Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF: And makemyday misconstrues again

"Eustace Bagg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "bnichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > bnichols wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Byron Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>  in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > "bnichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
>  news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > Byron Canfield wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Read it and weep, DAFNz...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
>  http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994200
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, the article is twisted all about by
>  makemyday. It does no more
>  that
> > > > > > > > state that REDUCED intelligence was caused by
>  inbreeding, a fact that
> > > > > > > > makemyday, himself, makes well evident.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reduced intelligence cauzed by inbreeding
>  *PROVEZ* IQ is genetic.
> > > > > > > What more do you need?
> > > > > > > You don't see those victimz, or indeed the
>  victimz of Downz
> > > > > > > Sybndrome, being cured by any
>  environmental/nurture methodz.
> > > > > > > Special ed classes are loaded with theze genetic
>  LOOZerz
> > > > > > > dragging down the "No IQ-75 Child Left Behind"
>  statz.
> > > > > > > Genetic low intelligence is not 100% curable as
>  Bob would
> > > > > > > have us believe.  It'z more like 5% accounting
>  for certain
> > > > > > > specialized situationz, eg PKU.  Genetic IQ-75
>  LOOZerz.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOOZerz.  Genez.  It'z *PROVEN*.  Don't forget
>  it...
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, MMD, what happened to your checking ALL the
>  medical
> > > > > > literature like you were supposed to?
> > > > >
> > > > > He just doesn't get it, does he? Must be the
>  inbreeding.
> > > >
> > > > <lol>  Funny -- me amused. :)
> > > >
> > > > I do remind them every now & then, though, that people
> > > > of good conscience *are* watching them make donkey's
>  afts out of
> > > > themselves. }:)
> > >
> > > If there is so much out there in the literature refuting
>  my position,
> > > how about *you* citing/posting some of it?  Where are
>  the articles
> >
> > <chuckle> Aw, c'mon, now, you can't have forgotten
>  already -- 
> > after all, it's only been a few days. <grin>  The claims
>  are
> > yours, therefore the obligation of proof is too. <eg>  And
>  the
> > gauntlet was cast for you to look at *all* the literature
>  out
> > there, not just the parts you like, & show us that it
>  proves
> > your point.  Remember Ross Perot?  He made all those
>  grandiose
> > promises during the presidential campaign debate, & then
>  got
> > all huffy when asked the perfectly legitimate question
>  "OK,
> > how's your program better than the other guys'?"
> 
> As far as I'm concerned MMD has proved his point over and
> over and over.  The fact that you are unable or unwilling to
> post peer reviewed articles to disprove MMD's claims further
> makes MMD's point.
> 
> E.B.

<lol> "Uh-huh, & I'm Tsar of all the R...."  In case you missed
it (& I'm reasonably sure you didn't & simply want to be 
oppositional & baiting -- won't work, so solly. <eg>), MMD was
challenged on the majority of science supposedly being behind his 
selective & emotion-based opining & has chosen to avoid his 
responsibility in the area.  The fact that he can prove stuff to 
a mind open only to certain carefully hand-selected "facts" isn't 
much of a "proof" in the real world, y'know. };)

B