"sherwin dubren" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
wrote in message

A google groups search revelas no previous posts from you. Perhaps you
are a sock puppet.

On Tue, 26 May 2009 12:48:56 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

If, and I stress the 'if', you are really posting what Dr Schwarcz has
written to you, then his response to you is simply extraordinary.

Any scientist worth taking note of who responds to an email from a
stranger
and who using such sloppy thinking to write words like "These "organic"
people are paranoid and if a view doesn't fit into their "world view"
they
think that some conspiracy is afoot. " and that they "could use a
little oil
for their mental machinery" is of questionable sense.

If he is a serious scientist, he would have been more temperate in his
language because he'd be used to the process of peer reviews and know
that
he'd have to justify everything he says.

I doubt that you emailed him at all or that he responded.

You have obviously never talked to a scientist.

Deliciously funny!

You go on to mention how people have never bothered to learn to think and
yet you conclude that I have never talked to a scientist. That is really
funny.

I would have thought that anyone who claims to be such a superior being
that they have not only learned to think, and possesses such an arrogance
that they choose to laugh at others as often as they can would have
wondered how it is that a poster, who has not otherwise engaged in this
skirmish, would have chosen to mention peer reviews.

I would have expected such a superior being to have hit on the
implications of "peer reviews" and wonder why it is that a poster who has
otherwise not engaged in the conversation until this time would have
even known about peer reviews.

A person who had learned to think should then have wondered, or perhaps
even asked, why the casual poster knew of peer reviews. You didn't.

A person who could think would came to a different conclusion than you
did.

I doubt your claims to being a scientist. Or, at the very best, it must
be years since you had anything to do with academic research.

We come in all
stripes, just like most other professions. One thing we have in
common is a distain for those who never bothered to learn to think.

Yes. I too have such a disdain. You claim to think but your conclusions
are erroneous. That says you have limited capacity to think and reach a
logical conclusion.

Unfortunately that is more than 90% of even well educated people. That
trait makes us most unpopular at parties and family reunions. If you
really want to rile a scientist up, imply his or her work is tainted
by conflicts in funding sources that don't actually exist. I
certainly don't find the tone or language of Dr. Schwarcz' reply
unusual for a casual conversation. We laugh at you all the time.

I wouldn't find Dr Schwarz's reply unusual between intimates either, but
I do find his reply to be extremely odd when used, as claimed, in
response to an email from an unknown contact.

But then given that he is also a 'TV personality' then it is perhaps
possible that like others of that sort of person in north America then he
panders to the lowest common denominator in the interest of ratings
because it impacts on his earnings. Perhaps he is as intemperate and
lacking in concern for his professional reputation as you seem to think
he is.
Your remarks about a peer review are comical.

Since you have already admitted that you don't know what 'peer review'
means, you don't have enough knowledge to know if what I wrote iscomical or
not.

You seem to dismiss all the comments about Dr. Schwarcz and my reply
from him as 'made up' stuff.

Yawn!

DO try reading for comprehension and then take note of who writes what.