Does using a mobile phone fry your brain?

zoara wrote:
> Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stimpy wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
>>>
>> Why, yes. <[email protected]>
>
> Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
> yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.

I think you need to investigate the meaning of the word "citation".

Perhaps you intended to ask for some sort ot evidence backing up the
statement, rather than a citation? But you didn't.

---

› See More: Does using a mobile phone fry your brain?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:06:04 +0100, Iain wrote
>
>>>> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
>>>>
>>> Why, yes. <[email protected]>
>>
>> Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
>> yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.
>
> I think you need to investigate the meaning of the word "citation".
>
> Perhaps you intended to ask for some sort ot evidence backing up the
> statement, rather than a citation? But you didn't.

So you don't have anything to back up your assertions that "it's a lie".
Thanks for clearing that up

On 07/08/2008, [email protected] trolled in message
<1d1e6d47- [email protected]>:

> [troll]

Please don't post to newsgroups you don't read. Thanks for your help.

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

Stimpy wrote:


> So you don't have anything to back up your assertions that "it's a lie".

Yes, I do.

> Thanks for clearing that up

I see that you apply the same mental power to parsing what I wrote as
you considering the subject under discussion.

chris <[email protected]> wrote:

> But by succumbing to the 'panic' the government would be undermining
> their own argument, costing the tax payer more, making life more
> difficult for GPs and reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination
> strategy.

Surely having a whole bunch of unvaccinated children around undermines
the vaccinations strategy far more than allowing triple vaccines?
I think MMR is fine, but by insisting on it I think it looks like their
agenda is driven not by maximising vaccination uptake, but by clearing
stocks of vaccine.

Most people I'm sure are perfectly happy with MMR, so it's not like
offering the triple vaccine is suddenly going to result in millions of
people going for the less effective option, but it *would* pick up a lot
of the people who at the moment aren't getting their kids vaccinated at
all.

--
Pd

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:33:25 +0100, Iain wrote
> Stimpy wrote:
>
>
>> So you don't have anything to back up your assertions that "it's a lie".
>
> Yes, I do.

...and would you care to share it with the rest of us?

>
>> Thanks for clearing that up
>
> I see that you apply the same mental power to parsing what I wrote as
> you considering the subject under discussion.

Sorry, I don't understand that sentence. Could you possibly rephrase it into
something more comprehensible?

Iain <[email protected]> wrote:

> zoara wrote:
> > Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Stimpy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
> >>>
> >> Why, yes. <[email protected]>
> >
> > Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
> > yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.
>
> I think you need to investigate the meaning of the word "citation".

Why? I never said that wasn't a citation, I just said it was weird to
cite yourself.


> Perhaps you intended to ask for some sort ot evidence backing up the
> statement, rather than a citation? But you didn't.

I think you're confusing me with Stimpy - this was my first post to the
thread. But I'm sure that won't reduce how clever you think you are for
what you did there. Golf clap.

[and I've noted that Stimpy wrote the word 'reliable', btw]

-z-

--
am forget my password of mac,did you give me
password on new email marko.[redacted]@yahoo.com

In article <1ilmrg6.db0ho89tkhxwN%[email protected]>, Pd
<[email protected]> wrote:

> chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But by succumbing to the 'panic' the government would be undermining
> > their own argument, costing the tax payer more, making life more
> > difficult for GPs and reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination
> > strategy.
>
> Surely having a whole bunch of unvaccinated children around undermines
> the vaccinations strategy far more than allowing triple vaccines?
> I think MMR is fine, but by insisting on it I think it looks like their
> agenda is dri
> ven not by maximising vaccination uptake, but by clearing
> stocks of vaccine.
>
> Most people I'm sure are perfectly happy with MMR, so it's not like
> offering the triple vaccine is suddenly going to result in millions of
> people going for the less effective option, but it *would* pick up a lot
> of the people who at the moment aren't getting their kids vaccinated at
> all.

Pd for Prime Minister!

If three separate jabs were an extra-cost option and possessing an
unjabbed child were a criminal offence then everyone would be happy
right?

Who says there is a stockpile of MMR? Does it belong to one of Tony's
mates?

P'raps you don't wanna be Prime Minister?

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

Stimpy wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:33:25 +0100, Iain wrote
>> Stimpy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So you don't have anything to back up your assertions that "it's a lie".
>> Yes, I do.
>
> ..and would you care to share it with the rest of us?

No, thank you.

>
>>> Thanks for clearing that up
>> I see that you apply the same mental power to parsing what I wrote as
>> you considering the subject under discussion.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand that sentence. Could you possibly rephrase it into
> something more comprehensible?

I do apologise. I managed to miss out two words. Here is the corrected
version:

I see that you apply the same mental power to parsing what I wrote as
you do when considering the subject under discussion.

Grasp it now?

zoara wrote:
> Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> zoara wrote:
>>> Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stimpy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
>>>>>
>>>> Why, yes. <[email protected]>
>>> Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
>>> yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.
>> I think you need to investigate the meaning of the word "citation".
>
> Why? I never said that wasn't a citation, I just said it was weird to
> cite yourself.

The point I was making was that I had been asked for a reliable
citation, not for an authoratitive reference.

And I gave a very reliable citation.

>> Perhaps you intended to ask for some sort ot evidence backing up the
>> statement, rather than a citation? But you didn't.
>
> I think you're confusing me with Stimpy - this was my first post to the
> thread.

You were chipping in on his behalf, so I assumed you shared his agenda.
In fact you do seem to.

But I'm sure that won't reduce how clever you think you are for
> what you did there. Golf clap.

What is a golf clap? Is it a STD or a sporting term?
>
> [and I've noted that Stimpy wrote the word 'reliable', btw]

Yes, he did. He did not write "researched" or "peer reviewed" or
"authoratitive" so I gave him a citation that exists and works reliably.

In news:[email protected],
ChrisM <[email protected]> typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Assuming that the tumours are random, 50% of 'victims' will have one
: on the left, and 50% on the right.
: Seeing as more people hold their phone on the right hand side of
: their head, surely it's obvious that taking nothing into account
: except what I've just said, more people will hold their phone on the
: side that develops a tumor (the right) that not...(??)

This is all a load of bollocks if you ask me. I hold my phone on whichever
side of my head is convenient at the time. If I'm writing it'll be the
right side as I'm left handed, if I'm not then probably the left side for
the same reason. Does this mean both sides of my head are at risk..? I'd
better chop it off now.....

Ivor

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:39:31 +0100, Iain wrote
>>>>
>>>> So you don't have anything to back up your assertions that "it's a lie".
>>>
>>> Yes, I do.
>>
>> ..and would you care to share it with the rest of us?
>
> No, thank you.

I think that's a good point at which to end this thread

On 13/8/08 22:35, Elliott Roper wrote:
> In article <1ilmrg6.db0ho89tkhxwN%[email protected]>, Pd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> But by succumbing to the 'panic' the government would be undermining
>>> their own argument, costing the tax payer more, making life more
>>> difficult for GPs and reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination
>>> strategy.
>> Surely having a whole bunch of unvaccinated children around undermines
>> the vaccinations strategy far more than allowing triple vaccines?
>> I think MMR is fine, but by insisting on it I think it looks like their
>> agenda is dri
>> ven not by maximising vaccination uptake, but by clearing
>> stocks of vaccine.
>>
>> Most people I'm sure are perfectly happy with MMR, so it's not like
>> offering the triple vaccine is suddenly going to result in millions of
>> people going for the less effective option, but it *would* pick up a lot
>> of the people who at the moment aren't getting their kids vaccinated at
>> all.
>
> Pd for Prime Minister!
>
> If three separate jabs were an extra-cost option and possessing an
> unjabbed child were a criminal offence then everyone would be happy
> right?

There are separate jabs available as an extra cost option.

Pd wrote:
> chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But by succumbing to the 'panic' the government would be undermining
>> their own argument, costing the tax payer more, making life more
>> difficult for GPs and reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination
>> strategy.
>
> Surely having a whole bunch of unvaccinated children around undermines
> the vaccinations strategy far more than allowing triple vaccines?

True, but it is a temporary 'glitch' IMHO. Take-up is almost back to
appropriate levels for herd immunity to be effective.

Plus, what happens if/when there is a sudden discovery by the red tops
that the single jabs are not 'safe' (by comparison to the MMR, but
they'll not mention that)? Or even some other health issue? By caving in
the government would have weakened it's credibility and position on
future issues.

> I think MMR is fine, but by insisting on it I think it looks like their
> agenda is driven not by maximising vaccination uptake, but by clearing
> stocks of vaccine.

Where do you get that from? Many countries insist on the MMR over the
single jabs, so it is just common policy driven by the evidence.

> Most people I'm sure are perfectly happy with MMR, so it's not like
> offering the triple vaccine is suddenly going to result in millions of
> people going for the less effective option, but it *would* pick up a lot
> of the people who at the moment aren't getting their kids vaccinated at
> all.

I'm not so sure. You'd get the situation where people will pick only one
or other of the jabs rather than go through the hassle of all three.
Measles is perceived to be the most dangerous, but mumps and rubella are
clearly illnesses we do not want outbreaks of either.

This was happening before where people went private in order to avoid
the MMR and got the single jabs. They only paid for one or two of the
jabs rather than all three.

Iain wrote:
> zoara wrote:
>> Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> zoara wrote:
>>>> Iain <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stimpy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a reliable citation for that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why, yes. <[email protected]>
>>>> Anecdotal data and personal opinions are not reliable, and citing
>>>> yourself as proof of your own argument is a bit weird.
>>> I think you need to investigate the meaning of the word "citation".
>> Why? I never said that wasn't a citation, I just said it was weird to
>> cite yourself.
>
> The point I was making was that I had been asked for a reliable
> citation, not for an authoratitive reference.
>
> And I gave a very reliable citation.

So, let me get this right. The best 'reliable' citation you could come
up with to back up your own argument was to cite a posting made by you a
day or so earlier.

You had the whole of google at your disposal with plenty of opinion
pieces and anecdotal evidence which claim similar to you and yet you
choose to quote yourself. Yes, very weird...