View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Locked Sagan Thread

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 22 Mar 2010, 14:12

really? wrote:
For one that has his head in the clouds all the time you'd think that the real promise of human space exploration would have you all giddy with excitement.
And why do you ignore the beneficial spinoffs from NASA that have helped us and as collateral created more jobs.
And when did providing jobs become a bad thing ?
And what are you so damn angry for ?
And I know in your mind you make perfect and reasonable sense, but from over here, well... exactly how big is that bug ? I know a competent proctologist that'll get rid of it for ya.


Maybe you'd like to tell us how NASA and it's tech spin-offs have bettered your life.

The reason you can't go to the moon or to Mars is because it's too costly to do so. All those collateral jobs cost money .. which prevents things from actually getting done. All those sci-tech workers = useless parasites who killed the space program. Obama didn't kill it. Industry meal tickets killed it.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18






Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 22 Mar 2010, 20:40

It was very simple to show you lied Kevin. And showing that you post lies is hardly a side distraction. That is what happens. You post a lie and others say you lied. Post something of value and others say you posted something of value. But you lied - again!
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby ProfWag » 22 Mar 2010, 20:43

Kevin Kane wrote:Nostradamus has yet to provide evidence that I lied or intended to decieve. Hence, Nostradamus is again lying and making false statements. End of silly pointless Nostradamus side distraction.

You're wrong here Kevin. ND was quite clear in his evidence that your post suggested that 1 in 4 cancer deaths are caused or sped up by chemo when the article was clearly discussing late-stage cancer patients who were to die soon anyway.
Your cover up makes it clear that you wanted people to believe that chemo was bad when, in fact, it could be beneficial but that is an entirely different subject.
Please, if you're going to provide evidence, don't embelish it. It doesn't help one's credibility.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby really? » 22 Mar 2010, 21:36

Kevin Kane wrote:
really? wrote:
For one that has his head in the clouds all the time you'd think that the real promise of human space exploration would have you all giddy with excitement.
And why do you ignore the beneficial spinoffs from NASA that have helped us and as collateral created more jobs.
And when did providing jobs become a bad thing ?
And what are you so damn angry for ?
And I know in your mind you make perfect and reasonable sense, but from over here, well... exactly how big is that bug ? I know a competent proctologist that'll get rid of it for ya.


Maybe you'd like to tell us how NASA and it's tech spin-offs have bettered your life.

The reason you can't go to the moon or to Mars is because it's too costly to do so. All those collateral jobs cost money .. which prevents things from actually getting done. All those sci-tech workers = useless parasites who killed the space program. Obama didn't kill it. Industry meal tickets killed it.


When encountering a person that is as unreasonable as you there are a few things one can do.
a. ignore them
b. start hurling ad hominems
c. just ridicule them.

I think I'll do 'A' since you are an unreasonable person.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 22 Mar 2010, 22:57

really? wrote:
When encountering a person that is as unreasonable as you there are a few things one can do.
a. ignore them
b. start hurling ad hominems
c. just ridicule them.

I think I'll do 'A' since you are an unreasonable person.


How am I "unreasonable"? And do you understand that this is NOT a skeptic forum but a forum for anti-skepticism? Because it's kind of an important point. I see many skeptics are clueless to where they are. They think they are at a forum for skeptics. NOT SO. This is not a skeptic playground. If you don't understand this simple point, I suggest you go to a skeptic forum with your skeptic posts and skeptic beliefs. This is not such a forum. Am I clear?
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 22 Mar 2010, 22:59

ProfWag wrote:You're wrong here Kevin. ND was quite clear in his evidence that your post suggested that 1 in 4 cancer deaths are caused or sped up by chemo when the article was clearly discussing late-stage cancer patients who were to die soon anyway.
Your cover up makes it clear that you wanted people to believe that chemo was bad when, in fact, it could be beneficial but that is an entirely different subject.
Please, if you're going to provide evidence, don't embelish it. It doesn't help one's credibility.


What I said was true. Nostradamus added the 30 day qualifier to be more precise. Nostradamus has not shown that I lied or intended to mislead. Those are the facts.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 00:27

Amazing Kevin you admitted that what you wrote was an out and out lie. You are coming along. It's going to be a long road to becoming truthful, but you can do it one step at a time.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 00:38

If I wanted to be misleading, why would I post a link that could possibly contradict me? What's the point of C+Ping the entire article when I can just post a link. The intent was to give a brief general description. All evidence indicates that's the case. If you think I was deliberately misleading, prove it or be called a slandering liar.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby ProfWag » 23 Mar 2010, 01:48

Kevin Kane wrote:If I wanted to be misleading, why would I post a link that could possibly contradict me? What's the point of C+Ping the entire article when I can just post a link. The intent was to give a brief general description. All evidence indicates that's the case. If you think I was deliberately misleading, prove it or be called a slandering liar.

So, what you're saying from this post is that you did NOT want people to believe "1 in 4 cancer treatment deaths are caused or sped up by chemo:" Or, are you saying you wanted people to believe that 1 in 4 cancer treatment deaths are caused or sped up by chemo in patients in the late-stages of their cancer? The reason I ask is that the first part, the way it is written, is quite misleading, the underlined portion of my addition is more along the lines of the article.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 02:06

The study was confined to a 30 day period of everyone who died of cancer and cancer treatment, beginning at first treatment. The study found 1 in 4 chemo patients died as a direct or indirect consequence of using chemo.

The study indicates chemotherapy contributed to their deaths. Which is the reason why I posted it. Most normal people are capable of understand language, intent and meaning. But skeptics don't.

The larger implication of the study is obvious to most people. The numbers may even be worse, as the study is focused and excludes 4 groups of patients.
Last edited by Kevin Kane on 23 Mar 2010, 02:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 02:11

The study was confined to a 30 day period of everyone who died of cancer and cancer treatment, beginning at first treatment. The study found 1 in 4 chemo patients died as a direct or indirect consequence of taking chemo.

The study indicates chemotherapy contributed to their deaths. Which is the reason why I posted it. Most normal people are capable of understand language, intent and meaning. But skeptics don't.


That is not what the report said and now you are trying to weasel out of being a liar. Sad, so very sad.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 02:15

Nostradamus wrote:That is not what the report said and now you are trying to weasel out of being a liar. Sad, so very sad.


I used my own words to summarize the report, if that's what you mean. This is the summary I wrote:

....

The study was confined to a 30 day period of everyone who died of cancer and cancer treatment, beginning at first treatment. The study found 1 in 4 chemo patients died as a direct or indirect consequence of using chemo.

The study indicates chemotherapy contributed to their deaths. Which is the reason why I posted it. Most normal people are capable of understand language, intent and meaning. But skeptics don't.

The larger implication of the study is obvious to most people. The numbers may even be worse, as the study is focused and excludes 4 groups of patients.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 02:24

Weaseling, weaseling weaseling. That is not what the report said. I know it and you know it, too.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby ProfWag » 23 Mar 2010, 02:52

Aside from Kevin, Nostradamus, and myself, what is your opinion?
Here is what Kevin said on page 10:
"1 in 4 cancer treatment deaths are caused or sped up by chemo:"

Here are the first 3 paragraphs of the article Kevin referenced:

"A new study has raised serious questions about the use of chemotherapy for late-stage cancer patients.
The review of 600 cancer patients in Britain who died within 30 days of treatment has found that one in four of the deaths was either caused or hastened by the chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy is a standard treatment for cancer but the study questions whether seriously ill patients can cope with it."

Did Kevin lie, attempt to deceive or was he being honest and truthful?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 04:26

The study was done by NCEPOD, the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. A professional group that studies healthcare deaths. The chemo study was a 30 day study. No more, no less. 30 is the number of days they studied, and the number of days was 30. 31 days they didn't study, nor did they study for 29 days, excepting that they then proceed to day 30. A 32 day study is right out. Once they reached the 30th day, they reported what they found.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron