stoutman wrote:

Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.



No thanks.

Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?

The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?


There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature?

The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.

I see no evidence of
there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of
writing that documentation.

So from whence did he find his numerous cases?

WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.

How do you consider that ADEQUATE?

What makes you believe that that was the only experiment conducted? He
didn't tell how many animals they experimented on so by your logic there
must have been no animal experiments conducted. One may assume that that
was _part_ of the "limited human information". One may not safely assume
that that was _all_ of it.

I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey.

Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.

If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them?

What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.

Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report" (bear in mind that this is a government agency charged with
occupational safety and health, from which one may assume that they receive
a plethora of "case reports"), then "a single case report", then "animal
and limited human information", then "there are several reports of
people . . .", then "in 3 human cases" then "in one unusual case" which
clearly was not among the 3, then "several studies report", then "animal
information suggests", then "one case report describes" then "most human
poulation studies indicate" then "in a series of studies", then "another
study which reviewed . . ." then "one other study" then "no conclusions can
be drawn from other reports . . ." then more "animal information suggests"
then "no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available studies", then "a
study of 25 men" then "a study of 891 women" then "in a Russian study",
then "one animal study showed". Now where did he find all these studies?

Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion.

Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
OPINIONS as well?

Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
with larger populations than just you.

Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?

They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".

And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
"using".



Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.

Actually, for the most part statements of fact.

What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing
on my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.

I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".

Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?

Please provide some evidence to support the contention that
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html
is an "ENTHEOLOGY web page". And why do you keep shouting "entheology".
Do you like the sound of it or something?

Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
now
retracting that statement?

Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
documentation?

How about them? What do you know of them?

snip

If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)