Re: This used to be on disease and immunity

Eric Brunner (
24 Sep 1996 21:19:37 GMT

Len Piotrowski ( wrote:
: In article <51ut7m$> (Philip Deitiker) writes:

: >[snip]

: > (Tom Brown) wrote:

: >>To Eric Brunner, regarding his response to sisial@ix.netcom:

: >> Your elitist academic tone is abhorrent. You may have a
: >>few good points to make, and some worthwhile evidence to offer;
: >>however, my impression of your entry is that you truly value
: >>form over substance. Essentially, what you are saying is that
: >>if someone does not have a firm grasp of the so-called "key"
: >>academic terminology, then there is no point in entering into
: >>any conversation in the general field.

: >Uh, Tom, wake up. Eric's tactics have been blatantly apparent since
: >about the third post in this thread (what about 2 or 3 months back).
: >He's particularly good at the mumbo jumbo when he's unable to
: >substantiate his opinion, or logically decompose a different opinion.
: >Eric beleives that science and scientific methodologies are stricitly
: >of non-native ameircan origin and as such are not to be trusted, thus
: >logic, epidemiological studies, molecular genetics, immunology all
: >must be filtered to that which is acceptably non-european to be
: >trustable, alas if you can do this as he does you are a scolar of
: >Eric's level, elsewise, well we get flameus-contortious. Leave it be
: >and let the thread die a peaceful death.

: Dear Philip,

: follow your own advice!

: It is *not* my experience that Eric is "good at the mumbo jumbo."
: Neither does he believe as you perceive that "science and scientific
: methodologies" are to be mistrusted, or illogical, or that epidemiological
: studies, molecular genetics, and immunology are somehow unintelligible
: gobbledygook of an occupying culture. My understanding is that Eric very well
: understands the implications of the method and the science, and that his
: interests, work, and accomplishments are just the opposite from what you've
: tried to label him.

: You'll find reason for objections of fact and ideas reflected in your own
: misrepresentations. My advice to you, to avoid "flameus-contortious," is to
: keep your subjective opinions to yourself, that is, unless your just assuming
: a posture to piss from.

: Cheers,

: --Lenny__

: "If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
: - perlstyle

Oddly, I hadn't forgotton, either what mnemonic means or what contortions
at an immuno-marginal reading our correspondent from Baylor's med school
has repeatedly attempted to impose on Contact Period studies. I take it
that this really means that he's not going to take the time to read Anne
Ramenofsky's disertation on contact period pathogenic events, or budge one
iota from the biomedical literature into the contact period literature.

I think I can just barely stand it if he joins Steve Whittet and the rest
of the no-die-off posters in sci.arch, and the fabulous Firl in sci.anth,
who has a speculation for every event, and a special fondness for myself
in particular...

I wonder, is this:

"Eric beleives that science and scientific methodologies
are stricitly of non-native ameircan origin and as such
are not to be trusted, thus logic, epidemiological studies,
molecular genetics, immunology all must be filtered to..."

something every Indian gets? It seems awfully close to the standard brand
of pigment that Professor Vine Deloria jr. gets splattered with when he
writes on stuff Markus Kuhn thought every educated person ought to know.

Oh well. The guy thinks his literature is bigger than my literature. Not a
very interesting topic, bigness that is. Correctness is, but that takes a
bit more than posture and vinager to accomidate.

Eric Brunner