why did you feel the need to restate exactly what i had said, at greater length, and in a context that implied that we did not agree?
First of all, that's not what you said. Second of all, I didn't say it in a manner to imply that we didn't agree, I said it in a manner that implied my frustration that we *did* agree and you seemed to be arguing with me over it as if you thought I disagreed with you.
In the quote I used, what you said was that anecdotal evidence was good enough to suggest that an alt. med remedy might be effective, and what I said was that it was *not* good enough to suggest that it might be effective. I said it was good enough to investigate *whether or not* it's effective, or to see if something else is going on, which is often the case. That's the exact opposite of what you said.
The rest of your comment was calling for me to be more concerned with empiricism, and that was the frustration I exhibited because it appeared as though you don't seem to understand that the whole point of my post was support for empirical evidence, and that alt medicine either had none or had some against it, because when it has empirical evidence for it, it becomes labeled "medicine" and is no longer part of the alt. med pharmacy.
I also didn't edit my post, so that only reinforces my original opinion that you didn't read or understand clearly my points in the first place, which is why you offered "corrections" on points I was not making.
Sorry, but a quote is not up for changing. He said it that way, so it stays that way. You are free to approach him and ask him to retract his statement. I clarified and more accurately explained his quote in the rest of my post precisely because I know not everything has been tested (hence, the reason why I said that, explicitly), but I will not change the words within the quotation marks because they are not mine to change.
It is not always possible to know how deep into woo someone is when I first meet them. I also know lots of different types of people - I don't insulate myself to groups of people who only believe exactly as I believe. I was also more tolerant of woo when I was younger and this person stems from those days. There are many reasons how I came to be friends with someone who is "deep into the woo". I often disagree with my friends, but if you think this is "upset", you have a much higher opinion of yourself and your impact on strangers than you should. This is disagreement and annoyance that you could so miss my point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 7/21/10 04:40 am (UTC)From:First of all, that's not what you said. Second of all, I didn't say it in a manner to imply that we didn't agree, I said it in a manner that implied my frustration that we *did* agree and you seemed to be arguing with me over it as if you thought I disagreed with you.
In the quote I used, what you said was that anecdotal evidence was good enough to suggest that an alt. med remedy might be effective, and what I said was that it was *not* good enough to suggest that it might be effective. I said it was good enough to investigate *whether or not* it's effective, or to see if something else is going on, which is often the case. That's the exact opposite of what you said.
The rest of your comment was calling for me to be more concerned with empiricism, and that was the frustration I exhibited because it appeared as though you don't seem to understand that the whole point of my post was support for empirical evidence, and that alt medicine either had none or had some against it, because when it has empirical evidence for it, it becomes labeled "medicine" and is no longer part of the alt. med pharmacy.
I also didn't edit my post, so that only reinforces my original opinion that you didn't read or understand clearly my points in the first place, which is why you offered "corrections" on points I was not making.
Sorry, but a quote is not up for changing. He said it that way, so it stays that way. You are free to approach him and ask him to retract his statement. I clarified and more accurately explained his quote in the rest of my post precisely because I know not everything has been tested (hence, the reason why I said that, explicitly), but I will not change the words within the quotation marks because they are not mine to change.
It is not always possible to know how deep into woo someone is when I first meet them. I also know lots of different types of people - I don't insulate myself to groups of people who only believe exactly as I believe. I was also more tolerant of woo when I was younger and this person stems from those days. There are many reasons how I came to be friends with someone who is "deep into the woo". I often disagree with my friends, but if you think this is "upset", you have a much higher opinion of yourself and your impact on strangers than you should. This is disagreement and annoyance that you could so miss my point.
If I am so trying to you, you can go elsewhere