Re: Anti-Quackwatch "Defamation" Litigation ROARS Forward...

OK, so here you are, suggesting that Bolan's support of Clark makes you question his reasoning ability. Fair enough, although this still has nothing to do with the news he is reporting in this article.

But when I pointed out to you a similar scenario that is considerably more valid -- that the character of the QuackWatch crew is provably unsavory, precisely because they're more than willing to attack freedom of speech -- and that you should reconsider your support of them therefore, your response was to misrepresent what I said and then use your misinterpretation as a straw man.

Rather than realize that you, as a defender of free speech, ought to abandon QuackWatch since its demonstrated goal is to cripple free speech (rather than merely protect the public from harm), you instead resorted to a logical fallacy.

Here, you're suggesting that Bolan should be ignored because he holds a position that you do not -- in particular, he supports Clark (and believes in Clark, probably the greater crime in your mind). But QuackWatch, whom you support, also holds a position that you do not -- that attacking freedom of speech is a valid pursuit -- and yet you continue to support QuackWatch.

Can you begin to get why I have no problems labeling you a hypocrite?

You have this amazing capacity to regurgitate complex details of physical sciences, and yet it seems that, when it comes to simple logic, your emotions have the better of you.