freedom of choice to accept or refuse treatments..

First topic message reminder :

should it be our human rights to accept or refuse any treatment offered and should we be made aware of any alternative treatments..

BigAndy9 wrote:Should doctors/surgeons be empowered to make life-saving decisions even if the parents object for religious reasons?

At the moment I think they have to go through the courts.

The way things stand with religion in this country, I fear a doctor may be very wary of making a decision if the parents were there and said "we're muslim, you can't do that".

the other problem is can the doctor/surgeon be trusted as unbiased they do get paid for their work and the drugs they use..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:




didge do you have the right to steal freedom from patients..
Illogical question, what freedom is being stolen, when the best care is offered?
,,
herr didge do you have the right to steal 9 years of someones life for what you believe is right..
illogical again, based upon pseudo claims on chemo by unhinged loons, people chose to have chemo, in the case of children, parents have no right to deny their children the best chances of survival, to do so would be child abuse

didge do you have the right to stop information for people..
Yes we can censur things like child abuse porn, or do you want this to be allowed?

didge do you have the right to ban religious schools...
Very much so, there is no need to have a religious schools as we have non-religious schools, what you need to argue is why there is a need for one, when religion is nothing more than faith and should play no part in shaping the education of young children

my equality for all is full of BS.. that is for sure... :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: 

Hilarious, so I answered your questions, answer my dummy








Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?


Do you have the right to kill someone?


Do you have the right to steal from someone?


Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about    

Bumped for the dummy HF to answer, as he tries poorly to squirm out of the little pathetic turd he is.


  

oh herr didge you goose stepping loon...

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

you would condone murder of patients, you would steal 9 years of peoples lives and just because you think you are right..

you would allow no choice..

you would allow know information..

you would allow no freedom of speech..

you would allow no religious schools..

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

perhaps you would like to explain how you think equality works...  

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:




didge do you have the right to steal freedom from patients..
Illogical question, what freedom is being stolen, when the best care is offered?
,,
herr didge do you have the right to steal 9 years of someones life for what you believe is right..
illogical again, based upon pseudo claims on chemo by unhinged loons, people chose to have chemo, in the case of children, parents have no right to deny their children the best chances of survival, to do so would be child abuse

didge do you have the right to stop information for people..
Yes we can censur things like child abuse porn, or do you want this to be allowed?

didge do you have the right to ban religious schools...
Very much so, there is no need to have a religious schools as we have non-religious schools, what you need to argue is why there is a need for one, when religion is nothing more than faith and should play no part in shaping the education of young children

my equality for all is full of BS.. that is for sure... :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: 

Hilarious, so I answered your questions, answer my dummy








Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?


Do you have the right to kill someone?


Do you have the right to steal from someone?


Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about    

Bumped for the dummy HF to answer, as he tries poorly to squirm out of the little pathetic turd he is.


  

heavenly father wrote:oh herr didge you goose stepping loon...

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

you would condone murder of patients, you would steal 9 years of peoples lives and just because you think you are right..

you would allow no choice..

you would allow know information..

you would allow no freedom of speech..

you would allow no religious schools..

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

perhaps you would like to explain how you think equality works...  

bumped because herr didge hasn't answered...

Oh dear poor HF the unhinged loon has his questions answered but cannot answer mine


Game over


Ha ha ha ha ha ha

All can see you cannot answer making you look a right prat

  


Job done and again easy

heavenly father wrote:

heavenly father wrote:oh herr didge you goose stepping loon...

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

you would condone murder of patients, you would steal 9 years of peoples lives and just because you think you are right..

you would allow no choice..

you would allow know information..

you would allow no freedom of speech..

you would allow no religious schools..

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

perhaps you would like to explain how you think equality works...  

bumped because herr didge hasn't answered...

oh the poor fool herr didge... he doesn't seem to be able to define equality, then again what dictator could...  

heavenly father wrote:testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

BigAndy9 wrote:We should be offered whatever the NHS can provide.

It should be up to us to go and find alternatives, if we want to.

And yes, we should have the choice to pick what we want.

The NHS shouldn't have to tell you that there's a church down the road which offers a bit of hocus pocus.

I agree with this.

The NHS should make you aware of all, as veya says, PROVEN treatments. But it should be up to the patient to decide whether or not to take them.

If a patient wishes to refuse proper medical treatment for something they read 'on t'interweb' then that's their funeral, sorry 'right' (and in the nicest possible way, natural selection does what it does with 'those' kinds of people...).

As Andy says though; the NHS should no more recommend Madame Mysteries miracle serum than it should the church or a tribal Aztec life giving dance  

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:



Hilarious, so I answered your questions, answer my dummy








Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?


No I wouldnt


Do you have the right to kill someone?


Ahhh...now that depends........ in self defence yes both legally and morally
In revenge? not legally (at least in this country), Morally, depends on ones moral compass and the scale of the offence against you I suppose. I could foresee certain circumstances that might lead someone to do so...


Do you have the right to steal from someone?
hmmm...again....depends doesnt it, on circumstance and nature...the starving man steals food...legally wrong, morally???? possibly not????? as you have a right to survive and that right trumps property rights...


Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about    

Bumped for the dummy HF to answer, as he tries poorly to squirm out of the little pathetic turd he is.


  

thought I'd stick me oar in.......

eddie wrote:

heavenly father wrote:testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

So many people believe black is white, doesn't make it true though.

What you don't seem to get Eddie, is that if there is something in a herbal remedy that helps, that something is a chemical. If there is a chemical in a herb that helps, it is tested, because it might be dangerous for some people, even though it helps others. It might also be dangerous if taken in conjunction with other medication, so that is tested as well. Very often, the chemical in a herb (as most drugs started out as natural substances) can be made to work better is they are made more concentrated, or mixed with something else that increases they potency. When all this is done, they then have to be tested, which is very thorough. Drug companies test natural things all the time, we wouldn't have progressed if they didn't. To say they don't is hogwash. To say that the NHS don't give you a choice is hogwash, to say the specialists don't tell you everything and anything that can help is hogwash. All you are doing is helping HF promote lies, distortions and snake oil. I thought you had more intelligence than that.

eddie wrote:

heavenly father wrote:testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

We have taxpayer funded body to test things, to try and not pay big pharma, our gov't has always been anti big pharma as they way the system works the gov't is always trying to end to invalidate their patents so they can make our own generic brand that cost about the 10th the price.

Aussie ones
http://www.australiancancertrials.gov.au/
http://www.cancertrialsaustralia.com/

New Zealand one
http://www.anzctr.org.au/


there is a US one too
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/

heavenly father wrote:
oh herr didge you goose stepping loon...

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

perhaps you would like to explain how you think equality works...  

  

I FIND this crazy post from "heavenly.." to be quite weird and disturbing...

NOT only for the manner of his post, but for its aberrant fascist content..

ESPECIALLY considering that h_f' is the #1 'Nazi' on here currently ~ especially during the absence of Drinky, Puerile and Allakakakakakakakakak_ack! these days !    ::drnkpst:: 

( heavenly still even now has no idea of the actual meanings of terms like "equality" and "spam" ~ silly and senile old troll, he be..).

eddie wrote:

heavenly father wrote:
testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

  

HERE we see two of the main lying dumbfucks collaborating on their bullshit scams ~ again...

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

We have taxpayer funded body to test things, to try and not pay big pharma, our gov't has always been anti big pharma as they way the system works the gov't is always trying to end to invalidate their patents so they can make our own generic brand that cost about the 10th the price.

Aussie ones
http://www.australiancancertrials.gov.au/
http://www.cancertrialsaustralia.com/

New Zealand one
http://www.anzctr.org.au/


there is a US one too
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/

How does the Government invalidate patents, and do you have any examples of that?

Anyway, you're talking about once a drug has been developed and tested by a pharma company, are you not? Why would it need to be tested again?

Beekeeper wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

  

HERE we see two of the main lying dumbfucks collaborating on their bullshit scams ~ again...

nothing to add constructive then to this debate just abuse once again

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:
oh herr didge you goose stepping loon...

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 :::hitler: :::hitler: 

perhaps you would like to explain how you think equality works...  

  

I FIND this crazy post from "heavenly.." to be quite weird and disturbing...

NOT only for the manner of his post, but for its aberrant fascist content..

ESPECIALLY considering that h_f' is the #1 'Nazi' on here currently ~ especially during the absence of Drinky, Puerile and Allakakakakakakakakak_ack! these days !    ::drnkpst:: 

[size=10.285714149475098]( heavenly still even now has no idea of the actual meanings of terms like "equality" and "spam" ~ silly and senile old troll, he be..).[/size]

your weird period

Morning Victor

Thank you for proving my point (and at least answering the questions) that we do not have unlimited freedoms, as there are restrictions within the law, and as you would do the children would not be keep with abusive parents, just as I would through the court of the law seek to save the child from irresponsible parents who have no expert knowledge on what is best for their child. All they have is their own beliefs, not what is best for the child because the simple fact is they are not experts on medical treatment, to think they know best, when they certainly do not is not only dangerous but utterly stupid, placing the child at great risk and also being extremely selfish.

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

I'm not at all sure why didge can't at least concede that this can be the case.
Since debating this here, I've spoken to quite a few people about this and SO MANY people believe this is true.

So many people believe black is white, doesn't make it true though.

What you don't seem to get Eddie, is that if there is something in a herbal remedy that helps, that something is a chemical.   If there is a chemical in a herb that helps, it is tested, because it might be dangerous for some people, even though it helps others.   It might also be dangerous if taken in conjunction with other medication, so that is tested as well.   Very often, the chemical in a herb (as most drugs started out as natural substances) can be made to work better is they are made more concentrated, or mixed with something else that increases they potency.   When all this is done, they then have to be tested, which is very thorough.   Drug companies test natural things all the time, we wouldn't have progressed if they didn't.   To say they don't is hogwash.   To say that the NHS don't give you a choice is hogwash, to say the specialists don't tell you everything and anything that can help is hogwash.   All you are doing is helping HF promote lies, distortions and snake oil.   I thought you had more intelligence than that.

Sassy, having a different opinion to you doesn't necessarily make me less intelligent.

And what if I am less intelligent? Doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe that pharma companies make shed loads of money off the back of cancer patients.

And if I'm unintelligent for believing it, then so must many millions of others be.

See what you and others can't seem to do, is concede that some of HF's points are true, because you don't like him.
Now that makes some of you ignorant in this particular case.
And I'm certainly not that.

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:

So many people believe black is white, doesn't make it true though.

What you don't seem to get Eddie, is that if there is something in a herbal remedy that helps, that something is a chemical.   If there is a chemical in a herb that helps, it is tested, because it might be dangerous for some people, even though it helps others.   It might also be dangerous if taken in conjunction with other medication, so that is tested as well.   Very often, the chemical in a herb (as most drugs started out as natural substances) can be made to work better is they are made more concentrated, or mixed with something else that increases they potency.   When all this is done, they then have to be tested, which is very thorough.   Drug companies test natural things all the time, we wouldn't have progressed if they didn't.   To say they don't is hogwash.   To say that the NHS don't give you a choice is hogwash, to say the specialists don't tell you everything and anything that can help is hogwash.   All you are doing is helping HF promote lies, distortions and snake oil.   I thought you had more intelligence than that.

Sassy, having a different opinion to you doesn't necessarily make me less intelligent.

And what if I am less intelligent? Doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe that pharma companies make she'd loads of money off the back of cancer patients.

And if I'm unintelligent for believing it, then so must many millions of others be.

See what you and others can't seem to do, I concede that some of HF's points are true, because you don't like him.
Now that makes some of you ignorant in this particular case.
And I'm certainly not that.

Sorry Eddie that is a poor excuse as it has nothing to do with this coming from HF, it would be the same to anyone, because the reality is his claims are based upon unfounded conspiracies, which is shared by others, so it matter little who promotes that view.

Again the reality here again is people thinking they know best on the medical industry, with no working knowledge of biology or chemistry, hence why I miss "I am king" here because he has a working knowledge on this and would explain better the dangers promoted by some on such poor beliefs and conspiracies.

I again fail to see why millions of people in this industry, including many health professionals, including many cancer experts would all be in on some grand conspiracy to deny any medical treatment that could help people.

Yes there is some merit to the fact some medicines are just not viable financially  to make, one such example is one that was used to treat UTI's, as the amount of money needed to produce would not release more money for research, and that is the real crux of the matter, more money being available for research to find cures. So it is not some conspiracy but being resourceful with the finances which and where they are vest suited.

Again people on the web who have no working knowledge of such critical treatment are a danger, because they are basing their beliefs with no working knowledge, and i use Quills example to best illustrate this, that would you buy a beach front property in Arizona, based upon what someone else told you? The person in other words trying to sell you the product. take this one step further would you buy a car off someone without first testing this?

So I ask you why go off the words of many people who do not have expertise in the field, who are themselves out to make money, from unproven tested treatment?

What are these herbal remedies or natural remedies which people have claimed cured their cancer?

Sassy, are you saying that the big pharma companies test natural remedies all the time? Can you give some examples of that? I'm not disputing what you said as I know that many compounds and substances they test don't make it to the market, I'm genuinely interested.

(For some reason, I can't quote your post.)

PhilDidge wrote:

eddie wrote:


Sassy, having a different opinion to you doesn't necessarily make me less intelligent.

And what if I am less intelligent? Doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe that pharma companies make she'd loads of money off the back of cancer patients.

And if I'm unintelligent for believing it, then so must many millions of others be.

See what you and others can't seem to do, I concede that some of HF's points are true, because you don't like him.
Now that makes some of you ignorant in this particular case.
And I'm certainly not that.

Sorry Eddie that is a poor excuse as it has nothing to do with this coming from HF, it would be the same to anyone, because the reality is his claims are based upon unfounded conspiracies, which is shared by others, so it matter little who promotes that view.

Again the reality here again is people thinking they know best on the medical industry, with no working knowledge of biology or chemistry, hence why I miss "I am king" here because he has a working knowledge on this and would explain better the dangers promoted by some on such poor beliefs and conspiracies.

You know this how?

I again fail to see why millions of people in this industry, including many health professionals, including many cancer experts would all be in on some grand conspiracy to deny any medical treatment that could help people.

Yes there is some merit to the fact some medicines are just not viable financially  to make, one such example is one that was used to treat UTI's, as the amount of money needed to produce would not release more money for research, and that is the real crux of the matter, more money being available for research to find cures. So it is not some conspiracy but being resourceful with the finances which and where they are vest suited.

Again people on the web who have no working knowledge of such critical treatment are a danger, because they are basing their beliefs with no working knowledge, and i use Quills example to best illustrate this, that would you buy a beach front property in Arizona, based upon what someone else told you? The person in other words trying to sell you the product. take this one step further would you buy a car off someone without first testing this?

So I ask you why go off the words of many people who do not have expertise in the field, who are themselves out to make money, from unproven tested treatment?

didge - we trust the NHS because we think they are professionals (take a look at www.courtnewsuk.co.uk - plenty of major mess-ups there every day).

The forumfather trusts his/her sources.

You trust people on the internet because they tell you they are experts - that's up to you.

It is up to an individual who they want to trust and who they think is a complete pleb and decide to ignore.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Sorry Eddie that is a poor excuse as it has nothing to do with this coming from HF, it would be the same to anyone, because the reality is his claims are based upon unfounded conspiracies, which is shared by others, so it matter little who promotes that view.

Again the reality here again is people thinking they know best on the medical industry, with no working knowledge of biology or chemistry, hence why I miss "I am king" here because he has a working knowledge on this and would explain better the dangers promoted by some on such poor beliefs and conspiracies.

You know this how?

I again fail to see why millions of people in this industry, including many health professionals, including many cancer experts would all be in on some grand conspiracy to deny any medical treatment that could help people.

Yes there is some merit to the fact some medicines are just not viable financially  to make, one such example is one that was used to treat UTI's, as the amount of money needed to produce would not release more money for research, and that is the real crux of the matter, more money being available for research to find cures. So it is not some conspiracy but being resourceful with the finances which and where they are vest suited.

Again people on the web who have no working knowledge of such critical treatment are a danger, because they are basing their beliefs with no working knowledge, and i use Quills example to best illustrate this, that would you buy a beach front property in Arizona, based upon what someone else told you? The person in other words trying to sell you the product. take this one step further would you buy a car off someone without first testing this?

So I ask you why go off the words of many people who do not have expertise in the field, who are themselves out to make money, from unproven tested treatment?

didge - we trust the NHS because we think they are professionals (take a look at www.courtnewsuk.co.uk - plenty of major mess-ups there every day).  

The forumfather trusts his/her sources.

You trust people on the internet because they tell you they are experts - that's up to you.

It is up to an individual who they want to trust and who they think is a complete pleb and decide to ignore.

Sorry what a load of stupidity yet again, so now because of some bad eggs in what ever industry nothing should be trusted

Go and get an education you thick muppet, the reality is your whole belief in life is that if someone is bad all are by association, unless you have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all

Raggamuffin wrote:Sassy, are you saying that the big pharma companies test natural remedies all the time? Can you give some examples of that? I'm not disputing what you said as I know that many compounds and substances they test don't make it to the market, I'm genuinely interested.

(For some reason, I can't quote your post.)

Echinacea

A 2006 Cochrane collaboration review identified 16 controlled trials on the effect of echinacea for cough and the common cold (16). Due to multiple methodological limitations in many of the studies, the reviewers suggested there were no sufficient data to suggest the effectiveness of echinacea in children. The use of echinacea for eight to 12 weeks as a prophylactic measure did not result in effective prevention of the common cold.

Zinc

It has been suggested that zinc can inhibit viral growth (17). As such, the treatment of cough and cold with zinc was tested in several studies. While some of them showed benefits, especially if used within 24 h of the onset of common cold symptoms (18), others failed to show the same effect (19). At the present time, the use of zinc in children with cough and cold is not recommended.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223897/

PhilDidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Sassy, are you saying that the big pharma companies test natural remedies all the time? Can you give some examples of that? I'm not disputing what you said as I know that many compounds and substances they test don't make it to the market, I'm genuinely interested.

(For some reason, I can't quote your post.)

Echinacea

A 2006 Cochrane collaboration review identified 16 controlled trials on the effect of echinacea for cough and the common cold (16). Due to multiple methodological limitations in many of the studies, the reviewers suggested there were no sufficient data to suggest the effectiveness of echinacea in children. The use of echinacea for eight to 12 weeks as a prophylactic measure did not result in effective prevention of the common cold.

Zinc

It has been suggested that zinc can inhibit viral growth (17). As such, the treatment of cough and cold with zinc was tested in several studies. While some of them showed benefits, especially if used within 24 h of the onset of common cold symptoms (18), others failed to show the same effect (19). At the present time, the use of zinc in children with cough and cold is not recommended.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223897/

Thank you - very interesting. Cochrane reviews are based on primary research, but it doesn't say who did the original research.

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


didge - we trust the NHS because we think they are professionals (take a look at www.courtnewsuk.co.uk - plenty of major mess-ups there every day).  

The forumfather trusts his/her sources.

You trust people on the internet because they tell you they are experts - that's up to you.

It is up to an individual who they want to trust and who they think is a complete pleb and decide to ignore.

Sorry what a load of stupidity yet again, so now because of some bad eggs in what ever industry nothing should be trusted

Go and get an education you thick muppet, the reality is your whole belief in life is that if someone is bad all are by association, unless you have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all

No didge - as always you are assuming that if a person you are debating with brings up a certain subject or offers an idea up then that person must believe that idea.

What I am doing is bringing ideas to the table and what you are doing is telling everybody that you have the answer, the only answer and everybody must say yes.

Oh and in regards to I am King, it is easy to see somebody knowing what they are talking about because they are able to explain complex things in laymen terms, or have you never come across that before Andy, which can be backed up by people you also know work in the industry, or do you never check yourself?
I am coming more and more to the conclusion Andy, you have never had the intention to debate on forums, but to create as much strife as possible.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Sorry what a load of stupidity yet again, so now because of some bad eggs in what ever industry nothing should be trusted

Go and get an education you thick muppet, the reality is your whole belief in life is that if someone is bad all are by association, unless you have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all

No didge - as always you are assuming that if a person you are debating with brings up a certain subject or offers an idea up then that person must believe that idea.

What I am doing is bringing ideas to the table and what you are doing is telling everybody that you have the answer, the only answer and everybody must say yes.

No it is easy to see if someone knows something and in your case, it has to be the most stupid methodology I have come across, because you are an ignorant prejudice idiot at the best of times, using stupid association fallacies.

All you are doing is once again showing how completely stupid you really are, because at the end of the day we have to hand experts close to us called doctors for example, who also have a working knowledge, but of course to you they are all not trust worth based upon yet again association fallacies

Again unless you have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No didge - as always you are assuming that if a person you are debating with brings up a certain subject or offers an idea up then that person must believe that idea.

What I am doing is bringing ideas to the table and what you are doing is telling everybody that you have the answer, the only answer and everybody must say yes.

No it is easy to see if someone knows something and in your case, it has to be the most stupid methodology I have come across, because you are an ignorant prejudice idiot at the best of times, using stupid association fallacies.

All you are doing is once again showing how completely stupid you really are, because at the end of the day we have to hand experts close to us called doctors for example, who also have a working knowledge, but of course to you they are all not trust worth based upon yet again association fallacies

Again unless you have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all

Great debating didge.

Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

No it is easy to see if someone knows something and in your case, it has to be the most stupid methodology I have come across, because you are an ignorant prejudice idiot at the best of times, using stupid association fallacies.

All you are doing is once again showing how completely stupid you really are, because at the end of the day we have to hand experts close to us called doctors for example, who also have a working knowledge, but of course to you they are all not trust worth based upon yet again association fallacies

Again unless you have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all

Great debating didge.

Glad to see you are taking note, well done

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

No Ragga - anybody who disagrees with didge is actually stupid - hence why he was so hated and kept leaving every couple of days on other forums and was banned from SF.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

No Ragga - anybody who disagrees with didge is actually stupid - hence why he was so hated and kept leaving every couple of days on other forums and was banned from SF.

Incorrect, Eddie is in disagreement with me here and not once have I or would I ever class her as thick, so I will await your apology for lying once again, but thanks for proving my point how you again try to shit stir, why not tell us how many other people you have tried to search for their real identities Andy?

That made me laugh if you thought I would use my real name or that I would ever be on FB, so stop with the pretence it is clear you are out to create trouble

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

This subject isn't about concrete facts though is it Ragga - if you have witnessed something you can only relay what you have witnessed to the forum.

In fact, the forum isn't about concrete facts - it's about us telling others what we have seen, what we have done, what we have read elsewhere.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

This subject isn't about concrete facts though is it Ragga - if you have witnessed something you can only relay what you have witnessed to the forum.

In fact, the forum isn't about concrete facts - it's about us telling others what we have seen, what we have done, what we have read elsewhere.

Again how absurd, so to witness something makes you an expert, even if you have not witness countless other similar events?

Again you have been exposed

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

This subject isn't about concrete facts though is it Ragga - if you have witnessed something you can only relay what you have witnessed to the forum.

In fact, the forum isn't about concrete facts - it's about us telling others what we have seen, what we have done, what we have read elsewhere.

Again how absurd, so to witness something makes you an expert, even if you have not witness countless other similar events?

Again you have been exposed

Who said anything about being an expert didge?

You're at it again.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

This subject isn't about concrete facts though is it Ragga - if you have witnessed something you can only relay what you have witnessed to the forum.

In fact, the forum isn't about concrete facts - it's about us telling others what we have seen, what we have done, what we have read elsewhere.

Well I've asked which remedies have allegedly cured cancer, and I've asked about trials by pharma companies on herbal remedies - that's the kind of thing I mean.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again how absurd, so to witness something makes you an expert, even if you have not witness countless other similar events?

Again you have been exposed

Who said anything about being an expert didge?

You're at it again.

By your claims, so anyone else you think you have found their real identities too Andy lol?

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

This subject isn't about concrete facts though is it Ragga - if you have witnessed something you can only relay what you have witnessed to the forum.

In fact, the forum isn't about concrete facts - it's about us telling others what we have seen, what we have done, what we have read elsewhere.

Well I've asked which remedies have allegedly cured cancer, and I've asked about trials by pharma companies on herbal remedies - that's the kind of thing I mean.

I did provide you with some examples

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Who said anything about being an expert didge?

You're at it again.

By your claims, so anyone else you think you have found their real identities too Andy lol?

Huh?

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



By your claims, so anyone else you think you have found their real identities too Andy lol?

Huh?

lol thought as much

PhilDidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I've asked which remedies have allegedly cured cancer, and I've asked about trials by pharma companies on herbal remedies - that's the kind of thing I mean.

I did provide you with some examples

I know, and I made a further comment on them.

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Huh?

lol thought as much

What?

Are you being a clown?

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



lol thought as much

What?  

Are you being a clown?

I think I am showing that it is you who is the clown, are you denying trying to claim you searched my identity?

take your time

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


What?  

Are you being a clown?

I think I am showing that it is you who is the clown, are you denying trying to claim you searched my identity?

take your time

lol

Oh didge didge dige.

I was offered your identity by somebody else (along with others) and what did I do didge - go on tell everybody.

I sent you a pm warning you? I have them, so it's up to you whether you tell the forum after getting in to a hissy and trying to spread naughtiness around.

You have let yourself down badly here didge.

All because of a couple of bad days on the forum.

There was absolutely no need.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't we have concrete facts instead of the bickering? Nobody is stupid, we just all have different ideas and questions.

No Ragga - anybody who disagrees with didge is actually stupid - hence why he was so hated and kept leaving every couple of days on other forums and was banned from SF.

correct

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I think I am showing that it is you who is the clown, are you denying trying to claim you searched my identity?

take your time

lol

Oh didge didge dige.

I was offered your identity by somebody else (along with others) and what did I do didge - go on tell everybody.

I sent you a pm warning you?  I have them, so it's up to you whether you tell the forum after getting in to a hissy and trying to spread naughtiness around.

You said you searched for it, in some feeble attempt to claim you were doing this to protect me, when as seen i need no protection because, I am not silly enough to give out my real name or where I really live or even my date of birth, though am clever enough to use someone I know lol. So you lied to me then, if someone else did and now you do not expose that person trying to be callus to search for a posters real identity, that makes you even worse by complicity.

Why would anyone do that unless they wish to poorly try to expose people.

So either way it makes you look bad Andy

So come on didge - you're taking longer than usual.

Why exactly did you just throw that out there?

Because we disagreed on posting on the forum is the answer.

Utterly ridiculous!