Dr. Gary Conboy wrote:
>> There has been quite a discussion this month concerning "alternative" medicine
> and "novel" diagnostic methodology. Personnally, I would be very disappointed
> if this type of discussion predominated in this group every month. However, I
> have found it informative (and horrifying). One of the attractions this group
> holds for me is the curious mix of backgrounds of the participants covering
> the spectrum from high school students to PhDs.
I agree. These discussions aren't going to convince the diehard
naturopaths, or stop the spammers, and they probably annoy a lot of
readers. That said, there are a lot of readers out there who are using
newsgroups to look for information about their health, who don't have a
scientific background, and to whom naturopath waffle sounds
superficially convincing. I think that when someone posts specious,
silly or misleading statements, the scientific community should respond
with facts, logic and wit.
I'd make a distinction here between posts from real people and spam
messages sent automatically. No point responding to spam at all.
Andy Fell
