Re: This used to be on disease and immunity

Philip Deitiker (
Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:47:53 GMT (Eric Brunner) wrote:

>Philip Deitiker ( wrote:

>Not necessary, but feel free to engage in any stylistic conventions you
>prefer. Note that David Rindos just checked this newsgroup,

Uhhhh... I think I'm going to hide now <sic>. Eric your tactics are
completely transparent by now to everyone who has even a rudimentary
understanding of genetics, so give it up. You simply cannot put up any
'hard' scientific data to support your claims so you head for
diversion. I may disagree with Mary BW and Domingo over the weighing
of various parameters but at least they can put forth reasonably
coherant ideas, yours border on psuedoscientific jargon and idotic
personal attacks on people who produce no worse jargon than you
produce, everytime the conversation gets into the hard sciences you
find some tactic to avoid even entertaining the possiblity of genetic
impact. very bad form, and very transparent, and a very head in the
sand attitude.

>: I'm beginning to formalized a hypothesis about how you interpret the
>: biological sciences, and from a biologists point of view I don't
>: thinks its a favorable one: I will outline the deficiencies in your
>: responses below (after attempted de-encryptation)

>Who cares?

Of course, you don't, but then.......

>Deleted _before_ reading.

this attitude is constituitive within your pathos.