Articles

331 thoughts on “Scaremongering to Sell Water Filters

  1. Francois, if you ate only ascorbic acid, you’d be imbalanced adversely because it’s not in it’s correct natural state as it is meant to be taken along with other nutrients/fiber/juice and anything else food is comprised of..so therefore, taking it in a more natural surrounding would be the beneficial and preferred method imo..and apparently why ascorbic acid does not work or show the same benefits I’ve experienced, as your studies say… I don’t think it takes a PHD to figure that out either :)

  2. Always Curious says:

    rustichealthy, you’re position is laughable. You know that water in some parts of the world naturally contains fluoride? And that food grown or cooked with fluoridated water will also contain fluoride? Further, you realize the VAST MAJORITY of the water on the planet is undrinkable (will make you seriously ill) without treatment by “unnatural” processes? And you realize that it’s through the same scientific inquiry that we can do all of these things in the first place? You blithely admit you’re not a chemist, yet you think that your (baseless) beliefs are worth anything in a discussion about chemical processes?!?

    Write to the FDA, and complain about the amount of fluoride in the food & water. Demand they enforce labeling for it like they do for sodium & calcium. While you’re at it, also ask them to add manganese (damaging to cognitive & developmental processes), lithium (similar to previous list) and hydrogen (explosive). If they won’t listen, start a campaign on the industry side–they can advertise a new line of fluoride-free foods akin to their line of organic (the two will probably be exclusive though). I can almost hear their consternation from here and it’ll keep you busy for a while.

  3. lilady says:

    Lest we forget this comment from Rusty, that she posted on October 16th on this post by Dr. Gorski:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/health-insurance-and-mortality/

    “My personal ‘healthcare’ is vitamins vs. vaccine, less carcinogens and more vitamins to curve cancer rates. I choose to have catastrophic because I don’t run to the doctor’s for every sniffle. But, now my premiums went up 5 times since Obamacare passed, and I’m being forced to pay for others and for something I don’t even want or believe in for myself. The whole idea is immoral bordering fascist state. It’s at a point perhaps to seriously consider leaving, sorry to say if it’s not repealed. I love America…or what it was meant to be. This socialist system is failing in Greece..failing in other countries, no matter how rose colored it’s presented no country is able to sustain it for long without forced intervention and control of how much who gets what. Those on the left, would YOU like GWB deciding what healthcare you get? No? Then you understand why those on the right wouldn’t want BO to decide what healthcare we get. And 2400 pages is deciding what healthcare we get. You’re giving your life over to whoever is in control. This isn’t freedom any longer, it’s tyranny if it’s allowed to continue.”

    This was Rusty’s opening “shot”. She then went on to post her rants about her opposition to care for the uninsured and underinsured, her unintentional hilarious post and confusion about the Nazi/Communist/Socialist plot to take her money, her vicious attacks on other posters here, and other selfish libertarian rants.

    Okay Rusty when are you relocating to another country…now that President Obama won…and now that your home State went “blue” for the President? (America’s gain is another country’s loss)

  4. Narad says:

    You know that water in some parts of the world naturally contains fluoride?

    It’s very simple: Taking fluoride out of water supplies is FREEDOM. Putting it in is TYRANNY. I’m entirely sympathetic, as I am in a patriotic rage over the OPPRESSION that is failure to be supplied carbonated water with a hint of citrus from the tap, which is clearly SOCIALIST in nature. In fact, the collectivists go so far as to leave the water in “pools” during “purification,” guaranteeing that the water will be FLAT. Weep, Iron Eyes Cody, weep for me.

  5. weing says:

    “weing..ok, all kinds of cold and flu viruses thus far”

    This is a science based web site. Are you saying you have documentation of being inoculated with specific cold and flu viruses for which you had documented no prior immunity and that your regimen of vitamins prevented the illnesses caused by the said viruses? If yes, produce the documentation. If not, then your assertions are not worth anything to us and have no place in science.

  6. rokujolady says:

    As a humble non-scientist with a head full of anecdata I have to say I don’t see a lot of people dropping dead or born with three eyes from the fluoride. My parents’ entire generation was raised on tap-water mixed with formula and I don’t see a lot of people scarred for life, dead or debilitatingly ill because they didn’t get breast milk. Everyone I know has probably consumed water from lead soldered pipes in their old houses, yet I know of no child who has had lead poisoning from it. What I do see is people living longer than they have ever lived in the past and dying of diseases for which the probability goes up with age: diseases that we may have been spared in the past not because the world is so much more full of toxins today but because the parasites and microbes probably got you way before the cancer and Alzheimer’s did in the past ( although the amount of cancer in some communal burials of Egyptian mummies is really quite shocking.) So the conclusion I have to take away from this is that no one really gets is that the probability of something really catastrophic occurring because of lead soldered pipes, formula, BPA Etc, etc. is really quite miniscule. So stop worrying about all the invisible things that have a very small chance of killing you, hurting you or lowering the IQ of your baby, and enjoy the fact that you are probably going to live longer than your ancestors could have imagined possible.

  7. lilady says:

    @ rokojulady: Elevated blood lead levels in children is still a problem…

    http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/#data

    Up thread, I discussed ways in which a parent can protect a child from lead that leaches out from old lead water pipes or copper water pipes with lead solder joints, by opening up the cold water tap for a period of time, as well as using only cold water to start boiling water that is used for cooking purposes.

    Most of the elevated lead blood levels, I’ve ever heard of are caused by inhalation of lead paint “dust” during renovations in an older home or by children ingesting chips of paint that contain lead. Lead paint is NOT a problem if it has been painted over and is NOT peeling.

  8. My personal experience is ascorbic acid did not work as well (with my asthma attacks) as one with bioflavanoids and rosehips. That’s how I concluded it may not be the best form to take and why the studies don’t show it’s effectiveness. It seems one needs more mgs. when it is in ascorbic acid alone in that case. That’s how I know it’s not as effective, and my belief that the closer to the way it’s presented in nature the more beneficial. The only ‘opinions’ the studies I’ve found on pubmed come to are “insufficient”, or “inconclusive” evidence actually, (not conclusively saying it Doesn’t work) which, personally, I’m glad I didn’t wait another 30 or 40 years for them to perhaps come to the correct conclusion… finally … sigh… :) See you all another time. :)

  9. Chris says:

    RH:

    My personal experience is ascorbic acid did not work as well

    Then you are:

    1. Not taking any Vitamin C

    2. Not reading the comments.

    3. Have failed Google U.

    4. Have a severe learning disability.

    5. Have a mind that is welded shut from any actual information.

    Because ascorbic acid is Vitamin C! You were told this before. Try actually clicking on the following link and reading it:
    http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/vitamin-c-000339.htm

    Personally I prefer to get my Vitamin C from fruits and veggies, which contain ascorbic acid, not pills.

  10. Harriet Hall says:

    To be fair, I think what Rustichealth means by “ascorbic acid” is the purified ascorbic acid in a vitamin C pill as opposed to vitamin C mixed with other stuff in a “natural” source, as in rose hips. She hasn’t provided any evidence that one is superior to the other, but we all generally accept the idea that it’s better to get vitamins from our food rather than from a pill.

  11. Thank you Dr. Hall..for a little while I thought I was on another planet trying to explain what I thought was obvious…but, I did find this site..

    http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/vitaminc/ascorbic-acid-is-not-vitamin-c/

    … natural vs. synthetic. Let’s start with Vitamin C. Most sources equate vitamin C with ascorbic acid, as though they were the same thing. They’re not. Ascorbic acid is an isolate, a fraction, a distillate of naturally occurring vitamin C. In addition to ascorbic acid, vitamin C must include rutin, bioflavonoids, Factor K, Factor J, Factor P, Tyrosinase, Ascorbinogen, and other components as shown in the figure below:

    ascorbinogen
    bioflavonoids
    rutin

    tyrosinase

    Factor J
    Factor K
    Factor P

    In addition, mineral co-factors must be available in proper amounts.

    If any of these parts are missing, there is no vitamin C, no vitamin activity. When some of them are present, the body will draw on its own stores to make up the differences, so that the whole vitamin may be present. Only then will vitamin activity take place, provided that all other conditions and co-factors are present. Ascorbic acid is described merely as the “antioxidant wrapper” portion of vitamin C; ascorbic acid protects the functional parts of the vitamin from rapid oxidation or breakdown…

    And, that’s what I experienced, a better result from bioflavanoids and rosehips with Vitamin C…(ascorbic acid)..not solely ascorbic acid. whew! I’ll put this on my site..with a new compelling comment perhaps!
    However, I won’t ‘trouble’ you all anymore today :) have a good one..

  12. weing says:

    So you are a saleswoman for the patent meds. Check out

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lee.html

    As Harriet pointed out. “we all generally accept the idea that it’s better to get vitamins from our food rather than from a pill.”

  13. Harriet Hall says:

    @rustichealthy,

    The link you provided is laughable. It expresses the opinions of a crank, and those opinions are not substantiated by any scientific evidence. It’s so bad that it “isn’t even wrong.”

    Ascorbic acid is not “a fraction” of naturally occurring vitamin C. It IS vitamin C. The fact that we are better off getting vitamins from food than from pills does NOT mean the pills don’t contain the “whole” vitamin. And it doesn’t mean rose hips are better than more common dietary sources of ascorbic acid.

  14. Narad says:

    So you are a saleswoman for the patent meds.

    Of the Comic Sans MLM variety.

  15. I stopped reading the moment I read “You will know more than 95% of doctors.” I know more about American, French and German literature than 95% of doctors. Vitamins? Those 95% of doctors WILL know more than I do, due to having spent 25 years in school to become medical doctors and to their continuous education.

  16. By the way, do you even understand the articles you are linking to (even though they are ludicrous) or are you just copying and pasting them wholesale on your website? This, by the way, constitutes copyright infringement. Oh, wait, you probably don’t subscribe to the idea of copyright protection, since this is enforced by the federal government and international treaties.

  17. kathy says:

    Dr Hall wrote, “And it doesn’t mean rose hips are better than more common dietary sources of ascorbic acid.”

    Ah, Doc, but rose hips are ever so cool, so alternative! Unlike oranges or lemons, which are common plonky vitamin sources for common plonky people and are, worst of all, cheap. Rose hips = conspicuous consumption.

    They are also a great topic for conversation when waiting in the supermarket checkout queue. I mean, one looks like such an expert to the ladies in front and behind … without actually having to know anything. One also looks rather well off, without having to actually state what one earns.

    No-one, as far as I know, has examined the importance of social and financial snobbery in the upsurge in taking of supplements, or the usage of strange diets and peculiar treatments like enemas. Might be interesting?

  18. :) And, as I’ve said, if they didn’t work, people wouldn’t buy them. No one forces anyone to buy supplements. What I find strange is what is prescribed by conventional meds, and the results year after year…but, that’s Not considered quackery…like…http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3989

    A report by a watchdog group has concluded that prescribed medicines are “one of the most significant perils to human health resulting from human activity.” The group based their conclusion on their analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration’s database of serious adverse events.

    The report was published on 31 May in QuarterWatch, a publication of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a non-profit organisation dedicated to “medication error prevention and safe medication use” based in Horsham, Pennsylvania.1 It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing “serious, disabling, or fatal injuries,” including 128 000 deaths.

    According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 48% of the …

    I can hear the ‘excuse’ now…”it’s the Dose of the Poison”…yes..that kills 128,000 each year! :) ok…see you all :)

  19. The Dave says:

    ” if they didn’t work, people wouldn’t buy them.”

    Bull honky. Case in point: For how long was the practice of blood-letting used? Many, many years. But it killed more patients than it helped (ie “didn’t work”) and yet they still continued to use it. There’s a name for the logical phallacy you use in your argument, I just can’t think of it right now.

  20. Dave…except vitamins haven’t killed anyone..but conventional meds have…so you telling me what ‘works’ is “bull honky” :)

  21. actually..year after year…averaging over 100,000 a year..killed from taking, relying on, conventional meds..(millions more adversely affected) not just one..I’d call that a “pandemic” and yet totally dismissed by conventional meds!, so, I’m sorry, but, it’s pretty funny to hear from conventionals the ‘danger’ and/or ineffectiveness of supplements, when I believe it’s the people who buy them to decide that.

  22. The Dave says:

    Not killing someone is your evidence that something “works”?! That’s utterly ridiculous. Besides, a simple google search for “vitamin overdose death” provides plenty of hits describing just that:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=vitamin+overdose+death&aq=0&oq=vitamin+overdose+mortality&sugexp=chrome,mod=15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  23. Scott says:

    Argumentum ad populum.

  24. The Dave says:

    Thank you Scott.

    Let me point out wikipedia in particular:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_poisoning

    “Generally, toxic levels of vitamins are achieved through high supplement intake and not from dietary sources”

    “In the United States, overdose exposure to all formulations of “vitamins” was reported by 62,562 individuals in 2004, leading to 53 “major” life-threatening outcomes and 3 deaths(2 from Vitamins – D and E; 1 from polyvitaminic type formula, with iron and no fluoride).”

    Sure sounds super-safe to supplement to me…

  25. :) I saw 1 there of ‘overdose of Vit. D’ and one of Vit. A…I’m sorry..but, it’s actually ludicrous to try and compare them…give me an actually site with #s comparing to the 100,000′s who died year after year recorded…from ‘scientifically’ valid only clinical tested meds please?

  26. The Dave says:

    Rusty, lets look at this another way:

    you swear by vitamin supplementation because it “works for you” and because rx meds (sometimes) kill people. How do you reconcile that with the fact that rx meds “work for” many, many, many people and vitamin supplementation does, in fact, kill people as well. It would appear that negates your justification of vits over rx.

  27. AdamM says:

    This article is very comical. I don’t know if you have done any research on the subject of fluoride or if this is just your opinion, but you are sadly mistaken. Especially the part where it is beneficial for children, good for the teeth, and restores enamel. First off, once enamel is gone, there is no way of getting it back. Second of all, have you ever read the back of a tube of toothpaste? You are supposed to contact poison control if you happen to ingest any toothpaste.

    Fluoride is a toxic by-product from manufacturers of glass, aluminum, and others, and is too costly to dispose of properly. The only reason it is in our water, is because they contribute too much money to the economy, and disposal of this toxin properly wouldn’t bring in as much profit, and was therefore labelled as “safe”. Hitler said it best, “Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and the masses will come to believe it”.

    I am not sure if you have already had too much fluoride exposure or not, but you need to get this out of your water ASAP! You need a water filter system with a fluoride filter for removal. or a reverse osmosis system, something. This has been banned in all the leading societies like Germany, Britian, Japan, Sweden, as they know how bad this is. You can go on believing this misconception, but I have a reverse osmosis system, and do not consume lies fed to me when a little research will actually astound you.

  28. No, ‘not killing’ is not evidence if something works, my own experience is evidence to what works for me…and many others who choose to buy their own supplements. What is evident to me is, the so-called revered ‘clinical trials’ conventional meds tout about as the only proof something works are bogus and void. We may as well simply rely upon our own judgement afterall with what we ‘trust’ our health on…thus my website :)

  29. @rustichealthy: Your website? The same website that infringes on the copyrights of several quacks?

  30. The Dave says:

    AdamM:

    Welcome to the discussion. Please be aware we will demand references for your claims.

    For example, I claim that you are either misguided or lying and that your claims are false. As evidence, I present:

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

    and

    http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question40.html

    please, enlighten us.

  31. Harriet Hall says:

    “my own experience is evidence … ‘clinical trials’ …are bogus and void.”

    That says it all. Rustichealthy has offered a good example of what SBM is fighting.
    She is impervious to reason. What possible answer is there to someone who insists that black is white?

  32. weing says:

    “What is evident to me is, the so-called revered ‘clinical trials’ conventional meds tout about as the only proof something works are bogus and void. We may as well simply rely upon our own judgement afterall with what we ‘trust’ our health on…thus my website”

    So, no basis in science. Just old wives tales by self-styled experts who want to practice medicine without a license.

  33. And here is a map of countries where community water is fluoridated:

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fichier:Fluoridated-water-extent-world.svg&page=1

    What’s that in pink? Sweden? Britain? France? In your defence, AdamM, Japan and Germany have less than 1% of their population having access to fluoridated water. But they have not banned them.

  34. Harriet Hall says:

    @AdamM

    Here is a white paper from the Institute for Science in Medicine, a think tank of scientists and doctors. It is supported by 49 references. http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf
    This is not “opinion” but a reasoned treatise by people who have done extensive research on the subject.
    If you want to accuse them of being wrong, you will be expected to present a better reasoned argument with more credible references.

  35. Francois no it doesn’t, it’s not in a published book that I’m getting money for, or claiming the information to be my own..genius.:)

  36. weing..”no basis in science”…not apparently if it’s so darned mistaken at the expense of millions of lives already…I would say. Perhaps it’s not as ‘science’ as you think?

  37. Dr. Hall..my track record of ‘placebos’ working very well for myself is 100% better than ‘evidence based medicine’ thus far!

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      @rustichealthy,

      “my track record of ‘placebos’ working very well for myself is 100% better than ‘evidence based medicine’ thus far!”

      You don’t have a track record. You have anecdotes that are no better than other people’s anecdotes for different health practices. And no more credible than the centuries of anecdotes that supported balancing the humors with bloodletting.

      And your improvements might not be due to placebo effects. There are other possible explanations like the natural course of events without treatment, or unrecognized other factors that led to improvement.

  38. @rustichealthy: Well, you obviously need some education in copyright law. You cannot copy or reproduce wholesale a text without permission of the author, even under the fair use doctrine. It doesn’t matter if you do not profit from it or that you credit the author. You didn’t get the author’s permission. As such, it’s still copyright infringement.

  39. weing says:

    “weing..”no basis in science”…not apparently if it’s so darned mistaken at the expense of millions of lives already…I would say. Perhaps it’s not as ‘science’ as you think?”

    I have no idea what that word salad means. You are trying to practice medicine without a license even though you obviously know squat about health, disease, or science in general. Does that make you feel important or something?

  40. weing..”no basis in science”…meaning, what conventionals consider “science” seems to be incompetence (worse than placebos) considering the medical ‘science’ used to distribute/prescribe medications that produce such terrible outcomes..(as in 128,000 deaths each year not counting the millions of other bad side effects they’ve caused also). So, what exactly is “quackery” now? I’m not prescribing medicine without a license… I’m not ‘practicing’ anything except my freedom of speech.

  41. Moebius says:

    Shockingly, no one here recognizes what troll behaviour is. If you don’t feed them, they go away.

  42. Narad says:

    actually..year after year…averaging over 100,000 a year..killed from taking, relying on, conventional meds..(millions more adversely affected) not just one..I’d call that a “pandemic”

    That’s because you don’t know what the word means, something like your grasp of the word ‘socialist’. (Your copyright violation, on the other hand, is straightforwardly communist.)

  43. Francois.. you’re wrong …Fair Use and Fair Dealing in U.S….Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

    the purpose and character of your use
    the nature of the copyrighted work
    what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[30]

  44. Quill says:

    I think it’s very nice of the drugstore to keep so many people alive.

    Dr. Hall asks “What possible answer is there to someone who insists that black is white?”

    You may reply that it could profit them mightily to study the character of Katherine in Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew” and to learn from it instead of being the subject of easy parody, such as:

    Science it is not, when I say it is not,
    And the experience changes even as my mind:
    What I will have it named, so that it is,
    And so it shall be so for Rusty.

  45. weing says:

    “my track record of ‘placebos’ working very well for myself is 100% better than ‘evidence based medicine’ thus far!”

    That’s because you aren’t ill. Next time you reference a medical paper, try and understand it. Ask someone what it means if you don’t. If anyone tells you to take coumadin for a cold, tell them to take a hike. If you have a DVT, or experiencing pulmonary embolism, or atrial fibrillation, then you’ll have to make a choice, either to take the coumadin or your placebos.

  46. Dr. Hall.well my anecdotes work for me..asthma, arthritis and allergies didn’t go when I was on meds..but did go when I started vitamins and other natural remedies. Vitamins are not ‘bloodletting’ or snake oil.

    Narad….that’s because you don’t know what freedom of speech is..I can call it whatever I choose..but, if conventionals say it’s not a ‘pandemic’..it’s not a ‘pandemic’ then…the 100,000 dead or suffering were science experiments then.

  47. weing says:

    “Shockingly, no one here recognizes what troll behaviour is. If you don’t feed them, they go away.”

    I recognize it. But you can’t leave the garbage they post unchallenged. Especially here. Those who don’t know better may think it’s legit.

  48. Narad says:

    Second of all, have you ever read the back of a tube of toothpaste? You are supposed to contact poison control if you happen to ingest any toothpaste.

    No, you’re supposed to call Poison Control if you ingest “more than used for brushing.” And Poison Control, in its turn, will likely enquire as to whether you somehow managed to keep down enough toothpaste to have an acute toxic effect, which is something like 6 mg/kg of fluoride, also known as “a lot of freaking toothpaste.”

  49. weing..I’m hoping to avert any of those big things like heart attack and stroke by prevention for a long while. I’ve noticed other things improving and turning around thus far, nails, hair, skin, eyes..in addition to the asthma and arthritis and allergies I have..improving..so, I hope I’m on the right track. Of course I don’t know everything..just what’s happening right now. I am glad some technology is out there…that doesn’t mean it’s all good, is what I’m trying to say.

  50. I’m not ‘against’ technology. Vitamins are here because of technology…so is the study of them, and other nutrients..fish oil, herbs, etc. Technology can be great…if used in a ‘no harm’ manner, but that usually consists of the substances used…what conventionals actually do call the ‘poison’ :) and, that’s where we part ways. It’s not only what I’ve been ‘told’ that works..it’s what I know works from experience, and without the dangers and side-effects. And, amazingly, most often when someone else actually tries them too.. they then find out it works..vitamins, organic food, less toxic intake. That’s all we’re saying. That’s all I’m saying. To be coupled with 14th century ‘bloodletting’, and 18th century ‘snake oil’..and other quackery is disconcerting..especially coming from conventional meds, knowing what awful other things happen because of pharmaceuticals. Sure, they don’t kill everyone right off…that wouldn’t work. Anyway, good night.

  51. @rustichealthy: Not only are you arguing against people who have years of practice in healthcare practices, you are also going someone who has years of experience dealing with copyright law. You should also learn to read. In the text you have copied and pasted, the “amount and proportion” of a text are mentioned. But hey, if you think you are right, go ahead and publish an entire short story by Jorge Luis Borges or a poem by Louis Zukofsky. I’ll be amused when María Kodama’s and Paul Zukofsky’s lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter. Or better yet, try to copy and paste one of my publications on your website. I will gladly contact your host to ask them to take down your website over copyright infringement.

  52. Francois..I was just going to shut down ..then I read your post ..I think you should reread what it says. I do understand it. If it meant what you say..it would have said…

    “.Copyright …. Prohibits ALL.. copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits NO copying and distribution Without Permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. …(That’s your interpretation apparently:)

    but..it Doesn’t! ..it says….

    Copyright Does NOT prohibit ALL copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits SOME copying and distribution WITHOUT permission of the copyright holder or payment to same.

    Sorry ..where’s your site? let me decide if I choose to copy it … or not :)

  53. I’d almost swear you were trying to Scaremonger me Francois! lol

  54. Narad says:

    So, Rusty, you’re a communist. You think you can take that which is others’ if you feel like it, with the flimsy basis of not understanding the law being all you have. Not only communist, but lacking the simple manners to be bothered to even request permission in the first place.

    Does that about sum it up?

  55. @rustichealthy: Unlike you, I don’t self-publish. You’ll have to find me at your local bookstore. And obviously, you don’t understand the fair use doctrine.

  56. Narad, copying a few sentences to use as reference and giving the writer the credit is not taking anything..it’s what’s permitted…if you understand the law. I’m not a communist…that’s funny.

    Francois..I understand the law… and.. copying a few sentences (Not the whole book) to use as reference and giving the writer the credit is not taking anything..it’s what’s permitted, if You understand the law. That’s what I’ve done. Now stop trying to Scaremonger me.

  57. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Francois..I understand the law

    As well as you understand science? Then we’ve got nothing to worry about.

  58. @WLU: In rustichealthy’s defense (*cough), “copying a few sentence (…) and giving the writer credit” does fall under the fair use doctrine.

  59. Narad says:

    it’s what’s permitted…if you understand the law.

    As François pointed out, yes, that’s fair use. And you don’t need to school me on the subject, as I worked at a rather well known press for quite a while. Frankly, your sites are such a hodgepodge that I didn’t go hunting for long for extended liftings. I’m more curious about your strange political philosophy, as it were, in which you object to “socialism” but cry “tyranny” over not having the municipal water supply tailored to your personal desires and, now, fall back on the law to justify your takings. It seems as though it’s “socialism” when you don’t get precisely what you want and “freedom” when you do get what you want (emphasis here on the “free”). These are diametrically opposed positions.

  60. Narad, most of the homepage is links and references with some intro sentences…the chapters are mostly my own writing but with some paragraphs with links as references (Chapters 5 & 7 & 12 mostly), and the comments are my own, some with exerpts :)

    I don’t think it’s that difficult to understand my political view. Gov. is meant to protect the individual rights as in the Constitution. Purposely putting something in the water that many have a problem with is infringement of individual rights.

    and, basically..First and Second Amendments are pretty clear..Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (as in Fluke’s demands of a catholic college)..or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances..(as the Tea Party did).

    It’s when laws and govs (city, state or federal) overstep their boundary that there’s a problem.

    like forcing others to pay for others healthcare now, but, not only paying..it will be spelling out exactly what ‘healthcare’ is..and who knows what that may be.

    Taking and spending other people’s money, on bailouts, pay offs, buying votes, pork spending, a whole lot of things..I totally object to..both sides have done it..but, the bulk has been mostly on the left..especially last 4-6 years. Taxes are as ‘rattling chains on men’s necks’..Thomas Jefferson said. :)

  61. I don’t see how offering family planning coverage prevents you from practicing Catholicism (I was raised Catholic) or any other religion. As an individual, you are offered a choice. If you decide not to use what’s offered to you on religious grounds, fine. If you decide that your health trumps your religious upbringing, then you can elect for whatever procedure is available to you. Georgetown University, as an employer in the United States, cannot force its dogma on its employees (who might not all be Catholics). That is called religious discrimination.

    By enforcing the family planning sections of the ACA, the federal government is not prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It’s making sure employers (here, religious institutions) are not discriminating their employees on religious grounds.

  62. Francois, I believe the university objects to paying for contraceptives, against their catholic belief. You can package it with ‘family planning’..but sheesh…when does one take responsibility of their OWN family planning? buy your OWN contraceptives. Fluke is a student there. She could easily go to another university. Why would one choose to go to a catholic university in the first place if you don’t like their beliefs. Next it will be, what they’re allowed to say in the pulpit? because you don’t want anyone ‘offended’, I can see that coming down next…that’s denying the freedom of religion also…you can’t preach against ‘abortion’ perhaps? or any other disagreement one feels ‘offended’ by according to government rule. It’s dangerous precedence..which it seems the left have no problem crossing over to time and again.

  63. Narad says:

    I don’t think it’s that difficult to understand my political view.

    No, it’s not. The problem is that it’s internally inconsistent as described above, and you don’t grasp this, apparently among many other things. Babbling about the First and Second Amendments is so far from the mark that I suppose you probably are impervious to actual thought.

  64. Narad..Translation: my thoughts are not ‘consistent’ with what you say they should be ‘consistent’ with, or what the state says they should be consistent with..in this case..fluoride in water or ‘family planning’ and what we all should be charitable in allowing you to take our money to pay for whether we like it or not. Is that it? Or why don’t you specify what you’re talking about. And, I’m not “TAKING” anything..I’m using what is allowed just as the Ops do on this site all the time…excerpts?

  65. What does one have to do with the other? anyway…one is copyrighting law..the others are infringement of basic rights and freedom.

  66. Narad says:

    Translation: my thoughts are not ‘consistent’ with what you say they should be ‘consistent’ with

    You mean your other utterances? Yah, I suppose I’m suggesting that synchronizing these categories might help. What you fail to grasp is that fair use itself is a diminution of the interests of the author (for both practical interests and those of the common weal; the former has a libertarian technological objection). On the other hand, your petulant fluoridation complaint turns this on its head while ignoring the common basis for the item you like and the one that you don’t. Your analysis goes no further than “yum” and “ick.” Not only do you have no understanding of the “basic rights and freedoms” that you are ululating in the general direction of, it’s apparent that you’ve never even tried.

  67. @rustichealthy: Georgetown University is an employer receiving public funding (e.g.: Pell Grants, Direct Loans, …). As such, it is obligated to follow federal law regarding religious discrimination. I am an atheist. I don’t like the idea of religion or of divinity. By your train of thought, I should be entitled not to hire a religious person, as it goes against my lack of religious belief.

    Secondly, Fluke went to grad school at Georgetown University (specifically law school), so no, she didn’t have the choice to go to another university. This is something I don’t expect you to understand, since you didn’t attend university in the first place. This is not a 4-year undergraduate degree we’re talking here. People choose specific grad schools for very specific reasons and at that level, it is usually very difficult to transfer to another graduate program, even if they are in the same fields. I chose my grad school because I wanted to study with one specific person. I don’t know why Sandra Fluke chose Georgetown University. Most likely because it’s the best law school for one legal specialization.

    Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the pursuit of knowledge.

  68. Narad…(( What you fail to grasp is that fair use itself is a diminution of the interests of the author)) No..it is not..it’s a sane understanding imo…otherwise no one could communicate anything without getting it copywritten and someone saying something that might possibly reflect it and it would be insanity. Using an excerpt is not taking anything from the author..(giving them the credit) actually…it helps the author..it’s free advertising! actually. The law states and easily understood..you can’t copy the Whole Book..but a paragraph is not TAKING away anything, and you the user are not gaining anything other than the use…seriously? comparing that to forcing fluoride on us, or paying for somone’s sex life is ludicrous to begin with..but, maybe I shouldn’t expect you to understand the difference actually. This is why liberals shouldn’t be in government :) It does come down to this ridiculous argument with a liberal…hardly any kind of sense at all. (“If I can’t tell you how to run your whole life you must be an anarchist!!”) See? the mental case. You like fluoride, buy fluoride toothpaste..you want sex..buy your own condoms. They Don’t Compare to quoting someone’s book.

  69. Francois..actually, in a free country, you should be able to hire/not hire anyone you want..it’s your money..it’s your business. Unfortunately, this money from gov buying the Right to Impose is why no $ should be going to/coming from Gov to anyone..it’s the basis of tyranny now. Great!

    and, well what I do understand is she should/could buy her own contraceptives. I hope she, in such a high level of pursuit of knowledge and learning, is not that incompetent, that’s scary.

  70. And, since, everyone’s so interested in my education, you’re right, I’m not that knowledgeable of higher level as I have some college..and dropped out having my two sons, who I decided were more important to me, (actually more than the joy of my life) and having to work, not able to do all three, not blaming anyone else, and not expecting anything else..it’s my life and responsibility, and choice. I still have some wherewithal to think and do for myself, and try to understand and defend freedom in a small way as I can though! and other things, like what really works for health :) and still for the life of me, can’t fathom a 25 year old single, having nothing else to do but go to school can’t take care of her own seemingly active sex life :) I’m sorry..it’s beyond me. And, I’m sure you all will now tell me how I don’t understand the time and attention and hard work and ..what ever. :)

  71. And, before I hear the gloating of your education…I’ll remind you I had a better grasp of a copyright law in a very short time it seems than you all seem to have…sorry ;)

  72. Don’t weep for me..weep for yourselves :)

  73. lilady says:

    @ Narad:

    “Not only do you have no understanding of the “basic rights and freedoms” that you are ululating in the general direction of, it’s apparent that you’ve never even tried.”

    The neighborhood is shot now that those Moroccans have moved in next door…

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/my-moroccan-neighbors-wont-stop-their-damn-ululati,10761/

  74. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    I’ll remind you I had a better grasp of a copyright law in a very short time it seems than you all seem to have

    You may have convinced yourself of that, but then again you have also convinced yourself that your grasp of science and medicine is better than anyone else here. All you revealed over the past several months of repetitive bleating is your complete failure to understand either.

    Saying you are knowledgeable about something, thinking you are knowledgeable about something and actually being knowledgeable are all different things. I would be intrigued to see what an actual copyright lawyer would say.

    Also, weeping is not the action I take in response to your ignorant posts – it is closer to disgust.

  75. Question is, if Fluke does get covered, will she be able to go to the drug store and obtain the contraceptives by herself? at the precise right time, or will she need assistance with that too. Maybe the gas for her car (and insurance of course) will need coverage assistance also? to get there and back..3000, that’s a lot of trips.. Maybe she’ll need assistance with how to use them, maybe a class should be paid for by taxpayer grants for that also…to be fair..not only for her as she says..all educated women …in Georgetown University..prestigious up scale law school… and everywhere! Like I said, I figured out the Fair Use in the copyright law..I don’t want to gloat too much..I was going to try to stretch it out to a few minutes, but it actually took only a second…hmmm

    And (according to liberal governing) because you presume a few (one or two?) not sure if that many can actually have children not knowing how to buy toothpaste?..but, parents can’t go to the store and buy toothpaste with fluoride, therefore Everyone should be forced to have it in their water to drink…because it’s ‘only fair’..is that the rationale?

    Will the government take over distributing food to everyone (a basic right too..isn’t it?)..(and the food the government determines everyone should have…gmos it seems most likely) assuming a few can’t do that for themselves too…what else can we expect the government to do…in the name of ‘fairness’ ..will there be anyone left in this country who’ll be able to think for themselves at all? I wonder (why don’t you move then Rustic?) ok I’ll go with my lowly educated self :) see you all

  76. The Dave says:

    “Also, weeping is not the action I take in response to your ignorant posts – it is closer to disgust.”

    and face palms. Many, many face palms. Which, I guess could cause weeping, but only from the pain inflicted, not for any emotions towards Rusty

  77. The Dave says:

    “will there be anyone left in this country who’ll be able to think for themselves at all? ”

    Oh no, she figured it out. I told you the use of chemtrails to control everyone’s minds was too obvious. “contrails”?! noone would believe that cover story. I guess we’ll have to report to Big Pharma and the NWO to move to Phase III…

  78. Narad says:

    No..it is not..it’s a sane understanding imo…otherwise no one could communicate anything without getting it copywritten

    Copyright for all writings published after 1989 March 1 already vests in the author by default, with no further action required, including notice.

    and someone saying something that might possibly reflect it and it would be insanity.

    Again, you seem to only apply this standard when it is to your liking. In any event, “saying something that might possibly reflect” a work has no bearing on anything.

    Using an excerpt is not taking anything from the author..(giving them the credit)

    Yes, it is. It is the appropriation of the fruit of one’s labor, which one has a propery interest in.

    actually…it helps the author..it’s free advertising!

    Aside from the fact that this is the excuse used by many a music pirate, one might further note that what you are doing is deciding that you get to do the taking and you get to decide the value of the compensation, which is yet again completely incompatible with any sort of coherent libertarianism.

  79. and, :) WLU.. I was referring to weeping for my ‘lowly education’ in comparison to yours. I’m sure your feelings aren’t that in other things..that’s not what one feels when one is faced with the challenge of their presumed ‘incompetence beliefs and claims for all’ led politics and policies so I see. Anger, and yes, disgust… at the deprivation of satisfaction that not everyone buys into the idea that you can/do actually have the right to think/do/demand for/from everyone else claiming/assuming ‘incompetence’ as the motive/rationale, is more like it…(disgust actually is a good indicator that I’m right in that case:)

    The Dave..simply denying or making a presumptive claim it can’t be so, or it doesn’t/can’t happen, doesn’t prove anything either, …I actually know that :)

  80. Ok..Narad..take it up with what the OPs do on this board also http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/scaremongering-to-sell-water-filters/ i.e. taking out excerpts, without specific permission. I’m not able to get through apparently.

  81. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Question is, if Fluke does get covered, will she be able to go to the drug store and obtain the contraceptives by herself? at the precise right time, or will she need assistance with that too. Maybe the gas for her car (and insurance of course) will need coverage assistance also? to get there and back..3000, that’s a lot of trips.. Maybe she’ll need assistance with how to use them, maybe a class should be paid for by taxpayer grants for that also…to be fair..not only for her as she says..all educated women

    Health insurance is about providing access to medications and treatments to many people such that everyone pays a bit so nobody goes bankrupt. It’s a basic way of spreading out risk that reduces costs overall. Health insurance has nothing to do with transportation, nobody is asking the health insurance to cover gas or mileage. Your comment is an example of a non sequiter, reductio ad absurdum and a slipper slope – it assumes that granting this coverage automatically means covering a lot of other costs, ignoring the fact that these decisions are made on a rational basis. Another indication that you are unwilling to examine opinions other than your own rationally or fairly and instead resort to charicatures.

    And (according to liberal governing) because you presume a few (one or two?) not sure if that many can actually have children not knowing how to buy toothpaste?..but, parents can’t go to the store and buy toothpaste with fluoride, therefore Everyone should be forced to have it in their water to drink…because it’s ‘only fair’..is that the rationale?

    The fluoride levels added to drinking water ensure an entire population benefits from an effective, low-cost treatment that has no adverse effects (because again fluoride is added and removed rationally based on a target level of 1 ppm). Your claim of a nanny state is again a charicature, not reality. Fluoride is added because it protects and hardens teeth and has never been linked to adverse effects at 1 ppm. You have no evidence to the contrary, merely assertions based on erroneous assumptions.

    Will the government take over distributing food to everyone (a basic right too..isn’t it?)..(and the food the government determines everyone should have

    The US government does not distribute food to everybody, but does have programs to prevent starvation and malnutrition. People who can afford to buy adequate food (or even the starving who do not want to use the program) are not forced to consume this food. Thankfully, this is one of the many ways a conscientious, morally-aware state can support the health of its citizens. Please provide any example of the US government forcing people to consume food.

    …gmos it seems most likely)

    Genetically modified organisms are used because they increase crop yields and provide other benefits such as providing adequate vitamin A in deficient groups, and there is no good evidence that they are associated with adverse effects. Again, GMO crops are studied before being released, and if adverse effects are noted then the rational decision is made to implement (or not) the crop. The system is not perfect, but it is based on study rather than rhetoric. Pretending GMO crops are just produced for the evulz without a rational motive is disingenuous or a failure to understand the issues (as well as another application of the naturalistic fallacy, and ignoring the fact that the changes made to GMO crops actually happen in nature).

    assuming a few can’t do that for themselves too…what else can we expect the government to do…in the name of ‘fairness’ ..will there be anyone left in this country who’ll be able to think for themselves at all? I wonder (why don’t you move then Rustic?) ok I’ll go with my lowly educated self see you all

    Scientists do think for themselves, and are at the forefront of developing, criticizing and implementing technological and medical solutions to life’s myraid problems. Economist and other expert scholars are involved in developing, criticizing and improving government policies. Your arguments, in addition to being charicatures of the genuine complexities involved, appear to be appeals to ignorance and appeals to personal incredulity – if you can’t understand the rational behind a scientific or political decision (or if you personally disagree with it) your knee-jerk response is to reject it without making any effort to better understand the issue. It’s the Sarah Palin approach to science and politics.

  82. @rustichealthy: The initial statements Narad and I made regarding your website were made by mistake, due to your poor wording that induced us to think you were copying and pasting wholesale writing by other people. You have not demonstrated a better grasp of the Fair Use Doctrine or of Copyright Law than any of us here, as demonstrated by the following:

    No..it is not..it’s a sane understanding imo…otherwise no one could communicate anything without getting it copywritten

    Not everything can be protected under copyright. Copyright only applies to creative, intellectual, and artistic work. It doesn’t apply to things that are merely communicative, like sentences or speech. So whatever rustichealthy writes wouldn’t be protected by copyright, since it doesn’t fall under any of those three categories.

    Now, I am very amused that you should use the Fair Use Doctrine to try to protect yourself, since this is something that is considered by the Federal Government. I can’t really say ‘enforced’ here, since, even if you invoked the Fair Use Doctrine, I still have the right to send you a cease-and-desist letter and to sue you for copyright infringement, if I, as copyright holder, do not agree with where my citations appear. Such as rustichealthy’s website, for example.

  83. @rustichealthy:

    Ok..Narad..take it up with what the OPs do on this board also http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/scaremongering-to-sell-water-filters/ i.e. taking out excerpts, without specific permission. I’m not able to get through apparently.

    I think the citation used by the authors of this site are more likely to be defended as fair use than anything that you could do on your website. The citations are coherent with the aims of SBM.org.

  84. And, it’s not the same..libertarian doesn’t mean no laws at all. There are some laws, and thus far, that’s the copyright law…thus far that law says it’s not infringing on the writer’s rights if one uses an excerpt from their book/writing without specific permission. It’s not actually the full property, and it’s not the Whole song, record as in music pirating. (even I know the difference in that:) And, forcefeeding all people some thing a few say they believe is necessary..against the will of those who don’t want it/believe it..is a WHOLE other issue. If you can’t see that yet..I can’t help you with it either.

  85. Narad says:

    I think the citation used by the authors of this site are more likely to be defended as fair use than anything that you could do on your website.

    Moreover, the authors of this site aren’t advancing a scatterbrained political position that is inconsistent with fair use in the first place.

  86. ((Health insurance is about providing access to medications and treatments to many people such that everyone pays a bit so nobody goes bankrupt. ))

    I’m still waiting for my bank account to be filled..so I can get to keep it, if I should one day get ill, so I don’t go bankrupt, and not have to use it! but get to keep my home/car/job…speaking of which..I still have a mortgage to be paid that I’d like you WWJD’rs to pay for also, and a new car too.. Lil? while we’re at it :)

  87. Francois.. ((I think the citation used by the authors of this site are more likely to be defended as fair use than anything that you could do on your website. The citations are coherent with the aims of SBM.org.))

    you have your opinion on it..and I have mine.

  88. WLU…((The fluoride levels added to drinking water ensure an entire population benefits from an effective, low-cost treatment that has no adverse effects (because again fluoride is added and removed rationally based on a target level of 1 ppm). Your claim of a nanny state is again a charicature, not reality. Fluoride is added because it protects and hardens teeth and has never been linked to adverse effects at 1 ppm. You have no evidence to the contrary, merely assertions based on erroneous assumptions.))

    Whether I have evidence of anything or not is not the issue, forcing upon all something you happen to believe but I don’t happen to believe is “harmless” is an opinion..and I don’t have to prove to you my opinion, I just don’t like yours forced on me.

  89. The Dave says:

    “The Dave..simply denying or making a presumptive claim it can’t be so, or it doesn’t/can’t happen, doesn’t prove anything either, …I actually know that”

    I’m not seeing how this applies to anything I have said, unless you’re now stating you believe in such absurdities as chemtrails and the NWO

  90. Genetically modified organisms are used because they increase crop yields and provide other benefits such as providing adequate vitamin A in deficient groups, and there is no good evidence that they are associated with adverse effects. Again, GMO crops are studied before being released, and if adverse effects are noted then the rational decision is made to implement (or not) the crop. The system is not perfect, but it is based on study rather than rhetoric. Pretending GMO crops are just produced for the evulz without a rational motive is disingenuous or a failure to understand the issues (as well as another application of the naturalistic fallacy, and ignoring the fact that the changes made to GMO crops actually happen in nature).

    As The Dave (I think) says…”bull honky”

    http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/07/obesity-corn-gmos/

    http://www.purezing.com/living/toxins/living_toxins_gmofoods.html

    http://www.invigorate360.com/reviews/top-10-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food/

    http://www.saynotogmos.org/uoct03a.htm

    http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html

    http://www.relfe.com/GMOs.html

  91. The Dave says:

    “Whether I have evidence of anything or not is not the issue, forcing upon all something you happen to believe but I don’t happen to believe is “harmless” is an opinion..and I don’t have to prove to you my opinion, I just don’t like yours forced on me.”

    fluoridated water is not a matter of opinion or belief. it is a matter of what the scientific research has repeatedly shown.
    You can believe flouride is dangerous all you want, it doesn’t make it so. We don’t “believe” its safe, the scientific evidence has shown that it is safe. The only reliable “dangers” of flouridosis is brown teeth. The horrors!!!!!!1!!!!

  92. The Dave says:

    “you have your opinion on it..and I have mine.”

    And yours are consistently contrary to the best scientific evidence the world can provide. Most sane people would recognize that fact and alter their opinion to be more inline with reality, but you continue to refuse to do so and expect us in this community should give your opinions some credence. Not gonna happen.

  93. The Dave…what conventional ‘scientific research’ has determined ‘harmless’, as in all the meds handed out to people unawares…pardon me…but, I’m not sure how you all can think you can claim/rely upon anything your ‘scientific research’ says…

    http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3989

    A report by a watchdog group has concluded that prescribed medicines are “one of the most significant perils to human health resulting from human activity.” The group based their conclusion on their analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration’s database of serious adverse events.

    The report was published on 31 May in QuarterWatch, a publication of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a non-profit organisation dedicated to “medication error prevention and safe medication use” based in Horsham, Pennsylvania.1 It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing “serious, disabling, or fatal injuries,” including 128 000 deaths.

    According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 48% of the …

    and…

    ….dental fluorosis is not “just cosmetic.” It can also be an indication that other tissues, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, has been overexposed to fluoride as well.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/24/fluoride-warnings-on-water-bills.aspx?e_cid=20120424_DNL_art_1

    pardon me…but, I’m not sure how you all can think you can claim/rely upon anything your ‘scientific research’ says…and we’re saying, stop dictating it upon us too. You want fluoride..you get fluoride..you trust your ‘research’, you do so, but don’t use it to force your opinion/belief on us.

  94. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Whether I have evidence of anything or not is not the issue, forcing upon all something you happen to believe but I don’t happen to believe is “harmless” is an opinion..and I don’t have to prove to you my opinion, I just don’t like yours forced on me.

    Your pride at completely lacking evidence isn’t surprising, but should be a reason to bar you from participating in public discussions or any sort of decision making process. Even prescientific times had some form of rational decision-making, albeit unsystematic and flawed by preconceptions. FSM forbid you ever achieve any sort of political power because it would return us to a time lifespans were 50% shorter, most deaths were due to preventable infectious disease and starvation a regular occurrence.

    Quite frankly, you should not have a say in public health decisions because your unfounded opinions have singificant negative consequences. The fact that you fail to appreciate the importance of evidence in decision making underscores the importance of expert guidance in public health. If you are the alternative, we’d be facing endemic polio and life-long paralysis of thousands of people. Big Pharma would be happy though, they could start making iron lungs again. Or perhaps you’d prefer children simply die of polio? It is, after all, more natural.

    The only reliable “dangers” of flouridosis is brown teeth. The horrors!!!!!!1!!!!

    Actually Dave, not really – most water treatment plants remove fluoride from water supplies if it is present at levels sufficient to cause fluorosis.

  95. Ok so that’s the problem we have come to. For many years conventional meds have done their thing, given out their beliefs, their findings, their medicines..and, some lived their lives as they chose..their organic food, their vitamins, their healthcare, their remedies. Now, it’s come to a point that seems, the conventionals now wish to dictate to those of us who lived our lives as we so chose (in a free country that is), now demanding we take/pay for conventional healthcare, conventional water treatment, and conventional gmo foods too. “Houston,… we have a problem.”

  96. @rustichealthy:

    you have your opinion on it..and I have mine.

    I don’t have an opinion regarding copyright law. I have years of experience, requesting permission from authors and publishers to reproduce a segment of their texts.

  97. Narad says:

    And, it’s not the same..libertarian doesn’t mean no laws at all. There are some laws, and thus far, that’s the copyright law…

    And, “thus far,” the state indisputably has a compelling interest in public health.

    thus far that law says it’s not infringing on the writer’s rights if one uses an excerpt from their book/writing without specific permission.

    It says no such thing. Fair use is a legislatively sanctioned limitation of one’s copyright in the interest of the common weal. It came after copyright, which, in U.S. constitutional terms, exists “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    It’s not actually the full property, and it’s not the Whole song, record as in music pirating. (even I know the difference in that:)

    You apparently fail to grasp the reason for the example, which was your attempt to play the very foolish “free advertising!” card.

    And, forcefeeding all people some thing a few say they believe is necessary..against the will of those who don’t want it/believe it..is a WHOLE other issue.

    No, it is not a “WHOLE other issue.” They are different, but not for reasons that are likely to penetrate your cranium. For the purposes of this exchange, the take-home point is that fair use is more socialist in nature than than is the provision of municipal water in accordance with the rational exercise of the states’ police power. You have no choice in the former case. Nobody is going to come around and make you drink the water.

    If you can’t see that yet..I can’t help you with it either.

    In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not seeking your “help.”

  98. Quill says:

    Oh rustichealthy? You keep using a lot of periods in random parts of your sentence-like typings. Apparently your opinion is that they are ellipses, which is the plural of ellipsis. You could not be more wrong.

    In writing, an ellipsis is the omission of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues and indicated by a set of dots indicating such an omission.

    So what words have you been -omitting- when all you write is already superfluous?

    Or is it your opinion that all the cutesy periods indicate some kind of pause in your cognitive process? If so there is no evidence of any cognition in the first place so how could it be halted?

    Writing is about communicating information to other people. All you’ve communicated thus far is that you are ignorant, stubborn and impervious to reason or facts and give in tedious length what you lack in depth. I find that the fault with many writers is that you can’t understand what they’re saying. The trouble with you is that I can.

  99. The Dave says:

    “You keep using a lot of periods in random parts of your sentence-like typings. Apparently your opinion is that they are ellipses, which is the plural of ellipsis. You could not be more wrong.”

    That has been bugging me for quite sometime as well

Comments are closed.