seven week old young cows dying" thread is still there in any shape or form? That was a cracker.)

Rolfe.
 
Dr. A Sheikh said:
Your link does not go to hpathy forum. This is also wrong.

In your statement you first denied my sig statement and you also accepted in the next para.
Click to expand...
A link has been given to the same thread on the H'pathy forum. Do you still have a problem with this?

Now, I explained why what you say in your sig is wrong, and I explained what the real position is. I then remarked that I didn't think you were bright enough to tell the difference. You seem to have proved me right on that.

I'll try it again, as I'm bored.

Many, indeed most proven drugs have an effect in a 10% solution. It doesn't matter if you call this 1X, the effect is still the same. This does not prove that any random substance whatsoever will have an effect in a 10% solution. It also does not prove that any effect any random substance may have at any concentration will cure disease.

If you still claim not to understand that, you are a troll.

Rolfe.
 
Main difference is that one of the links - the link to Snoopy's ghastly essay where she exhorts people to "consult a homoeopath first" rather than be poisoned, burned, maimed and relieved of their lives' savings by people who actually have the education to recognise things like Addison's disease - has also changed. In the re-posted version I edited the link in my post so that it still gets you the article, while of course the link in the original post is now dead. And that article is an eye-opener and a half, revealing Snoopy as an arrogant, ignorant uneducated wannabee. For this reason, I'm hesitant to revert back to linking to the H'pathy site.

Oh yes, and I fixed a typo. Shocking, ain't it?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Main difference is that one of the links - the link to Snoopy's ghastly essay where she exhorts people to "consult a homoeopath first" rather than be poisoned, burned, maimed and relieved of their lives' savings by people who actually have the education to recognise things like Addison's disease - has also changed. In the re-posted version I edited the link in my post so that it still gets you the article, while of course the link in the original post is now dead. And that article is an eye-opener and a half, revealing Snoopy as an arrogant, ignorant uneducated wannabee. For this reason, I'm hesitant to revert back to linking to the H'pathy site.

Oh yes, and I fixed a typo. Shocking, ain't it?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

The irony of that thread was that Rolfe was entirely guiltless in the whole affair; she did not try to bait a trap for the homeopaths to answer. The homeopaths dug the pit, laid the stakes, and fell into the pit all by their own efforts.
 
The thread only went on as long as it did because it happened to be the 4th of July, and JanZy (who is Merikan) was otherwise engaged.

Actually, looking at the current version of Snoopy's sickening and ignorant article, I think she changed it a bit after the Addison's episode - I don't think the acknowledgement that
it really is a good idea to get a proper medical diagnosis
Click to expand...
was there originally. Of course this is first of all entirely contrary to all the principles of homoeopathy, where diagnosis is held to be irrelevant and indeed impossible to achieve. It also makes a nonsense of her basic argument, which is that patients should go to a homoeopath first. Oh yes, so where are they supposed to get that diagnosis from in that case?

I suspect a bit of butt-covering, as a result of realising she really could be liable for serious damages in real life.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
You do realise that it's exactly the same text as at hpathy, don't you?
Click to expand...

It means i pointed out correctly. that was not hpathy forum. Actually a site having hpathy copied thread which may or may not have exact copy.

rolfe you change your signature and clarify it in bold.

You know just like I got the impression, the same other can also take it in the same way.

This is not fair. you must clearly indicate it if you have some ethics of presenting facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom