Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Here is the title of that paper. Feline research from 70 years ago as a basis to support your arguments against modern addiction medicine is faulty logic and borders on fallacy. You should be ashamed.

The point is that we knew, 70 years ago, that emotional responses were controlled by physical brain-states. So why are we pretending that is not the case now?

Additionally, you didn't use the words "logic" or "fallacy" correctly in that post.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Most research paper PDF's aren't public domain...you gotta pay to read PhD thesis crap. This one is no exception.

No, that's backwards. All PhD theses are public domain per agreement with the university in question. Journal articles are the property of the journal that publishes them, and those are almost never public domain.

Have you ever actually studied in the academy, or even used Google Scholar, for that matter?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
YOu haven't said anything bro. What exactly is your question? Besides...I've provided a plethora of facts, links to websites, and taken the time to explain what it is that I am actually speaking of. All you seem to do is pick apart people's posts point by point while providing zero supporting evidence of your own.

I don't really need supporting evidence when its simply a matter of poor logic on the part of the person I'm disagreeing with. I mean, I could formalize everything for you, but that is usually a bit arcane for this format.

I've said that you are incorrect because there is a disconnect between treatment of the way things are, and the way things are; explicitly, several times now. If you believe that to be nothing, then you aren't really paying attention.

You can cite all the clinical facts that you want, but it really doesn't matter because I'm not arguing with you about the state of clinical treatment. I'm arguing that the state of clinical treatment is not an accurate reflection of the way things actually are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Treatment is seperate from difinition...OK derp derp duh. What aspect of treatment would you care to discuss? Direct client care? Post acute withdrawal? Initial treatment? Co-occuring lifestyle concerns? Co-occuring medical concerns? Treatment options for cross cultural addiction? Gender and lifestyle concerns?

If you'd like to really break it down we can talk about family of origin issues, archetypes in wounded familial systems, or even narrative systems analysis. Please, ask away....

I already said, repeatedly, that I wasn't talking about treatment. No one has been talking about treatment, except you.

You've been carrying on in a tirade for no reason other than a desire to do so.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I guess my views are at odds with the DSM, but there's also a point where common sense gets involved.

Ok, then you are saying that your "common sense" is more credible than the DSM-IV and the entire medical community that wrote the thing. Feeling that way is fine, but please take the time to consider the amount of research that went into the formulation of the diagnostic criteria.


yes, the aspect of addiction as a bio-psycho-social disease makes things pretty....flexible from a theoretical standpoint. Thats why I did time in direct care instead of just jumping straight back into a class room. One needs a basis in reality for one's opinions.


Serotonin Syndrome SUCKS, I've experienced it myself. No pooping though, that was reserved for my lovely experience with the doctor putting me on Xanax for several months.

No im saying that the DSM is not the be all and end all to everything. Im still to understand how a physical side effect from discontinuing use of substance used compulsively isn't a sign of withdrawal. I understand its not in the DSM, but I don't get it I guess. More or less it comes down to personal belief.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

"Unfortunately, in this situation, there was a 13-year-old teenager in a house with young adults. The young adults were using marijuana and playing with a gun, and the teenager was the innocent victim of an accidental shooting," Brown said.

Do you really think that this situation was a result of the cannabis? Stuff like that happens all the time with or without drugs, thats not really a solid basis for arguing that cannabis causes violence.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

Please, find me a fight in a hash bar that didin't also involve booze.

If its in jest than I agree with you. But there are a lot of people that actually believe that no one has ever died over pot just because the LD50 is more or less unreachable by a human.

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
No im saying that the DSM is not the be all and end all to everything. Im still to understand how a physical side effect from discontinuing use of substance used compulsively isn't a sign of withdrawal. I understand its not in the DSM, but I don't get it I guess. More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Here, does this help?

Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence.

Honestly, the issues with ambiguity inherent in behavioral health are one of the driving reasons the DSM-V is coming out in 2014. It will focus on spectrum diagnosis as opposed to the current system which is really rigid. I agree....DSM isn't infallible, but its the medical community handbook and as such provides the basis for diagnosis in our health care system.

dogma wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Lol wut?

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

Please, find me a fight in a hash bar that didin't also involve booze.

If its in jest than I agree with you. But there are a lot of people that actually believe that no one has ever died over pot just because the LD50 is more or less unreachable by a human.

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

By that logic money should be made illegal as it causes violence... the burglars are probably after it to sell rather than to use.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

Entirely possible, but I've never seen it. The cops in Oakland do a great job of keeping the crooks away from our clubs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Yes, I do like smokin the herb....but you never hear about folks getting stoned and having a bar fight.

And Im sorry but this is another absolutely slowed argument. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/police-courts/article246909.ece

I'd rather get in a fistfight then get shot. Face it any mind altering substance can lead to violence and/or poor decisions. You really think no one has ever been killed over pot?

No, but I think that I have never seen so much as a voice raised in anger in any legal cannabis club I've ever set foot in. I'm not "pro weed" I'm "pro legalization/taxation" if that makes sense?

yes I know the comment was a bit silly....it had a light hearted tone. Don't take things so out of context.

Please, find me a fight in a hash bar that didin't also involve booze.

If its in jest than I agree with you. But there are a lot of people that actually believe that no one has ever died over pot just because the LD50 is more or less unreachable by a human.

And I know ive read of armed burglaries in Cali of dispensaries so there you go. Violence in a marijuana establishment.

By that logic money should be made illegal as it causes violence... the burglars are probably after it to sell rather than to use.

VERY doubtful....do you have any idea how difficult it is for street pot dealers to sell weed here? We grow it on our porches, we pick it up on grocery runs. Now if you want to talk about the mexican cartels coming up and growing weed in OUR Humboldt county....well thats a problem. A big one.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:

dogma wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Lol wut?

Emotions are physical responses, but the common understanding of "emotion" and "physical" necessitate that they are not. As such, some disciplines maintain those understanding of the terms in order to communicate with people who are not educated in a manner that permits them to understand otherwise.

This is actually a pretty common topic in clinical fields: the naming of things such that they can be related to patients, and lower-level practitioners.

dogma wrote:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:More or less it comes down to personal belief.

Not entirely.

It comes down to recognizing that words often have multiple meanings, and that often time archaic ones are held to for ease of description to the uninitiated.

Let me translate.

Dogma says: Words can mean more than one thing and I will include something polysyllabic to try and confuse you into thinking I'm actually making a point.

PS, the "you don't agree with me so you are dumb" thing is still a fallacy no matter how many fancy words you put in to obscure your own snide nature.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Let me translate.

Dogma says: Words can mean more than one thing and I will include something polysyllabic to try and confuse you into thinking I'm actually making a point.

So, am I to assume that the polysyllabic nature of a word makes it seem that I am appealing to pretension? I was unaware that words like "uninitiated", "description", and "archaic" were pretentious.

If they are, then how does your use of the word "polysyllabic" reflect upon you?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
PS, the "you don't agree with me so you are dumb" thing is still a fallacy no matter how many fancy words you put in to obscure your own snide nature.

That's not the argument that I made. That is, however, the argument that you made. You have, several times in this thread, impugned my intelligence or argumentative ability.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Let me translate.

Dogma says: Words can mean more than one thing and I will include something polysyllabic to try and confuse you into thinking I'm actually making a point.

So, am I to assume that the polysyllabic nature of a word makes it seem that I am appealing to pretension? I was unaware that words like "uninitiated", "description", and "archaic" were pretentious.
.

Yes what you said sounds very pretentious, uninitiated made no sense in that context either.

Really? I would have thought that "uninitiated" was a clear reference to the study of certain disciplines. I mean, I know we try to pretend that hierarchy doesn't exist in the West, but I was unaware that people actually believed that.

Pretentious I can see, as claims to the existence of hierarchy tend to elicit such a response.

Stop derailing the thread just to see yourself type Dogma. For real.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
PS, the "you don't agree with me so you are dumb" thing is still a fallacy no matter how many fancy words you put in to obscure your own snide nature.

That's not the argument that I made. That is, however, the argument that you made. You have, several times in this thread, impugned my intelligence or argumentative ability.

Never once did I say you were dumb. I think that the argument you are holding in this thread (IE I disagree with whatever anyone else says) is beneath your level of intellect. Take a stance, support it, and make it clear what you are advocating for because all I see is that you want to argue. About anything. Every day.

Which is fine, but you are crapping up a thread that some folks are taking seriously. Thanx.

dogma wrote:Really? I would have thought that "uninitiated" was a clear reference to the study of certain disciplines. I mean, I know we try to pretend that hierarchy doesn't exist in the West, but I was unaware that people actually believed that.

Pretentious I can see, as claims to the existence of hierarchy tend to elicit such a response.

Uninitiated in its archaic context (see what I did there?) would refer to someone who is not a full member of a guild or society and since information is free to those who desire it for the most part this makes no sense.

Am I right in saying the jist of what you were saying was "some words have more than one meaning so if everyone uses the standard meaning it makes things simpler to understand for laymen?" in which case archaic is also used out of context as it refers to age not how common it is.

I like this kid.

Also, I like Pat Robertson. I also like that blue haired lady on the Catholic Channel. Hmm, maybe I need to go visit "you find them attractive but you don't know why".

I think its funny that AZ legalized medical cannabis in the same year they passed the most draconian immigration laws in the country.

Peter Wiggin wrote:Stop derailing the thread just to see yourself type Dogma. For real.

Derailing the thread would involve actively trying to move it to another topic, I'm not doing that. I'm carrying the thread from the point at which you mentioned that weed has no physical side effects.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Never once did I say you were dumb.

I think that bolding my own text is tacit to impugning my intellect. As is repeatedly ignoring my argument in order to make your own, unrelated, point about being a clinician.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think that the argument you are holding in this thread (IE I disagree with whatever anyone else says) is beneath your level of intellect.

See, you did it again. That isn't my argument. I think that you are wrong, and I have explained why that is. The only time you have addressed this was something along the lines of "derp derp derp" which is, again, an insult to my intelligence.

You aren't arguing from an honest position. No one, prior to yourself, was discussing the treatment of addiction. It only became relevant when you confused addiction treatment, with the nature of addiction.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Take a stance, support it, and make it clear what you are advocating for because all I see is that you want to argue. About anything. Every day.

I've already stated, in plain text, several times, what my stance is. At this point its a matter of your inability to perceive that, or your willful ignorance with respect to what I'm saying.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Which is fine, but you are crapping up a thread that some folks are taking seriously. Thanx.

Serious threads do not involve people that ignore the statements of others in order to deflect from their inability to respond.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:Stop derailing the thread just to see yourself type Dogma. For real.

Derailing the thread would involve actively trying to move it to another topic, I'm not doing that. I'm carrying the thread from the point at which you mentioned that weed has no physical side effects.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Never once did I say you were dumb.

I think that bolding my own text is tacit to impugning my intellect. As is repeatedly ignoring my argument in order to make your own, unrelated, point about being a clinician.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think that the argument you are holding in this thread (IE I disagree with whatever anyone else says) is beneath your level of intellect.

See, you did it again. That isn't my argument. I think that you are wrong, and I have explained why that is. The only time you have addressed this was something along the lines of "derp derp derp" which is, again, an insult to my intelligence.

You aren't arguing from an honest position. No one, prior to yourself, was discussing the treatment of addiction. It only became relevant when you confused addiction treatment, with the nature of addiction.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Take a stance, support it, and make it clear what you are advocating for because all I see is that you want to argue. About anything. Every day.

I've already stated, in plain text, several times, what my stance is. At this point its a matter of your inability to perceive that, or your willful ignorance with respect to what I'm saying.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Which is fine, but you are crapping up a thread that some folks are taking seriously. Thanx.

Serious threads do not involve people that ignore the statements of others in order to deflect from their inability to respond.

TLDR, not interested in fighting anymore. Make love not war.



P.S. I'm right cause I use facts and data, you use polysyllabic words. Its OK, I did high school level debate as well!

corpsesarefun wrote:
Uninitiated in its archaic context (see what I did there?) would refer to someone who is not a full member of a guild or society and since information is free to those who desire it for the most part this makes no sense.

Information isn't free. Unless that subscription fee I pay for access to journal archives is not what you're talking about?

In any case, I was speaking euphemistically. The uninitiated are those who have not done, or studied, something. This is the modern usage, and we live in modern times. Archaic definitions have no place in the present, barring special circumstances, which is what I've been saying.

Simply using archaic in a sentence isn't really a witty retort.

corpsesarefun wrote:
Am I right in saying the jist of what you were saying was "some words have more than one meaning so if everyone uses the standard meaning it makes things simpler to understand for laymen?" in which case archaic is also used out of context as it refers to age not how common it is.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that some disciplines use lay definitions in order to facilitate communication with the relatively uneducated, I'm not making a comment on "everyone" or what should be done; I'm discussing what is actually done. I'm also not attempting to make things easy to understand for laymen, not really. I'm explaining, to an extent, the meaning that lies behind the lay usage of terms. So the use of the word "archaic" is not out of context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm right cause I use facts and data, you use polysyllabic words. Its OK, I did high school level debate as well!

No, you use use accepted definitions for clinical treatment. Again, I'm not arguing with respect to what clinical treatment is. I'm arguing with respect to the degree that clinical treatment has anything to do with reality, which was the initial point of contention.

I understand that you enjoy playing the willfully ignorant foil, you've said as much in previous threads, but let's not pretend that you're doing anything else.

And once again you are speaking complete drivel.

Good day sir.

corpsesarefun wrote:And once again you are speaking complete drivel.

Good day sir.

I find it funny that you seem to know enough to consult a dictionary, but not enough to actually make use of it.

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:
Uninitiated in its archaic context (see what I did there?) would refer to someone who is not a full member of a guild or society and since information is free to those who desire it for the most part this makes no sense.

Information isn't free. Unless that subscription fee I pay for access to journal archives is not what you're talking about?

In any case, I was speaking euphemistically. The uninitiated are those who have not done, or studied, something. This is the modern usage, and we live in modern times. Archaic definitions have no place in the present, barring special circumstances, which is what I've been saying.

Simply using archaic in a sentence isn't really a witty retort.

corpsesarefun wrote:
Am I right in saying the jist of what you were saying was "some words have more than one meaning so if everyone uses the standard meaning it makes things simpler to understand for laymen?" in which case archaic is also used out of context as it refers to age not how common it is.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that some disciplines use lay definitions in order to facilitate communication with the relatively uneducated, I'm not making a comment on "everyone" or what should be done; I'm discussing what is actually done. I'm also not attempting to make things easy to understand for laymen, not really. I'm explaining, to an extent, the meaning that lies behind the lay usage of terms. So the use of the word "archaic" is not out of context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peter Wiggin wrote: I'm right cause I use facts and data, you use polysyllabic words. Its OK, I did high school level debate as well!

No, you use use accepted definitions for clinical treatment. Again, I'm not arguing with respect to what clinical treatment is. I'm arguing with respect to the degree that clinical treatment has anything to do with reality, which was the initial point of contention.

I understand that you enjoy playing the willfully ignorant foil, you've said as much in previous threads, but let's not pretend that you're doing anything else.

Again, TLDR....use some facts or something concrete and I'll start reading your posts again. Until then...troll is as troll does. U being the trolly troll sir.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Again, TLDR....use some facts or something concrete and I'll start reading your posts again. Until then...troll is as troll does. U being the trolly troll sir.

I am using facts. It isn't my responsibility to source them for you.

After all, any website that I might cite could just as easily be as incorrect as I might be. Simply citing what someone else says is no claim to truth. After all, anything that my sources might say may be just as flawed as what I am saying. As a result, it makes no sense to trust my word in the context of theirs any more than you trust mine in the context of nothing. You can debate in good faith, or you can hide behind artificial standards as to what might be true. One shows a sharp mind, and the other doesn't.

I think, maybe, neither you, nor corpsesarefun, understand much about what knowledge is.

dogma wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Again, TLDR....use some facts or something concrete and I'll start reading your posts again. Until then...troll is as troll does. U being the trolly troll sir.

I am using facts. It isn't my responsibility to source them for you.

After all, any website that I might cite could just as easily be as incorrect as I might be. Simply citing what someone else says is no claim to truth. After all, anything that my sources might say may be just as flawed as what I am saying. As a result, it makes no sense to trust my word in the context of theirs any more than you trust mine in the context of nothing. You can debate in good faith, or you can hide behind artificial standards as to what might be true. One shows a sharp mind, and the other doesn't.

I think, maybe, neither you, nor corpsesarefun, understand much about what knowledge is.

TLDR facts please not typed opinion masquerading as facts.

Excessive verbosity does not entail quality of information conveyed. LOOK I KAN DO EET 2!~!!!!

Peter Wiggin wrote:
TLDR facts please not typed opinion masquerading as facts.

Excessive verbosity does not entail quality of information conveyed. LOOK I KAN DO EET 2!~!!!!

I've already given you "facts" such as they are relevant here (two journal articles, and if you wish more, I have more).

Indeed, you have even gone so far as to agree with me that treatment is not reflective of reality.

At this point it is clear that your are exercising some frustration from the rest of you life in an online format.

Say what you like about dogma, but I can honestly say I've never seen him leave an argument shouting "You're a troll, everything you say is wrong, I'm tired of arguing, and also I object to your use of words that I don't understand".

Keep it up, man

Interesting....thats not really what I said. As for Dogma....well he's smart. However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating. As for leaving an arguement...well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect. Its ok, I like to say that people are wrong when they don't agree with me too! Everyone does.

However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.


Reminds me of kids on the play ground saying "Neyner neyner, I bet I'm smarter than you"....which is the standard MO for several posters on here. <yawn> get some new tricks....I'm not impressed.


I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience. Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance. Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

Hey Peter, if I haven't smoked for 3 weeks should I pass a pee test? I'm 155 and 5' 10.

Peter Wiggin wrote:As for Dogma....well he's smart. However his propensity to e-fight everyone about every post they put up is very very irritating.

It wouldn't be an issue if the majority of posters weren't consistently wrong in nearly everything that they say.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
As for leaving an arguement...well I don't expect to change anyone's views when they are completely incapable of admitting that they may just be wrong in the face of someone with greater experience.

Why are you assuming that you have more experience than I do when I have never spoken of my experience?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
He's already said he doesn't care about credibility, and that no matter what evidence is provided he feels it is incorrect.

No, I said that I don't care about credibility. I never said anything at all about the latter.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
However in this case he's trolling....in the most literal sense of the word. By obfuscating the actual point of his posts (what were they again?) he takes the focus off of the actual subject under discussion and turns it into yet another "Dogma point by point response to every question in a thread while supporting no stance in particular" that contributes NOTHING to the conversation in the thread.

I cannot even remember how many times that I've explicitly stated what my point is; at least 7.

In fact, I've reiterated the above sentence at least 3 times.

I you cannot understand blunt fact, then you are being willfully ignorant, or you are simply not very bright.

Peter Wiggin wrote:
I don't discount his opinion because he never brings up a valid point, I discount it because its pure idiocy to sit and argue that you know more about a subject and are more correct in your analysis than someone who has an education and years of professional experience. Please, by all means tell me how Dogma's relentless barrage of verbosity establishes ANY crediblity for his stance. Here's a tip, it doesn't.

Your statements about what classes you have taken do?

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Again, using feline research papers from 70 years ago is NOT a valid "factual basis" for modern medical or clinical information.

Nor did I say that it was. Again, I have, at several points, explicitly stated that I was not arguing about the nature of clinical treatment. You may not be paying attention, you may be incompetent, or you may be a simple troll.

Given that you have admitted to the latter, I expect that it is the truth.