quote:Obviously they didn't teach you in 9th grade that the lymph begins as Chyle in the small intestine and ENDS being dumped off into the blood stream at the lymph nodes.
And I bet they didn't teach you the above either in the 9th grade, cause it is wrong.
Lymph does not "begin" as chyle. Chyle is composed of digested fats picked up by the chyliferous vessels of the small intestine. This chyle combines with fluids collected by lymphatic vessels elsewhere in the body, thus forming the lymph. Chyle is just one component of lymph not the beginning of it.
Neither is the lymph "dumped off into the blood stream at the lymph nodes." It is deposited in the bloodstream from the thoracic duct into the subclavian veins. Leukocytes and antibodies produced by lymphocytes - along with a very small amount lymphatic fluid is mostly what enters the bloodstream from the lymph nodes. This is good stuff- not "sewer water".
Your understanding of the lymphatic system is quite errant.
quote:"...at least a good trial lawyer will tell you that eye witness testimony beats double blind, placebo studies all to hell.
Who are the eyewitness that have seen the oxygen move from the oxygenated water, through the stomach/intestines/lymphatic system and into the body's cells? - Produce your eywitnesses. - You can't because there are no "eyewitnesses" to this theoretical process of yours. All you have is a shaky theory and some anecdotal evidence.
quote: We're supposed to believe this stuff now because of the insults leveled at juries by trial lawyers?
No Raf. What we have is two live witnesses, in Kit Sober and myself, that are willing to put our names behind our testamony, not so that lawyers can insult juries but so that juries can weigh evidence. The concept of a witness goes back at least to the book of Matthew (18:`6), "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" and Hebrews (6:16), "For men verity swear by the greater: and an oath for conformation is to them an end of all strife."
And so this thread started by Kit Sober asking me to post what I knew about oxygenated water to a group that suposedly consisted of ex-way people. She has stated, as have I, that drinking distilled water with oxygen added to approximately 75 ppm has been benificial. No one has stated that they found doing so not benificial or in fact harmful.
The closest commercial product that I know of is Penta Water, which according to my dissolved oxygen meter, and their claims, measures about 40 ppm. Although I can't say Krysilis and Mstar1 are "witnesses" in the sense of being willing to swear under oath before a jury of their peers, because I don't know that they would be willing to do so, in this forum they are at least "peer equal" to those who give no evidence but rather merely defame, misrepresent, or change the discussion- and none of them have given us their real name so we might know who they are or where they are coming from, except you. So I'm happy to answer you as I agree that healthy scepticism is benificial. Mean spirited scepticism, misrepresentation and out and out lies are something else entirely. And the most mean spirited fiction was set up to be an expert in chemistry who now says
quote: David, you are an ignorant poser who needs to shut the hell up before your stupidity kills an innocent victim before it kills you.
And so I ask, who is the poser here, me or Zixar? I would merely change the quote and insert his name instead of mine, for his "information" is sheer .... and his intention is to stop anybody from enjoying the benifit of oxygenated water, weither bought from the store or made themselves.
We're now suposed to think it's all very dangerous and I've not found it so in a year and a half and Mstar1 has not found it dangerous in two and a half years. Nor have I heard from a single medical doctor that it was dangerous in the least. In fact, a lymphyatic specialist, my cousin Russ's doctor at the Cleveland Clinic, merely yawned as if the subject was too boring for him to even consider. And he's suposed to know the lymphatic system in and out. He didn't tell Russ not to drink it and he knew Russ's medical history better than anyone.
To debunk Zixar's latest salvo about medical grade oxygen killing people because it was not "filled in accordance with the current good manufacturing practice regulations", (which regulations have no jurisdiction whatsoever over any but medical grade oxygen), I drove over to my oxygen supplier, Great Lakes Oxygen, to quiz them about the possibility of carbon monoxide getting into an oxygen bottle and the fellow I talked with said exactly the same thing as I did, that this was .....
He went on to say that his company regularly certified it's oxygen to 99.995% pure and further confirmed, as have others, that both medical grade and welding grade oxygen come from the same sources, and added that many times if one company's plant is closer to a customer than the sellers, that the sellers empty truck gets loaded at the competators plant under some reciprocity agreement because it's the same product. Such arrangements make perfect sense to reduce hauling cost and is like the power companies buying electricity from a competator rather than having to fire up another boiler to carry peak loads, when it is less costly to do so.
Now if you actually tried Penta Water, or any other oxygenated water for that matter, and found that you burped, that would be a serious matter to discuss or investigate further. I rather think at this point that you haven't actually done so and are merely saying .... using different words. That's your privilege but it's hardly evidence of any sort.
The other notable piece of information furnished by my oxygen supplier was that they used to bottle their own medical grade oxygen until about five years ago when the regulations were changed (FEDGOV regs) to insist on a second source for medical grade oxygen. It didn't change the fact that they are all the same (at least four 9's pure), it just meant more trucks coming in, more companies to deal with, and a vastly increased paperwork load. So they got out of the business of filling their own medical grade bottles and merely act as a middleman in that end of the business.
There are only a handfull of companies that actually make oxygen from air- BOC, AGA, Linde, Air Products, corp. and probably a couple of others I'm not familiar with. Great Lakes Oxygen buys theirs from Air Products in Pittsburg and the real issue is that they are governed by industry standards rather than by the medical establishment and I leave it to you to decide which is more reliable. I'll take long standing industry standards of 99.995 pure over government regulations and some supposed advantage in cleanliness which is largely myth and hype. I have my own bottle and so know exactly what is in it. If I rented bottles from them I'd still know what is in it since they routinely pull a vacuum on each bottle before it is filled. So much for my mythical example of delierately trying to contaminate their product by pulling a vacuum on my bottle and sticking it by the exhaust pipe to get as much carbon monoxide in as I could. They just pull it back out before refilling my bottle.
As for cleanliness of their operation, or of any other welding supplier for that matter, I'd be more concerned breathing LA air or eating off of someone elses tableware than I would of a contaminated oxygen bottle.
Oh, I haven't yet heard back from Dr. Park, the source of your "evidence" that oxygenated water was bunk. I guess he's too busy "proving" that man was never created.
Have you ever even heard the term "anecdotal evidence"?
Sorta like the medicine men of the old west, traveling from town to town selling their miraculous patent medicines. They never seemed to have a shortage of heartfelt testimonials as to the effecaciousness of their product...
First: the fact that you're willing to put your name behind your testimony, as opposed to a handle like "bluzeman" or "zixar" is unimpressive and proves nothing.
Second: Lawyers like eyewitness testimony in some regards because it is unreliable and can veer a jury away from the provable facts of a case. I covered a trial involving two vehicles, one of which was going in the wrong direction on the highway. Accident reconstruction experts established beyond any shadow of a doubt which car was going the wrong way, but the eyewitness testimony was conflicting (some agreed with the experts; some did not). The jury acquitted the guy who was going the wrong way because the eyewitnesses did not agree (never mind that it was scientifically impossible for the defendant to be innocent: God bless the eyewitnesses)!
All of which is designed to say this: Penta Water is bunk. It doesn't work because it can't work. The science you've quoted to us is flawed, and dispassionate people who've looked at this all come out saying the same thing: it's bunk. The only people saying otherwise are the people selling it and the people who desperately want to believe it.
Your appeals to scripture are irrelevant. I can get 5,000 people to swear on a stack of Bibles that they saw David Copperfield turn a monkey into a swatch. All it means is they all saw the same illusion: it doesn't make the illusion real.
ok, im an idiot, cuz i just gotta say this once...(tho of course i'll stick around to defend "myself" -->)
what the heck...yer rules
i don't think Dave is at all guilty of what you guys are getting all frothy about. he is not starting a cult or trying to get rich, nor saying its "the gospel" (like he's been falsely accused). and he and many others have actually benefitted from this air-water, and they think its great. I mean, why don't you call Kit Sober and her husband a liar too? or the others who are interested. besides, if its just a placebo and helps, i say...bottle the hell out of it. distribute it. give it away. friggin help people somehow fer gawd's sake.
watching this thread has been like watching a sick frat party gang up on what they perceive as a weakness, then spaz out on him when he shows any more signs of weakness. The Penn and Tellers of the world are funny and passionate, but they are also a bunch of magicians and con artists with all kinds of chips on their shoulder. they are not prophets, nor are they very ethical or helpful in their manner of distributing their brand of "information."
"You are an absolute idiot for believing so and so..." is not useful, kind, practical, or anything.
you guys have spent so much energy trying to save everyone from little ole Dave's stories and thoughts, if i didn't understand it a bit, i would be baffled. And now, the shame and demonization of Dave has carried over to other threads.
what the f? go get laid or something. There has got to be ways to better deal with our own physical and mental illnesses than this. And by all this misrepresenting, you are causing more harm than you think you are preventing, imo. "Protecing the innocent from big bad Dave Anderson's sparkly water ideas" -->
You would think this thread on "miracle water" has become the official group therapy session for working out all our rabid ex-way shaming techniques.
its like yer intentionally going out of your way...to do what? tar and feather the guy? show off to everyone how absolutely and consistently stubbornly mean and rude you can be?
i dunno, i think the longer you/i/we do stuff like this, the harder and harder it is to change (if you/i/we even want to any more)
i honestly think you guys are smarter than this, and have a lot more to offer (tho, i might be wrong on this too...we'll see)
quote:No Raf. What we have is two live witnesses, in Kit Sober and myself, that are willing to put our names behind our testamony, not so that lawyers can insult juries but so that juries can weigh evidence. The concept of a witness goes back at least to the book of Matthew (18:`6), "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" and Hebrews (6:16), "For men verity swear by the greater: and an oath for conformation is to them an end of all strife."'
Using these scriptures in an attempt to establish the efficacy of oxygenated water is a complete missaplication of the word of God. You are using them completely out of their context. The concept of witnesses is a good one, but it does not apply here.
According to the same logic/usage then we must also accept the existence of UFO's, aliens, or for that matter anything that any two people claim or believe to be true. Who is that naive?
David, you and Kit, while probably well meaning, are not "witnesses" to the efficacy of oxygenated water. You simply believe it works.
However, in light of the gross errors in the "science" that you have expounded here as to HOW it works, and the complete lack of any kind of valid testing or verifiable data, your beliefs are based upon nothing more than "I tried it and I feel better". Not good enough.
Maybe you do actually feel better, but unless there is proper testing in a controlled environment that serves to eliminate any other possibility for why you "feel better" then you don't really know the reason - you are speculating at best - delusional at worse.
For example, before you began drinking oxygenated water what was your daily water intake? What kind of water was it? Did your water intake increase, decrease or remain the same? What was your diet before and after oxygenated water. Coffee intake before and after? Alcohol? What medications/vitamins/herbs/etc. were you taking before an after - any changes?. What was your excercise level - before an after? So on an so forth.
Without controlled testing , your "feel better" testimony is pretty worthless and any perceived positive benefits from "oxygenated" water could be attributed to a host of other things other than the oxygen in the water.
No one has accused David of lying, that's why. Lying would imply ill intent. As I said, I did not read every thread on this post, but those I did read all seemed to say "David, you're really, really, really mistaken." David has responded, "oh yeah, well I use my real name. Why are you hiding?" I don't see you criticizing him for that. But for challenging the basis of the claims he's making, we get (falsely) accused of calling him a liar? I just wanted to see how this worked.
As I said, please correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm not above saying so when I'm wrong.
So that I'm not accused of singling out one thing in Todd's post for criticism...
quote:Originally posted by sirguessalot:
ok, im an idiot, cuz i just gotta say this once...(tho of course i'll stick around to defend "myself" -->)
Preach it, brother.
quote:what the heck...yer rules
The only one who sets rules here is Paw. If I violate 'em, there's a notify button at the top of this post. Please feel free to alert him.
quote:i don't think Dave is at all guilty of what you guys are getting all frothy about.
Nice start, accusing us of getting "frothy," while Dave is, what, the very model of a modern major general?
quote:he is not starting a cult or trying to get rich, nor saying its "the gospel" (like he's been falsely accused).
Of course he's not trying to start a cult. Who said he was? However, he has equated the mindset of rejecting his claims about oxygen saturated water with the mindset of rejecting Christ.
quote:and he and many others _have_ actually benefitted from this air-water, and they think its great.
They SAY they've benefitted from the water, yes. They THINK it's great, yes. But science doesn't bear out that oxygen saturated water has any benefit being claimed. So we're asking, where's the proof? Testimony is great, and more power to them, but in order for something to be beneficial, the results have to be able to be duplicated in a controlled setting. Those who have tried to duplicate the results in a controlled setting have found that the claims are untrue. The only people insisting that the claims are true are (1) those who are selling it, and (2) those who really want to believe it. I presume Dave falls into the latter category. IF there are liars involved here, they are in the former group, not the latter.
quote:I mean, why don't you call Kit Sober and her husband a liar too?
Because to call her a liar "too," we would have to have called Dave a liar, and we haven't.
quote: or the others who are interested.
Ditto.
quote:besides, if its just a placebo and helps, i say...bottle the hell out of it.
That's what you say. And you're entitled. I say $12 a gallon for a placebo is pretty steep.
quote:distribute it.
They are.
quote: give it away.
They're not.
quote: friggin help people somehow fer gawd's sake.
But that's where we disagree. We don't think a placebo helps people: it fleeces them. I don't want to see people get fleeced.
quote:watching this thread has been like watching a sick frat party gang up on what they perceive as a weakness, then spaz out on him when he shows any more signs of weakness.
I'm confused: are you describing those who are interested in verifying the claims being made about oxygen saturated water, or those who pounce on truly significant and relevant matters like screen names?
quote:The Penn and Tellers of the world are funny and passionate, but they are also a bunch of magicians and con artists with all kinds of chips on their shoulder.
True.
quote:they are _not_ prophets, nor are they very ethical or helpful in their manner of distributing their brand of "information."
Neither are the sellers of Penta Water.
quote:"You are an absolute idiot for believing so and so..." is _not_ useful, kind, practical, or anything.
Neither is "You have the same mindset that rejected Christ."
quote:you guys have spent so much energy trying to save everyone from little ole Dave's stories and thoughts, if i didn't understand it a bit, i would be baffled.
What's so baffling? He's making claims about the benefits of a product: we're asking him to prove it. He's offering his proof and we're challenging it.
quote:And now, the shame and demonization of Dave has carried over to other threads.
You're right. I don't see any need to criticize this thread on others, or to badmouth Dave (on this thread or others). But when you use a word like demonization, please note who bashed people over the heads with Bible verses on this thread, and who's saying, "please prove your claims."
quote:what the f? go get laid or something.
That an offer?
quote:There has got to be ways to better deal with our own physical and mental illnesses than this.
We're mentally ill now?
quote: And by all this misrepresenting, you are causing more harm than you think you are preventing, imo.
Name one thing we have "misrepresented."
quote: "Protecing the innocent from big bad Dave Anderson's sparkly water ideas" -->
Umm, discussion board. That means we discuss. If he didn't want it discussed, he shouldn't have put it on a discussion board.
quote:You would think this thread on "miracle water" has become the official group therapy session for working out all our rabid ex-way shaming techniques.
YOU would think. I never associated the two.
quote:...yer intentionally going out of your way...to do what? tar and feather the guy? show off to everyone how absolutely and consistently stubbornly mean and rude you can be?
As implied earlier, you seem to be awfully selective in this accusation. People have been ridiculed for using screen names, accused of not paying attention in the ninth grade, knowing nothing about biology... And you're here criticizing those same people for showing that their screen names are irrelevant, that they did pay attention in the ninth grade, and that they know a thing or two about biology. So really, if you're going to criticize people on this point, at least be fair and criticize both sides of this debate.
quote:i dunno, i think the longer you/i/we do stuff like this, the harder and harder it is to change (if you/i/we even want to any more)
What exactly do you want people to change here? Do you want us all to be just a bit more gullible?
quote:i honestly think you guys are smarter than this,
I don't think anyone here is being stupid, so your "compliment" is misplaced.
quote:... and have a lot more to offer (tho, i might be wrong on this too...we'll see)
:(-->
-->
:D-->
Well, let me know when you've made your decision. I eagerly await it. :)-->
quote:The only one who sets rules here is Paw. If I violate 'em, there's a notify button at the top of this post. Please feel free to alert him.
we all set rules for ourselves (or not). and we can impose these rules on others (or not). there are many sets of rules going on here. the one i was referring to was the rule where "because its the internet" we can heap as much shame and abuse on each other as we wish, and then somehow call it merely "dialogue" and "discussion."
is there such thing as verbal abuse?
does it cause damage to the abusee or abuser?
science, religion, psychology, experience...all say yes.
quote:Nice start, accusing us of getting "frothy," while Dave is, what, the very model of a modern major general?
oh great. the usual pack of "challengers" basically dogpiles one guy's attempt at talking about a subject, and then someone challenges the manner of "dialogue," and then someone stands there and say "what about him? after all, he cussed too."
btw - i have never claimed Dave was a model of anything.
quote:Of course he's not trying to start a cult. Who said he was?
i'll just go find a few (of many)
quote:to Dave: You are the one promoting this horsecrap with NOTHING to back up your so-called "facts". So what are we supposed to do - believe it casue the great David Anderson said it? Did that with a fellow named Wierwille once - turned out he was a thief and a liar.
implying what?
quote:to Dave: I mean, we 'signed the green card' w/o question once before, and for many of us, it started out on a very rough and abusive trip.
implying what?
ok, back to Raf...
quote:However, he has equated the mindset of rejecting his claims about oxygen saturated water with the mindset of rejecting Christ.
I think Dave was referring to unhealthy overblown cynicism in general. And that he does not take this water idea as seriously as people are accusing him of. though i could also understand why it might fit in the category of "good news" for him and others. i'll defend him for this, even if i don't drink the stuff.
perhaps one reason the comparison pushed everyone's buttons to overreacting is because we are still obviously way too easily offended by anything that has do with that J-word.
quote:They SAY they've benefitted from the water, yes. They THINK it's great, yes. But science doesn't bear out that oxygen saturated water has any benefit being claimed. So we're asking, where's the proof? Testimony is great, and more power to them, but in order for something to be beneficial, the results have to be able to be duplicated in a controlled setting.
for one, like religions, all branches of science have their own often severe limits and prejudices. two, those are your own rules for "something to be beneficial." if i eat something and i am made well, i could care less if science tells me i should be sick cuz they can't figure out why.
when someone's health benefits from something, be it a placebo or not, they often go into regression when someone tells them to doubt it. our state of mind and state of body work pretty closely together. and this "help" is often done in the name of cold hard science. but when people get sick because of this approach, the doctors need to start seeing a shrink.
quote:Those who have tried to duplicate the results in a controlled setting have found that the claims are untrue. The only people insisting that the claims are true are (1) those who are selling it, and (2) those who really want to believe it. I presume Dave falls into the latter category. IF there are liars involved here, they are in the former group, not the latter.
i don't think its that cut and dry. again, yer rules, yer limits, you stated them.
quote:Because to call her a liar "too," we would have to have called Dave a liar, and we haven't.
again with the liar thing. when you say what something someone is writing about is manure or worse, even when a half dozen or more other people are obviously wanting to talk to Dave some more about it, because they've experienced benefits, you can call em all crazy. you can call em all duped. you can call em all gullible. but that's ok, as long as you don't use the word liar?
and you can call it a "challenge to his thesis" all you want. which is part true, but its also way more than that.
quote:But that's where we disagree. We don't think a placebo helps people: it fleeces them. I don't want to see people get fleeced.
we disagree on a lot, raf. about how things work in general, it seems. fine.
but Dave is fleecing no one. and yeah, i think the Penta price is way steep. i bet Dave does too.
quote:I'm confused: are you describing those who are interested in verifying the claims being made about oxygen saturated water, or those who pounce on truly significant and relevant matters like screen names?
"verifying claims?"
ive been around. that is not what i would call it.
"pounce on truly significant matters like screen names"
or, desperately trying to defend himself from a mob of rude cynics who have live by different sets of rules?
quote:Neither is "You have the same mindset that rejected Christ."
yeah, but read between the lines, raf. honestly, does Dave think he is Christ? Does he think his water is the ultimate path to heaven? nope. again, the cynics dogpiled him and perhaps are overreacting to Dave's way of saying something like..."you guys have started with doubt and may stay there." ive talked to him, and don't think he's the type.
quote:What's so baffling? He's making claims about the benefits of a product: we're asking him to prove it. He's offering his proof and we're challenging it.
like i said. im not that baffled by what's going on. and i think your summation is heavily filtered.
quote:You're right. I don't see any need to criticize this thread on others, or to badmouth Dave (on this thread or others). But when you use a word like demonization, please note who bashed people over the heads with Bible verses on this thread, and who's saying, "please prove your claims."
omg, did it hurt when he bashed ya?
if so, consider how much we can affect each other via written words
if not, why you complaining?
quote:We're mentally ill now?
who aint, raf? with all our little pocket fulls of little addictions and fixations to work out. honestly. besides, i hope we're reaching a time when mental illnesses are nothing to be ashamed of. one can be addicted to anything, right? our bodily health and mental health is one package. there are ways to "challenge" ideas without spiralling into "verbally abusive behavior." it can be like groundhog day, over and over and over again. not good for the heart or organs of all parties involved.
quote:Name one thing we have "misrepresented."
The benefit of oxygenated water, more perhaps even moreso, the character of these "accepted" methods of "challenging" people's ideas on this forum. you honestly think everyone feels safe posting here? are we now in some darwinian mode, where if we can't stick up for ourself against a pack, we don't deserve to be writing here? to some posters, these are the "rules" they live by.
if you think it aint true...im not sure what to tell ya any more.
quote:Umm, discussion board. That means we discuss. If he didn't want it discussed, he shouldn't have put it on a discussion board.
again, there are a variety of ways to "discuss" things, aren't there? like i said...yer rules.
quote:As implied earlier, you seem to be awfully selective in this accusation. People have been ridiculed for using screen names, accused of not paying attention in the ninth grade, knowing nothing about biology... And you're here criticizing those same people for showing that their screen names are irrelevant, that they did pay attention in the ninth grade, and that they know a thing or two about biology. So really, if you're going to criticize people on this point, at least be fair and criticize both sides of this debate.
ok. Dave...i know its hard, considering, but try not be an a$$. :)-->
now, if that's all i would have written to the "challengers," would be having all this fun, raf?
quote:What exactly do you want people to change here? Do you want us all to be just a bit more gullible?
ummm...no. but health is serious issue. from the bitterness. the resentment. the shame. some people want to discuss things in common and agreement without being "challenged", and no, this isn't by default a call to sign up another green card, or a sign of gullibility, or dangerous group think.
unless you somehow prefer the way the world is going, and how people are treating each other....you might want to change and keep changing all the time. renewed day by day, right? in your mind. your heart. that crap.
quote:I don't think anyone here is being stupid, so your "compliment" is misplaced.
no, i think you guys are smart. meaning, yeah, i also think smart people act stupid at times.
of course i think people are acting stupid about things. why would i have stuck my neck on the block. im even beginning to think im pretty stupid for doing it. :P-->
oh well. imo, worse than the fundie warrior against the devil stance, is the deeply entrenched nihilist mindset that say "nothing is possible with God. He can't even make something good come out of an overpriced Penta Water experience."
i've personally seen people healed from all sorts of strange things using all sorts of strange methods, none of which would satifisy modern science's less-than exhaustive criteria
but of course, according to some, those darn people have no right to be well. in fact, we should tell them they should be sick again, because the methods are not "authentic" or "official" or "scientifically explainable"
and this is a sad sad travesty.
you see what im getting at, raf?
what do the epistles say about wholeness of body soul and spirit?
about the tongue and speech and how to treat each other?
quote: Second: Lawyers like eyewitness testimony in some regards because it is unreliable and can veer a jury away from the provable facts of a case. I covered a trial involving two vehicles, one of which was going in the wrong direction on the highway. Accident reconstruction experts established beyond any shadow of a doubt which car was going the wrong way, but the eyewitness testimony was conflicting (some agreed with the experts; some did not). The jury acquitted the guy who was going the wrong way because the eyewitnesses did not agree (never mind that it was scientifically impossible for the defendant to be innocent: God bless the eyewitnesses)!
Raf: I'm sorry to hear your report above, but it does make my point about the power of eyewitness testimony.
I was really thinking more of a murder trial because that is what brought the subject up, the statement by Zixar that I should shut up before someone died from my stupidity- ie. I'd be a murderer, and then be convicted and put to death as such.
So I demanded a name and Krysilis came to Zixar's defense, citing some "policy" that I was not a part of making, had no knowledge of, and have no interest in.
Next someone will say that being convicted of murder by stupidity is ludicrous, and on and on. And as much as I like mental gymnastics and sparring, I have no interest in doing so with people who will not give their name, nor with lots that give their name.
Fact is that any "proof" of anything, whether in a science lab or in a court of law, begins with the researcher, or accuser, giving their name. A judge can even ask a person observing a trial to give his or her name or have the baliff escort them from the courtroom. And so, in answer to "what's in a name" I say everything! For good (or bad) reason some here may not want to give their name, and I respect that and knew it when I started the thread. But my charity in that regard doesn't extend to some fictcous character accusing me of being a potential murderer. As Linda Z said eary on in this thread, they can always go to another table.
But I did see the job that "the thugs" did to Sirguessalot's thread on breathing and have been wondering ever since how one prevents that from happening other than just leaving entirely and let them destroy a perfectly civil discussion by their nameless attacks. Seems he's very capable of figuring that one out before I do!
Anyway, in a murder trial (and I'm somewhat familiar with them having expended my last dime and last energies trying, unsuccessfully, to assert my mother's right to live where she wanted for the last 12 years of her life, rather than being declared incompetent (and then competent and then incompetent again numerous times as it suited the "powers that be") and slammed into a nursing home out of state for those 12 long years, while Ohio pretended she'd willingly moved to West Virginia so it wasn't their business, and West Virginia ignored the matter by saying that the jurisdiction was Mayfield Heights, Ohio), if two or three witnesses under oath testify that they saw the murderer kill the victum, no amount of "expert testimony" about dna, balistics, whatever, will change that- for one can always find opposing "experts" to say the opposite. And so the only way to overcome those two or three eyewitnesses is to find two or three others willing to testify that they saw the same man somewhere else at the same time. Then the jury has to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, and if unsure, they can't overcome "reasonable doubt".
This all assumes we're dealing with a legitimate court of law- an assumption that probably isn't valid today in the FEDGOV system. Hell, since 9/11 people can be jailed forever just because they are "a person of interest" and not even be accused of a crime.
And so I brought the matter of oxygenated water to this forum to be judged by a jury of my suposed "peers" in this court of public opinion. I've stated my reasons for doing so and somewhat of my qualifications and contempt for the medical profession in general as well as the legal profession and the political "profession", not to mention that I believe that good is stronger than evil because we overcome evil with good, or tons of other scripture that I assume most here are familiar with. I'll even apologize for giving the biblical coordinates in Matthew and Hebrews if it would help.
So I'll leave you for now with a quote from James M. Walker, that ends his book "The Theory of The Common Law", written in 1852 and published by Little, Brown and Company of Boston.
"Finally, I have endeavored to show that our system of jurisprudence consists of many subordinate parts, all of which are connected by beautiful dependencies, and each of them, as I have fully persuaded myself, is reducable to a few plain elements, that will commend themselves to our natural reason, or be justified by the history and situation of our political ancestors. But if the law be merely an unconnected series of decisions and statutes, its use may remain, though its dignity as a science be lost. Reason must yield its supremacy to memory, and the 'cantor formularum' is the greatest of lawyers."
(cantor formularum means "singer of formulas" unless someone else, who knows latin, can come up with a bettera translation- my Black's Law Dictionary doesn't have an entry for it.)
quote:Raf: I'm sorry to hear your report above, but it does make my point about the power of eyewitness testimony.
David, you're missing my point: the power of eyewitness testimony is its power to deceive.
Thank you for the rest of your post. I'm not here to pass judgment on the manner of other people's posts, including yours, so forgive me for getting into that above.
Oh, silly me...we're obviously looking at son of "Masters of the Word --- Mastering PFAL"
ROFLMAO!! :D-->
Dr. David,
One thing you totally miss in all your verbiage re juries, lawyers, common law and such, is that none of that has anything to do with scientific facts, what they are, and the determination thereof relating to the topic of oxygenated water, now in its 9th page in this thread. ... None. Zero. Zilch. Zippo. What your Hewlett Packard reverse Polish calculator says when it says "0". (Every good engineer ought to have one, ya know. :D-->)
Did I miss anything? -->
Oh, and I think that you made way-y-y to much of Zix's comment about 'your stupidity killing someone'. Anybody with any brains would realize that his comment is just that. A comment. NOT a judicially valid accusation that can be used to take you to a court of law.
So get a grip. Just because you have a bunch of skeptical people challenging your premise about oxygenated water here doesn't make us all part of that e-v-i-l FEDGOV (insert wicked chortling in the background here)
quote:And so I brought the matter of oxygenated water to this forum to be judged by a jury of my suposed "peers" in this court of public opinion.
If you've been on any jury, you would know that juries always, ALWAYS, gets into heated discussions and arguments about the evidence presented in order to come to their conclusions. I mean, we aren't talking about a garden party here.
This isn't even including griping about the pitiful jury pay and sequestering conditions that often go on.
quote:Anyway, in a murder trial (and I'm somewhat familiar with them having expended my last dime and last energies trying, unsuccessfully, to assert my mother's right to live where she wanted for the last 12 years of her life, rather than being declared incompetent (and then competent and then incompetent again numerous times as it suited the "powers that be") and slammed into a nursing home out of state for those 12 long years, while Ohio pretended she'd willingly moved to West Virginia so it wasn't their business, and West Virginia ignored the matter by saying that the jurisdiction was Mayfield Heights, Ohio),
What the bloody well does that have to do with murder trials? And why do you feel the need to promote expertise on the subject, as if no one else is familiar with the concept of murder trials. I've covered about a dozen murder trials, a few rape, etc. The trial I cited above was a vehicular homicide case: two people died.
quote:if two or three witnesses under oath testify that they saw the murderer kill the victum, no amount of "expert testimony" about dna, balistics, whatever, will change that- for one can always find opposing "experts" to say the opposite. And so [and here't the imporant part people, pay close attention]the only way to overcome those two or three eyewitnesses is to find two or three others willing to testify that they saw the same man somewhere else at the same time.
BINGO! Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily reliable. You can tell me that you drank Penta Water and afterward you felt good. But just because B (I felt good) follows A (I drank Penta Water) doesn't mean that A caused B. That's what they call a logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo procter hoc (forgive the misspelling).
I have more than reasonable doubt on Penta Water. I've got eyewitness testimony from you and a few others, and I've got eyewitness testimony from objective sources with no bone to pick who say it doesn't work. With conflicting eyewitnesses, I turn to science, which says this stuff is bunk. Physiologists say it's bunk. MD's say it's bunk. The AMA says it's bunk. Who says it works? Two groups of people: those who are trying to sell it, and those who really want to believe it.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong on this. But you're far, far, far from proving anything about this stuff, except that you believe in it.
$12 a gallon for a placebo? No thanks. I'd rather drink some of Littlehawk's Pair Juice. Now you talk about stuff that works! :)-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
72
106
68
48
Popular Days
Jan 29
30
Apr 26
21
Jan 18
17
Feb 9
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 72 posts
David Anderson 106 posts
krys 68 posts
oldiesman 48 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2005
30 posts
Apr 26 2005
21 posts
Jan 18 2005
17 posts
Feb 9 2005
16 posts
Goey
Posted By David Anderson:
And I bet they didn't teach you the above either in the 9th grade, cause it is wrong.
Lymph does not "begin" as chyle. Chyle is composed of digested fats picked up by the chyliferous vessels of the small intestine. This chyle combines with fluids collected by lymphatic vessels elsewhere in the body, thus forming the lymph. Chyle is just one component of lymph not the beginning of it.
Neither is the lymph "dumped off into the blood stream at the lymph nodes." It is deposited in the bloodstream from the thoracic duct into the subclavian veins. Leukocytes and antibodies produced by lymphocytes - along with a very small amount lymphatic fluid is mostly what enters the bloodstream from the lymph nodes. This is good stuff- not "sewer water".
Your understanding of the lymphatic system is quite errant.
Who are the eyewitness that have seen the oxygen move from the oxygenated water, through the stomach/intestines/lymphatic system and into the body's cells? - Produce your eywitnesses. - You can't because there are no "eyewitnesses" to this theoretical process of yours. All you have is a shaky theory and some anecdotal evidence.Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
This thread reminds me of something. Back in 1989, John Lynn put together a PFAL knock-off called 'Introduction to God's Heart'.
I listened to that tape set several years ago, and you know that one of Lynn's guest teachers was good ol' 'Dr. David' himself.
I wonder if he put forward the same effort at teaching with a 'mathematical accuracy and scientific precision' as he does here.
Makes ya wanna go 'Hhmmm...'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Is that right? Hmph. I'll have to give those tapes another listen. Or i could just discard them entirely.
:)-->
My name is Rafael Olmeda
And Penta Water is bunk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
No Raf. What we have is two live witnesses, in Kit Sober and myself, that are willing to put our names behind our testamony, not so that lawyers can insult juries but so that juries can weigh evidence. The concept of a witness goes back at least to the book of Matthew (18:`6), "...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" and Hebrews (6:16), "For men verity swear by the greater: and an oath for conformation is to them an end of all strife."
And so this thread started by Kit Sober asking me to post what I knew about oxygenated water to a group that suposedly consisted of ex-way people. She has stated, as have I, that drinking distilled water with oxygen added to approximately 75 ppm has been benificial. No one has stated that they found doing so not benificial or in fact harmful.
The closest commercial product that I know of is Penta Water, which according to my dissolved oxygen meter, and their claims, measures about 40 ppm. Although I can't say Krysilis and Mstar1 are "witnesses" in the sense of being willing to swear under oath before a jury of their peers, because I don't know that they would be willing to do so, in this forum they are at least "peer equal" to those who give no evidence but rather merely defame, misrepresent, or change the discussion- and none of them have given us their real name so we might know who they are or where they are coming from, except you. So I'm happy to answer you as I agree that healthy scepticism is benificial. Mean spirited scepticism, misrepresentation and out and out lies are something else entirely. And the most mean spirited fiction was set up to be an expert in chemistry who now says
And so I ask, who is the poser here, me or Zixar? I would merely change the quote and insert his name instead of mine, for his "information" is sheer .... and his intention is to stop anybody from enjoying the benifit of oxygenated water, weither bought from the store or made themselves.
We're now suposed to think it's all very dangerous and I've not found it so in a year and a half and Mstar1 has not found it dangerous in two and a half years. Nor have I heard from a single medical doctor that it was dangerous in the least. In fact, a lymphyatic specialist, my cousin Russ's doctor at the Cleveland Clinic, merely yawned as if the subject was too boring for him to even consider. And he's suposed to know the lymphatic system in and out. He didn't tell Russ not to drink it and he knew Russ's medical history better than anyone.
To debunk Zixar's latest salvo about medical grade oxygen killing people because it was not "filled in accordance with the current good manufacturing practice regulations", (which regulations have no jurisdiction whatsoever over any but medical grade oxygen), I drove over to my oxygen supplier, Great Lakes Oxygen, to quiz them about the possibility of carbon monoxide getting into an oxygen bottle and the fellow I talked with said exactly the same thing as I did, that this was .....
He went on to say that his company regularly certified it's oxygen to 99.995% pure and further confirmed, as have others, that both medical grade and welding grade oxygen come from the same sources, and added that many times if one company's plant is closer to a customer than the sellers, that the sellers empty truck gets loaded at the competators plant under some reciprocity agreement because it's the same product. Such arrangements make perfect sense to reduce hauling cost and is like the power companies buying electricity from a competator rather than having to fire up another boiler to carry peak loads, when it is less costly to do so.
Now if you actually tried Penta Water, or any other oxygenated water for that matter, and found that you burped, that would be a serious matter to discuss or investigate further. I rather think at this point that you haven't actually done so and are merely saying .... using different words. That's your privilege but it's hardly evidence of any sort.
The other notable piece of information furnished by my oxygen supplier was that they used to bottle their own medical grade oxygen until about five years ago when the regulations were changed (FEDGOV regs) to insist on a second source for medical grade oxygen. It didn't change the fact that they are all the same (at least four 9's pure), it just meant more trucks coming in, more companies to deal with, and a vastly increased paperwork load. So they got out of the business of filling their own medical grade bottles and merely act as a middleman in that end of the business.
There are only a handfull of companies that actually make oxygen from air- BOC, AGA, Linde, Air Products, corp. and probably a couple of others I'm not familiar with. Great Lakes Oxygen buys theirs from Air Products in Pittsburg and the real issue is that they are governed by industry standards rather than by the medical establishment and I leave it to you to decide which is more reliable. I'll take long standing industry standards of 99.995 pure over government regulations and some supposed advantage in cleanliness which is largely myth and hype. I have my own bottle and so know exactly what is in it. If I rented bottles from them I'd still know what is in it since they routinely pull a vacuum on each bottle before it is filled. So much for my mythical example of delierately trying to contaminate their product by pulling a vacuum on my bottle and sticking it by the exhaust pipe to get as much carbon monoxide in as I could. They just pull it back out before refilling my bottle.
As for cleanliness of their operation, or of any other welding supplier for that matter, I'd be more concerned breathing LA air or eating off of someone elses tableware than I would of a contaminated oxygen bottle.
Oh, I haven't yet heard back from Dr. Park, the source of your "evidence" that oxygenated water was bunk. I guess he's too busy "proving" that man was never created.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Gosh David,
Have you ever even heard the term "anecdotal evidence"?
Sorta like the medicine men of the old west, traveling from town to town selling their miraculous patent medicines. They never seemed to have a shortage of heartfelt testimonials as to the effecaciousness of their product...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Hey, wait a minute! That patent medicine had some damn good drugs in it.
:)-->
(sorry, just had to. Carry on!)
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
David,
A couple of things here.
First: the fact that you're willing to put your name behind your testimony, as opposed to a handle like "bluzeman" or "zixar" is unimpressive and proves nothing.
Second: Lawyers like eyewitness testimony in some regards because it is unreliable and can veer a jury away from the provable facts of a case. I covered a trial involving two vehicles, one of which was going in the wrong direction on the highway. Accident reconstruction experts established beyond any shadow of a doubt which car was going the wrong way, but the eyewitness testimony was conflicting (some agreed with the experts; some did not). The jury acquitted the guy who was going the wrong way because the eyewitnesses did not agree (never mind that it was scientifically impossible for the defendant to be innocent: God bless the eyewitnesses)!
All of which is designed to say this: Penta Water is bunk. It doesn't work because it can't work. The science you've quoted to us is flawed, and dispassionate people who've looked at this all come out saying the same thing: it's bunk. The only people saying otherwise are the people selling it and the people who desperately want to believe it.
Your appeals to scripture are irrelevant. I can get 5,000 people to swear on a stack of Bibles that they saw David Copperfield turn a monkey into a swatch. All it means is they all saw the same illusion: it doesn't make the illusion real.
My name is Rafael Olmeda.
And Penta Water is bunk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
ok, im an idiot, cuz i just gotta say this once...(tho of course i'll stick around to defend "myself"
-->)
what the heck...yer rules
i don't think Dave is at all guilty of what you guys are getting all frothy about. he is not starting a cult or trying to get rich, nor saying its "the gospel" (like he's been falsely accused). and he and many others have actually benefitted from this air-water, and they think its great. I mean, why don't you call Kit Sober and her husband a liar too? or the others who are interested. besides, if its just a placebo and helps, i say...bottle the hell out of it. distribute it. give it away. friggin help people somehow fer gawd's sake.
watching this thread has been like watching a sick frat party gang up on what they perceive as a weakness, then spaz out on him when he shows any more signs of weakness. The Penn and Tellers of the world are funny and passionate, but they are also a bunch of magicians and con artists with all kinds of chips on their shoulder. they are not prophets, nor are they very ethical or helpful in their manner of distributing their brand of "information."
"You are an absolute idiot for believing so and so..." is not useful, kind, practical, or anything.
you guys have spent so much energy trying to save everyone from little ole Dave's stories and thoughts, if i didn't understand it a bit, i would be baffled. And now, the shame and demonization of Dave has carried over to other threads.
what the f? go get laid or something. There has got to be ways to better deal with our own physical and mental illnesses than this. And by all this misrepresenting, you are causing more harm than you think you are preventing, imo. "Protecing the innocent from big bad Dave Anderson's sparkly water ideas"
-->
You would think this thread on "miracle water" has become the official group therapy session for working out all our rabid ex-way shaming techniques.
its like yer intentionally going out of your way...to do what? tar and feather the guy? show off to everyone how absolutely and consistently stubbornly mean and rude you can be?
i dunno, i think the longer you/i/we do stuff like this, the harder and harder it is to change (if you/i/we even want to any more)
i honestly think you guys are smarter than this, and have a lot more to offer (tho, i might be wrong on this too...we'll see)
:D-->
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
David Posted:
Using these scriptures in an attempt to establish the efficacy of oxygenated water is a complete missaplication of the word of God. You are using them completely out of their context. The concept of witnesses is a good one, but it does not apply here.According to the same logic/usage then we must also accept the existence of UFO's, aliens, or for that matter anything that any two people claim or believe to be true. Who is that naive?
David, you and Kit, while probably well meaning, are not "witnesses" to the efficacy of oxygenated water. You simply believe it works.
However, in light of the gross errors in the "science" that you have expounded here as to HOW it works, and the complete lack of any kind of valid testing or verifiable data, your beliefs are based upon nothing more than "I tried it and I feel better". Not good enough.
Maybe you do actually feel better, but unless there is proper testing in a controlled environment that serves to eliminate any other possibility for why you "feel better" then you don't really know the reason - you are speculating at best - delusional at worse.
For example, before you began drinking oxygenated water what was your daily water intake? What kind of water was it? Did your water intake increase, decrease or remain the same? What was your diet before and after oxygenated water. Coffee intake before and after? Alcohol? What medications/vitamins/herbs/etc. were you taking before an after - any changes?. What was your excercise level - before an after? So on an so forth.
Without controlled testing , your "feel better" testimony is pretty worthless and any perceived positive benefits from "oxygenated" water could be attributed to a host of other things other than the oxygen in the water.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Todd,
Where did anyone all David a liar? I haven't read every post, but I don't see where anyone accused him of lying. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
omg, raf, plz don't tell me that your not being able to find the exact words "Dave, you are lying" in the text of the thread must mean...
besides, why did you pick only that tidbit of a criticism out of my entire post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No one has accused David of lying, that's why. Lying would imply ill intent. As I said, I did not read every thread on this post, but those I did read all seemed to say "David, you're really, really, really mistaken." David has responded, "oh yeah, well I use my real name. Why are you hiding?" I don't see you criticizing him for that. But for challenging the basis of the claims he's making, we get (falsely) accused of calling him a liar? I just wanted to see how this worked.
As I said, please correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm not above saying so when I'm wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So that I'm not accused of singling out one thing in Todd's post for criticism...
Preach it, brother.
The only one who sets rules here is Paw. If I violate 'em, there's a notify button at the top of this post. Please feel free to alert him.
Nice start, accusing us of getting "frothy," while Dave is, what, the very model of a modern major general?
Of course he's not trying to start a cult. Who said he was? However, he has equated the mindset of rejecting his claims about oxygen saturated water with the mindset of rejecting Christ.
They SAY they've benefitted from the water, yes. They THINK it's great, yes. But science doesn't bear out that oxygen saturated water has any benefit being claimed. So we're asking, where's the proof? Testimony is great, and more power to them, but in order for something to be beneficial, the results have to be able to be duplicated in a controlled setting. Those who have tried to duplicate the results in a controlled setting have found that the claims are untrue. The only people insisting that the claims are true are (1) those who are selling it, and (2) those who really want to believe it. I presume Dave falls into the latter category. IF there are liars involved here, they are in the former group, not the latter.
Because to call her a liar "too," we would have to have called Dave a liar, and we haven't.
Ditto.
That's what you say. And you're entitled. I say $12 a gallon for a placebo is pretty steep.
They are.
They're not.
But that's where we disagree. We don't think a placebo helps people: it fleeces them. I don't want to see people get fleeced.
I'm confused: are you describing those who are interested in verifying the claims being made about oxygen saturated water, or those who pounce on truly significant and relevant matters like screen names?
True.
Neither are the sellers of Penta Water.
Neither is "You have the same mindset that rejected Christ."
What's so baffling? He's making claims about the benefits of a product: we're asking him to prove it. He's offering his proof and we're challenging it.
You're right. I don't see any need to criticize this thread on others, or to badmouth Dave (on this thread or others). But when you use a word like demonization, please note who bashed people over the heads with Bible verses on this thread, and who's saying, "please prove your claims."
That an offer?
We're mentally ill now?
Name one thing we have "misrepresented."
Umm, discussion board. That means we discuss. If he didn't want it discussed, he shouldn't have put it on a discussion board.
YOU would think. I never associated the two.
As implied earlier, you seem to be awfully selective in this accusation. People have been ridiculed for using screen names, accused of not paying attention in the ninth grade, knowing nothing about biology... And you're here criticizing those same people for showing that their screen names are irrelevant, that they did pay attention in the ninth grade, and that they know a thing or two about biology. So really, if you're going to criticize people on this point, at least be fair and criticize both sides of this debate.
What exactly do you want people to change here? Do you want us all to be just a bit more gullible?
I don't think anyone here is being stupid, so your "compliment" is misplaced.
Well, let me know when you've made your decision. I eagerly await it.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
okee dokee. i said id stick around....
we all set rules for ourselves (or not). and we can impose these rules on others (or not). there are many sets of rules going on here. the one i was referring to was the rule where "because its the internet" we can heap as much shame and abuse on each other as we wish, and then somehow call it merely "dialogue" and "discussion."
is there such thing as verbal abuse?
does it cause damage to the abusee or abuser?
science, religion, psychology, experience...all say yes.
oh great. the usual pack of "challengers" basically dogpiles one guy's attempt at talking about a subject, and then someone challenges the manner of "dialogue," and then someone stands there and say "what about him? after all, he cussed too."
btw - i have never claimed Dave was a model of anything.
i'll just go find a few (of many)
implying what?
implying what?
ok, back to Raf...
I think Dave was referring to unhealthy overblown cynicism in general. And that he does not take this water idea as seriously as people are accusing him of. though i could also understand why it might fit in the category of "good news" for him and others. i'll defend him for this, even if i don't drink the stuff.
perhaps one reason the comparison pushed everyone's buttons to overreacting is because we are still obviously way too easily offended by anything that has do with that J-word.
for one, like religions, all branches of science have their own often severe limits and prejudices. two, those are your own rules for "something to be beneficial." if i eat something and i am made well, i could care less if science tells me i should be sick cuz they can't figure out why.
when someone's health benefits from something, be it a placebo or not, they often go into regression when someone tells them to doubt it. our state of mind and state of body work pretty closely together. and this "help" is often done in the name of cold hard science. but when people get sick because of this approach, the doctors need to start seeing a shrink.
i don't think its that cut and dry. again, yer rules, yer limits, you stated them.
again with the liar thing. when you say what something someone is writing about is manure or worse, even when a half dozen or more other people are obviously wanting to talk to Dave some more about it, because they've experienced benefits, you can call em all crazy. you can call em all duped. you can call em all gullible. but that's ok, as long as you don't use the word liar?
and you can call it a "challenge to his thesis" all you want. which is part true, but its also way more than that.
we disagree on a lot, raf. about how things work in general, it seems. fine.
but Dave is fleecing no one. and yeah, i think the Penta price is way steep. i bet Dave does too.
"verifying claims?"
ive been around. that is not what i would call it.
"pounce on truly significant matters like screen names"
or, desperately trying to defend himself from a mob of rude cynics who have live by different sets of rules?
yeah, but read between the lines, raf. honestly, does Dave think he is Christ? Does he think his water is the ultimate path to heaven? nope. again, the cynics dogpiled him and perhaps are overreacting to Dave's way of saying something like..."you guys have started with doubt and may stay there." ive talked to him, and don't think he's the type.
like i said. im not that baffled by what's going on. and i think your summation is heavily filtered.
omg, did it hurt when he bashed ya?
if so, consider how much we can affect each other via written words
if not, why you complaining?
who aint, raf? with all our little pocket fulls of little addictions and fixations to work out. honestly. besides, i hope we're reaching a time when mental illnesses are nothing to be ashamed of. one can be addicted to anything, right? our bodily health and mental health is one package. there are ways to "challenge" ideas without spiralling into "verbally abusive behavior." it can be like groundhog day, over and over and over again. not good for the heart or organs of all parties involved.
The benefit of oxygenated water, more perhaps even moreso, the character of these "accepted" methods of "challenging" people's ideas on this forum. you honestly think everyone feels safe posting here? are we now in some darwinian mode, where if we can't stick up for ourself against a pack, we don't deserve to be writing here? to some posters, these are the "rules" they live by.
if you think it aint true...im not sure what to tell ya any more.
again, there are a variety of ways to "discuss" things, aren't there? like i said...yer rules.
ok. Dave...i know its hard, considering, but try not be an a$$.
:)-->
now, if that's all i would have written to the "challengers," would be having all this fun, raf?
ummm...no. but health is serious issue. from the bitterness. the resentment. the shame. some people want to discuss things in common and agreement without being "challenged", and no, this isn't by default a call to sign up another green card, or a sign of gullibility, or dangerous group think.
unless you somehow prefer the way the world is going, and how people are treating each other....you might want to change and keep changing all the time. renewed day by day, right? in your mind. your heart. that crap.
no, i think you guys are smart. meaning, yeah, i also think smart people act stupid at times.
of course i think people are acting stupid about things. why would i have stuck my neck on the block. im even beginning to think im pretty stupid for doing it.
:P-->
oh well. imo, worse than the fundie warrior against the devil stance, is the deeply entrenched nihilist mindset that say "nothing is possible with God. He can't even make something good come out of an overpriced Penta Water experience."
i've personally seen people healed from all sorts of strange things using all sorts of strange methods, none of which would satifisy modern science's less-than exhaustive criteria
but of course, according to some, those darn people have no right to be well. in fact, we should tell them they should be sick again, because the methods are not "authentic" or "official" or "scientifically explainable"
and this is a sad sad travesty.
you see what im getting at, raf?
what do the epistles say about wholeness of body soul and spirit?
about the tongue and speech and how to treat each other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Todd,
I don't agree with all you've written, but I appreciate the time you took to write it.
It's late, so I'm only going to answer one point:
If you honestly don't see the difference between telling someone he's wrong and telling him he's lying, then I think you're...
wrong.
But thanks for the admonishment. I'll keep it in mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
lol. fair enough, raf.
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Raf: I'm sorry to hear your report above, but it does make my point about the power of eyewitness testimony.
I was really thinking more of a murder trial because that is what brought the subject up, the statement by Zixar that I should shut up before someone died from my stupidity- ie. I'd be a murderer, and then be convicted and put to death as such.
So I demanded a name and Krysilis came to Zixar's defense, citing some "policy" that I was not a part of making, had no knowledge of, and have no interest in.
Next someone will say that being convicted of murder by stupidity is ludicrous, and on and on. And as much as I like mental gymnastics and sparring, I have no interest in doing so with people who will not give their name, nor with lots that give their name.
Fact is that any "proof" of anything, whether in a science lab or in a court of law, begins with the researcher, or accuser, giving their name. A judge can even ask a person observing a trial to give his or her name or have the baliff escort them from the courtroom. And so, in answer to "what's in a name" I say everything! For good (or bad) reason some here may not want to give their name, and I respect that and knew it when I started the thread. But my charity in that regard doesn't extend to some fictcous character accusing me of being a potential murderer. As Linda Z said eary on in this thread, they can always go to another table.
But I did see the job that "the thugs" did to Sirguessalot's thread on breathing and have been wondering ever since how one prevents that from happening other than just leaving entirely and let them destroy a perfectly civil discussion by their nameless attacks. Seems he's very capable of figuring that one out before I do!
Anyway, in a murder trial (and I'm somewhat familiar with them having expended my last dime and last energies trying, unsuccessfully, to assert my mother's right to live where she wanted for the last 12 years of her life, rather than being declared incompetent (and then competent and then incompetent again numerous times as it suited the "powers that be") and slammed into a nursing home out of state for those 12 long years, while Ohio pretended she'd willingly moved to West Virginia so it wasn't their business, and West Virginia ignored the matter by saying that the jurisdiction was Mayfield Heights, Ohio), if two or three witnesses under oath testify that they saw the murderer kill the victum, no amount of "expert testimony" about dna, balistics, whatever, will change that- for one can always find opposing "experts" to say the opposite. And so the only way to overcome those two or three eyewitnesses is to find two or three others willing to testify that they saw the same man somewhere else at the same time. Then the jury has to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, and if unsure, they can't overcome "reasonable doubt".
This all assumes we're dealing with a legitimate court of law- an assumption that probably isn't valid today in the FEDGOV system. Hell, since 9/11 people can be jailed forever just because they are "a person of interest" and not even be accused of a crime.
And so I brought the matter of oxygenated water to this forum to be judged by a jury of my suposed "peers" in this court of public opinion. I've stated my reasons for doing so and somewhat of my qualifications and contempt for the medical profession in general as well as the legal profession and the political "profession", not to mention that I believe that good is stronger than evil because we overcome evil with good, or tons of other scripture that I assume most here are familiar with. I'll even apologize for giving the biblical coordinates in Matthew and Hebrews if it would help.
So I'll leave you for now with a quote from James M. Walker, that ends his book "The Theory of The Common Law", written in 1852 and published by Little, Brown and Company of Boston.
"Finally, I have endeavored to show that our system of jurisprudence consists of many subordinate parts, all of which are connected by beautiful dependencies, and each of them, as I have fully persuaded myself, is reducable to a few plain elements, that will commend themselves to our natural reason, or be justified by the history and situation of our political ancestors. But if the law be merely an unconnected series of decisions and statutes, its use may remain, though its dignity as a science be lost. Reason must yield its supremacy to memory, and the 'cantor formularum' is the greatest of lawyers."
(cantor formularum means "singer of formulas" unless someone else, who knows latin, can come up with a bettera translation- my Black's Law Dictionary doesn't have an entry for it.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
David, you're missing my point: the power of eyewitness testimony is its power to deceive.
Thank you for the rest of your post. I'm not here to pass judgment on the manner of other people's posts, including yours, so forgive me for getting into that above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Why is this a 9-page thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, silly me...we're obviously looking at son of "Masters of the Word --- Mastering PFAL"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
ROFLMAO!!
:D-->
Dr. David,
One thing you totally miss in all your verbiage re juries, lawyers, common law and such, is that none of that has anything to do with scientific facts, what they are, and the determination thereof relating to the topic of oxygenated water, now in its 9th page in this thread. ... None. Zero. Zilch. Zippo. What your Hewlett Packard reverse Polish calculator says when it says "0". (Every good engineer ought to have one, ya know.
:D-->)
Did I miss anything?
-->
Oh, and I think that you made way-y-y to much of Zix's comment about 'your stupidity killing someone'. Anybody with any brains would realize that his comment is just that. A comment. NOT a judicially valid accusation that can be used to take you to a court of law.
So get a grip. Just because you have a bunch of skeptical people challenging your premise about oxygenated water here doesn't make us all part of that e-v-i-l FEDGOV (insert wicked chortling in the background here)
If you've been on any jury, you would know that juries always, ALWAYS, gets into heated discussions and arguments about the evidence presented in order to come to their conclusions. I mean, we aren't talking about a garden party here.
This isn't even including griping about the pitiful jury pay and sequestering conditions that often go on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now that I've got a few minutes...
What the bloody well does that have to do with murder trials? And why do you feel the need to promote expertise on the subject, as if no one else is familiar with the concept of murder trials. I've covered about a dozen murder trials, a few rape, etc. The trial I cited above was a vehicular homicide case: two people died.
BINGO! Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily reliable. You can tell me that you drank Penta Water and afterward you felt good. But just because B (I felt good) follows A (I drank Penta Water) doesn't mean that A caused B. That's what they call a logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo procter hoc (forgive the misspelling).
I have more than reasonable doubt on Penta Water. I've got eyewitness testimony from you and a few others, and I've got eyewitness testimony from objective sources with no bone to pick who say it doesn't work. With conflicting eyewitnesses, I turn to science, which says this stuff is bunk. Physiologists say it's bunk. MD's say it's bunk. The AMA says it's bunk. Who says it works? Two groups of people: those who are trying to sell it, and those who really want to believe it.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong on this. But you're far, far, far from proving anything about this stuff, except that you believe in it.
$12 a gallon for a placebo? No thanks. I'd rather drink some of Littlehawk's Pair Juice. Now you talk about stuff that works!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
This thread is such a distraction from much better things going on that it ain't even funny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You haven't tried Littlehawk's pair juice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.