TobiasTheCommie wrote:And also why a report from a clearly biased source, like the nvic stuff, can be accepted without question.

You have the right to call whatever you want biased, but nobody has to buy into your opinion. You seem to have a major tendency to think that your every utterance is solid gold. Opinions are like assholes- everybody's got them.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:
First of, the list of symptoms linked by me was, for the third time now, A MISTAKE. I missunderstood what you asked for. I've apologized for it already, and i don't understand why you want to be so childish as to constantly attack me for a simple mistake that i have admitted to.

Ok, so if i haven't claimed that the etiology of autism is complete, then why do you attack me for stating that the etiology of autism isn't complete?

Forget the word 'etiology'. Focus on what I asked you. Here, I'll make it simple: Sign your name to the statement below. Don't argue with it, don't modify it.

Statement: "The cause of autism is not determined."

Sign that.

No, with some changes i will sign it, but not as it is there because it will lead to misunderstandings and people thinking that we have no idea at all.

clocker bob wrote:

As for me deciding which parts a myths, that is easy a myth is "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people "

I didn't ask you to define 'myth'. I told you that I am not accepting your jurisdiction over the word 'myth' for use in this argument about the causes of autism.

Anything that is accepted knowledge and hasn't been proven or disproven by science is a myth, simply because it has never been tested, as simple as that. I don't chose, that is the definition, hence why i gave you the definition.

clocker bob wrote:

Where did i even insinuate this? All i said was that public activism got it removed. And then i said it gained nothing. I didn't state any feelings on the issue, i didn't accuse anyone of being idiots.

You did insinuate that they were idiots. You said that believing that

No i didn't

clocker bob wrote: Thimerosal was a potential cause of autism was the same as believing that fairy dust was a potential cause of autism.

I used that as an example to show you that with no data your claim means nothing. I just want you to visit the data i have provided and argue against that.

Please stop putting words into my mouth and twisting what i say.

clocker bob wrote: There is no such thing as fairy dust, so therefore, you are accusing the parents who petitioned for the removal of Thimerosal of being the same as people who ask for protection from fairy dust. That is an insinuation against their intelligence.

You have insulted me far greater than that already, besides that is not what i mean, that is just how you twisted it so you could, yet again, attack me instead of visit the data.

clocker bob wrote:

Again, back at page four i showed that there is a lot of evidence that says that there is NO link between mercury and autism.

I saw it. I've also seen studies that say otherwise. And I've seen the HSA rider, and I know my government. Tough shit, the case is not closed, you can flood this thread until it reaches nine hundred pages, you will not make me discard vaccines as a potential cause of autism.

Actually, you flooded, what i did wasn't a flood, what you did was a flood.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:OK, a few things i want done.

No.

Here, I'll make it simple: Sign your name to the statement below. Don't argue with it, don't modify it.

Statement: "The cause of autism is not determined."

Sign that.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:And also why a report from a clearly biased source, like the nvic stuff, can be accepted without question.

You have the right to call whatever you want biased, but nobody has to buy into your opinion. You seem to have a major tendency to think that your every utterance is solid gold. Opinions are like assholes- everybody's got them.

Wait, so a peer reviewed paper is not trustworthy.

But a paper from someone who says "our cause is to show that vaccines are bad, nothing else" is trustworthy.. is that what you are saying?

OK, a few things i want done.
First, you say i am your enemy, why do i have to be your enemy? I certainly have no interest in having you as my enemy, i just want to discuss this and get the facts straight, and just because we disagree on something it doesn't make us enemies, we are only enemies if one of us wants it. I don't want it, do you?


Also, you have so far slandered me about the following:

- That i am a liar.
- That i work for Eli Lilly
- That i have received money from pharm companies.
- That i am part of a rapid response team.
- That i am a salesman(though you didn't say what i sold)
- That i am a slimeball
- That i am insane
- That i gloat
- That I am arrogant

Please either withdraw the claim and apologize for making it, or provide evidence to substantiate it.

Your failure to do so will show to everyone that you have no interest in getting to the heart of the matter, and are too insecure to admit that you might be wrong about something.(you notice how i have already admitted to making an error? you notice that nothing bad happened?)

Also, you have failed to support the following of your claims:

- That mercury is a more likely cause of autism than fairy dust
- That mercury is the second most dangerous metal on earth

As i said on page 9 :

You're failure to show that my evidence is wrong or even biased or untrustworthy should make it evident for everyone that you have nothing to base your argument on.

Also, you continued and unprovoked personal attacks make you look like a bad and insecure person.

I am sure that you can't just accept defeat or argue against the data.

There is nothing embarrassing about being wrong on an issue. You don't have to feel bad about being wrong on this, or any other, subject. I won't boast if you admit that my evidence is sound, i won't rub it in.

You have nothing to loose by admitting that my data is sound. Nothing at all. You won't be less of a man, it isn't embarrassing, there is nothing wrong with it. We have all been wrong on some issue at some point or another, that is how we learn, and better ourselves.

If, on the other hand, you choose to be stubborn and not learn, well, then nothing can be done, and you will forever be at this place in your life, never improving yourself, never getting anywhere, because you refuse to see any point besides your own. And without new ideas nothing will change.

I hope you will see reason soon and either step down from this discussion, or actually start having a discussion instead of attacking me.

And i would like to add that i have yet to attack you as a person

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote:
Forget the word 'etiology'. Focus on what I asked you. Here, I'll make it simple: Sign your name to the statement below. Don't argue with it, don't modify it.

Statement: "The cause of autism is not determined."

Sign that.

No, with some changes i will sign it, but not as it is there because it will lead to misunderstandings and people thinking that we have no idea at all.

I'm not asking you to sign a statement that says we have no idea at all. I'm asking you to agree with established scientific opinion:

"The cause of autism is not determined".

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:OK, a few things i want done.

No.

Here, I'll make it simple: Sign your name to the statement below. Don't argue with it, don't modify it.

Statement: "The cause of autism is not determined."

Sign that.

I already explained why i won't do that.

What are you trying to prove?

By the way, i added your latest insult to the list.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:

clocker bob wrote:
Forget the word 'etiology'. Focus on what I asked you. Here, I'll make it simple: Sign your name to the statement below. Don't argue with it, don't modify it.

Statement: "The cause of autism is not determined."

Sign that.

No, with some changes i will sign it, but not as it is there because it will lead to misunderstandings and people thinking that we have no idea at all.

I'm not asking you to sign a statement that says we have no idea at all. I'm asking you to agree with established scientific opinion:

"The cause of autism is not determined".

You told me i couldn't change it.

I will agree to signing one that says "The cause of autism is mostly but not totally, determined". Will you?

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Wait, so a peer reviewed paper is not trustworthy.

You know there are peer-reviewed papers that support the vaccine link, too. You're lying again.

TTC wrote:But a paper from someone who says "our cause is to show that vaccines are bad, nothing else" is trustworthy.. is that what you are saying?

And there you go lying again- you know that there is no paper that contains this statement: "our cause is to show that vaccines are bad, nothing else".

Please stop lying.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Wait, so a peer reviewed paper is not trustworthy.

You know there are peer-reviewed papers that support the vaccine link, too. You're lying again.

TTC wrote:But a paper from someone who says "our cause is to show that vaccines are bad, nothing else" is trustworthy.. is that what you are saying?

And there you go lying again- you know that there is no paper that contains this statement: "our cause is to show that vaccines are bad, nothing else".

Please stop lying.

That wasn't a lie, it was hyperbole, something you have used quite a lot so far.

But ok, you don't have to prove I'm a liar, how is that? Then just finish the rest of the list will you?