In article <338C9EF3.79C6 at netmatters.co.uk> Andrew Fell <ahfell at netmatters.co.uk> writes:
>From: Andrew Fell <ahfell at netmatters.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: enough is enough (G. Lauritch)
>Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 14:09:07 -0700
>Organization: Stanford University
>Message-ID: <338C9EF3.79C6 at netmatters.co.uk>
>References: <conboy.13.338C1F4E at UPEI.CA>
>Reply-To: ahfell at netmatters.co.uk>NNTP-Posting-Host: facsnt2.stanford.edu
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
>Xref: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu bionet.parasitology:2414
>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.
I would suggest NOT to respond to silly posts at all rather than responding
with facts, logic, and wits. I have follow your advice before only to be drawn
into a nightmarish discussion wioth somebody who finally asked "what the hell
you mena by 'antigen'?"
Sorry this list is going down the drain . . .
Omar O. Barriga