Re: To Shroom - Concerned About Comments!

Hello again, Shroom.

As it can be read on the relevant post, my apologies to you on a personal level -and if and where they apply- have been submitted adequately, I think. According to your own expression you seem to be satisfied with the post. Also, a few days have passed since those posts in question were submitted, so maybe now it's a good time to continue analyzing them objectively a bit further, so that truthful information can be derived from them, from all of them.

First of all, I propose to resume actions where they'd been 'paused'.
Let's do so by examining this one post of yours, the one I had not examined at the time when this 'pause' occurred: [Please remember that this is not an examination on a personal level. This has nothing to do with sensibilities, I hope you [finally] understand]



So, we begin:

Re:
"
Apxer. I must say I am a little disappointed at the character assassination coming from you.
"

'Character assassination'. I think that's a "device" used in politics and by 'scoundrels' in the communications business, often at the service of politicians. I want nothing to do with politics, and this is not about politics or related filth either; far from it, it's about Truth, at least from my point of view it is.








"
I am sorry I don't have a PHD
"

Why feel sorry about it?








"
but do have a right to post my opinions about personal observations.
"

If you read my post(s) carefully, I believe I say the same thing, so it seems like we agree on this [Please note the words "personal observations" that you use correctly in this context]. Therefore, wherever "personal observations" pertain, none of my posts have anything do to with you or with anyone, I repeat.

However -I also repeat again-, anywhere where those very "personal observations" are displayed by anyone including yourself as if they were facts coming from an authority in the field -when in fact they're just "personal observations" made by an amateur, as in your case it seems evident that you are-, my posts are relevant and I stand by each word written until proven at fault, of course. In such case, I'd be ready as I am now to apologize properly and to correct my actions where necessary.










"
Am I 100% right all of the time? No. Is anybody?
"

This argument -I think- doesn't excuse you for misleading anyone, Shroom. If you feel that it does, please let's discuss it openly for everyone else to consider.

[By the way and for everyone's information, that argument above sounds like a weak form of an argument of logic known as 'Reductio ad Absurdum', an 'Informal Fallacy' of sorts. In it, you seek to prove me wrong by twisting the reasoning so that mine appears to be ridiculous or absurd because that truthful statement you're providing above is not. "Therefore" the logic goes "if the statement above is True, then Shroom is right and I can't be because he is". Doesn't work, Shroom, never has for about a thousand years, perhaps a bit more]











"
In the case of my review of the micrographs, I may have over-stepped some boundaries.
"

You "may have"? I don't think so. It seems that in fact you did, according to the owner of the Micrographs' own words. In my opinion, Shroom, and also in the opinions of others, you did "over-step [not just] some boundaries", and you should acknowledge it affirmatively.









"
I made my apologies, and expected to move on.
"

I believe that's not accurate. I may be mistaken, but I believe that I haven't seen any appropriate and/or polite apologies anywhere from you to those involved.







"
You made references to my ideas as sounding adolescent, yet you sounded off like a school child tossing insults and sanctimonious accusations not unlike a bully.
"

I think that could be questionable, Shroom. Your ideas, some of them, DO sound adolescent ["as from a teenager's mind", much like I put it], because they ARE immature ['Adolescent' also means 'immature'].

This display of immaturity of ideas that you show is evident on many of your posts, or so it seems. If in fact that's the way it is, then "my references to your ideas" are in fact correct, or they appear to be. You may try hard, Shroom, but hard is not enough in these matters of Life and Death. Many of those ideas of yours are immature or they appear to be so. That is a Fact.



In the same sentence above, you continue to say that I sound like "a school child tossing insults and [?] accusations not unlike a bully". Let's examine that latter part of the sentence one expression at a time, please:


You said: "you sounded off like a school child".

I think, Shroom, that any adult that reads these forums should be aware from my posts that my writing should be far from "a school child's", and I mean FAR. If this is the case, then that part of your statement is wrong. This means it's false.

[In contrast, my thoughts are or seem to be very much like a child's. Either they are or I like to think this way, maybe both. Ask yourself sometime why I said this; you may understand something]







"tossing insults"

If I have 'tossed' insults, I'd like to know where this happened and towards whom they have been 'tossed'. According to all my posts, which are right there for anyone to read, it's possible that I haven't insulted anyone, Shroom. If this single expression of yours is then false, I believe you'd owe me an apology for it, one that I don't need or want either [However, the fact that "I don't need it or want it" wouldn't negate the fact in that case that you'd still owe it to me anyway].


If we understand the meaning of "insult", which also means "disrespect", "rudeness", "contempt", "insolence", "impertinence" and "arrogance", according to my understanding of the word -which I'm sure should agree with dictionaries online or different-, it's possible that in fact it is you who has insulted others with some of your remarks. There seems to be strong evidence of it in this very forum.

In any case, Shroom, according to what's just been said, if I have not 'tossed' insults towards you or towards anyone else, then this part of your statement is also false. If, on the contrary, you have 'tossed' insults around, then you owe all those involved very articulate apologies for what you've done, to say the least.


So anyway, in order to save us all some valuable reading time, I'll remind you that only one single part of a 'conjunctive' statement needs to be false to invalidate the entire statement. There are two false expressions in your "insults" statement above. This means, in consequence, that your statement above is FALSE. What this means is that you're wrong in that thing you said about me, Shroom.













"
It seems like you prefer censorship over creative curiosity as prerequisite for attempting an opinion.
"

You may be wrong here too, Shroom. For the sake of readers I won't examine this sentence entirely, but it is a known fact that I do NOT prefer censorship. What you call 'creative curiosity' could be a reference that you make to something very different instead.










"
I would not have wasted time making a counter to all this crap, if you had been a little more objective, and refrained from personal insults PUBLICALY.
I have not done that to you or anyone else, out of respect.
"

The paragraph above merits no comment of mine. It's been copied only to provide the reader with a sequence. Where you say that "you have not done that to me or to anyone else", I say that either you have no idea what you've been writing at times, or you need to understand better the difference between True and False, because it seems like you have "done that" to me and to others, Shroom.










"
You seem to have much criticism for my work--
"

I'm very critical of every piece of supposed "knowledge" proposed as Truth, starting by my very own. I am -and hope to remain- my harshest critic.









"
but you cannot prove me wrong, because you offer no scientific opposition directly related to my findings.
"

Shroom, I CHOOSE not to prove you wrong, because what you're doing doesn't seem to be worth my time. I'm too busy with many other things that need my attention, to undertake it as my duty to examine critically every argument you post, however 'over-the-top' or fallible it may appear to be. There are better things to do.

[You should know that I've been asked by several readers both regular and not regular to the 'md forum' to "expose you" [in their words] on several occasions, and every time I've refused to do so kindly. I found myself forced to post something this time because I felt it my immediate responsibility to do so]








"
I will not oppose any challenge to my findings.
"

You can NOT oppose it, Shroom. Anyone here is free to challenge any argument. Rabbitears, others and I have challenged those 'findings' of yours [I think] politely and repeatedly on several occasions since 'day one'.









"
I will provide concrete evidence,
"

You have failed to provide this 'concrete' evidence you speak of. You continue to speak of it in future terms since 'day one'. Please keep in mind that "concrete" evidence is evidence as solid as the statement "The Sun rose yesterday".










"
and all records and samples to anyone willing to take on the task.
"

If you are to find "anyone willing to take on the task", Shroom, it's my understanding that your propositions should at the very least APPEAR to hold a minimum of merit(s) making them worthy of further consideration right from the start. If those arguments of yours make simple people like us question their validity, when it's a fact that none of us are experts in the field -just as we continue to say so over and over again-, how could you expect to find a true expert willing to even listen to your claims?

"Not gonna happen!" may be a likely answer to that question, I think.












"
You may make some points about my grammar, spelling, education etc.,--fine.
"

I didn't mean to humiliate you in any way when I mentioned your grammar and/or education, Shroom -something I did just this once to the best of my recollection, by the way-. Far from it. I saw myself forced to mention those things because they seem evident from your posts and they do lend support to our opinion that you should not carry on as you have anymore. Furthermore and as it's already known, for the unintentional emotional consequence of this I have apologized and I do apologize repeatedly, and I also ask of you once more to understand that this has nothing to do with any attack towards you on a personal level, which means it's not meant to hurt you emotionally or personally.

[By the way, those 'problems' that you seem to display with 'your grammar' and 'your spelling' can be corrected "easily", in my opinion. Much of all it takes is hard work, discipline, a good attitude, determination, and perhaps a bit of direction, I think]









"
But if you suggest that I simply discontinue with expressing my views, however unscientific they may sound to you, then why is there a point to public forums where one has the "legal" right to do so.
"

I finally chose to point out your apparently weak use of grammar to bring this forward: Grammar and the way we use it implies detail. A minimum 'level of detail' is necessary to reach a 'state of abstraction' where the mind is able to think threaded thoughts. Science demands such abstraction. Therefore, any problem with Grammar is quite possibly a problem with the understanding and the pursuit of Science, because of such demands.

For this reason, my experience as a teacher suggests to me that anyone wishing to understand Science better should try to polish his or her Grammar first. If he or she find themselves unable to polish their Grammar beyond a 'certain point of excellence' after trying hard to do so with discipline and possibly a proper direction, I submit that causes 'beyond the usual' should be considered [AND corrected] first, before any attempt is made to continue further. Such causes sought out should also include, in my opinion, possible Physiopathological ones -perhaps among others of a different nature as well.

[A possible exception to this entire proposition could be found in the same case applied to a "foreign language". Nevertheless and in any event -I think-, the 'sense of logic' should remain intact and sharp]





Where you say "..But if you suggest that I simply discontinue with expressing my views..", you may have a problem with details, Shroom, at the very level of Grammar itself, both writing it AND reading it. That's something you should consider seriously, in my opinion.

Regarding that same conditional comment of yours, I think I've never suggested to you or to anyone that you should stop expressing yourself. I don't think I ever would either, because I believe that many things can be learned from many sources, even from unlikely ones. In fact, as I've said so before -I think-, that's [partially] my reason for reading and posting in these forums. The thing in question is very different, and if you still can't see it except in this 'twisted' fashion, you may be in trouble, Shroom [with a cause lying possibly within your organism]. Please consider.









"
Maybe you should advocate for "big pharma"
"

Maybe I should not.







"
who would be more than happy to see people like me under strict censorship! SHROOM
"

[This may be another example of a "Reductio ad Absurdum"-like argument.]

Shroom, "big pharma", as you put it [if you're referring to Pharmaceutical companies], might be more than happy to have "people like you" stating around [what I consider to be] nonsense, opinions and beliefs as if they were facts, in my opinion.

As I see it, it would only give them more ground to continue to push for laws against the "natural herbs and dietary supplements" industry -just like they're doing-. Also it could serve 'as leverage' for them to force themselves -by the use of those laws- against anyone that tries to do what they should be doing in the first place [and of course don't seem to be doing at all].

Finally and among several other examples I can think of, to have "people like you" stating fallacies around as if those were Facts, could also encourage them to continue to do the bad things they appear to be doing against all of us over and over again, as a result of the simple fallacy "We're right [the Pharm Industry] because obviously they're wrong [the rest of us]". Tweet