As detailed here and here, She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ attacked Dr. Dach without provocation.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ libeled a practising doctor three times as a quack. Of course, as someone who is nolonger licensed and hasn't seen patients in years, She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ thinks she has nothing to lose.
All of you may be falling all over her "apology" and pretend contriteness now, but She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ needs to make amends for her quack comments before you let her back into your fold.
If she isn't sorry for libeling Dr. Dach, how "sorry" do you really think she is for her self admitted asshole ways towards the rest of you?
Review:
Who is calling who a Quack? Doc Amy Smears Doc Dach
The Doctor Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is an attention whore
Comments
I think he might be included in it generally, but I agree something else could definitely be specific to him individually.
I'm so sorry. There is something very wrong with the structure of that sentence, but I can't figure out what it is...
I'm so sorry. There is something very wrong with the structure of that sentence, but I can't figure out what it is...
I think it was an apology for all. And I'm not 'falling over' anything. I dont like her but it took courage to admit she was wrong and put it out there like that.
He was attacked specifically three times and rates a specific apology.
Ease off a bit, BBE. Charity would demand that Dr. Any be allowed to proceed at her own pace. She doesn't owe you, me nor OSers in general anything more than what her apologetic post contained.
For all either of us know, she may have dealt with her remarks about Dr. Dach in a private message. In any case, she certainly should not be expected, much less required to make her mea culpa a public spectacle.
For all either of us know, she may have dealt with her remarks about Dr. Dach in a private message. In any case, she certainly should not be expected, much less required to make her mea culpa a public spectacle.
Her libel was public.
Typically "libel" involves one or more false statements about the person. What exactly are the false statements to which you refer?
BBE: "He was attacked specifically three times and rates a specific apology."
Question: how many times have you attacked people, and how many times have you apologized for those attacks?
BBE: "He was attacked specifically three times and rates a specific apology."
Question: how many times have you attacked people, and how many times have you apologized for those attacks?
I just knew that you would not like that apology. Really, Blue Eyes, I have yet to see any apologies from you to anyone, and you are a self-identifying asshole.
I am sure that Dr. Dach is okay.
I am sure that Dr. Dach is okay.
Community Scold, you read the posts I linked that detail the attacks and know she called him a quack three times.
One MD calling another MD a quack in writing is libel.
What I do and what She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ do are separate issues.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ committed libel, not me.
One MD calling another MD a quack in writing is libel.
What I do and what She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ do are separate issues.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ committed libel, not me.
I'll make some tea...
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is the one sucking your metaphorical dicks with her fake apology, not me.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s failure to apologize for her quack comments shows she really isn't sorry for attacking Dr. Dach.
I am not sorry for anything either.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s failure to apologize for her quack comments shows she really isn't sorry for attacking Dr. Dach.
I am not sorry for anything either.
Although I'd tend to agree that she should consider a seperate apology for Jeff, I am reminded that it's once again, two adults.
Not you or I. It's between Jeff and Amy.
Not you or I. It's between Jeff and Amy.
Blue, when a child scolds a parent, it can be a devastating blow to the ego.
We'll find in the coming days if she really does want to change her manner of approach. Maybe open her mind quite a bit. Realize her way isn't the only way.
If not, things will go back to the way they've been.
But EVERYONE deserves a chance.
We'll find in the coming days if she really does want to change her manner of approach. Maybe open her mind quite a bit. Realize her way isn't the only way.
If not, things will go back to the way they've been.
But EVERYONE deserves a chance.
BBE, please get down off your sanctimonious high horse and try to be human for a short while.
As I said before, Dr. Amy doesn't owe you, me, nor the community anything beyond what she has offered.
As I said before, Dr. Amy doesn't owe you, me, nor the community anything beyond what she has offered.
She owes nobody nothing just like the rest of us owe nobody nothing.
But none of you bothered to point out the glaring omission in her mea culpa.
I have not forgotten She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s libel and neither should the rest of you. This post is a reminder.
But none of you bothered to point out the glaring omission in her mea culpa.
I have not forgotten She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s libel and neither should the rest of you. This post is a reminder.
I'd love a metaphorical dick, about 12 inches if you don't mind.
BBE -- calm down and back off a little, please? As an outsider looking in, I'm seeing faults on all sides of this argument. Maybe it's time let it be for awhile.
Presumably, if Dr Dach really has been libelled, he will sue the guilty party. I mean, you understand that "libel" is a legal term, don't you?
Only one MD called the other MD a quack. Not once, but three times.
The other MD hasn't ever said one disparaging word against She Who Could Not Be Wrong™.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is the one blowing smoke about how "sorry" she is.
Not everyone who is libeled sues. That doesn't make She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s calling Dr. Dach a quack any less libelous.
Libel is a type of defamation. I'd love to see She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ get sued. She deserves it.
The other MD hasn't ever said one disparaging word against She Who Could Not Be Wrong™.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is the one blowing smoke about how "sorry" she is.
Not everyone who is libeled sues. That doesn't make She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s calling Dr. Dach a quack any less libelous.
Libel is a type of defamation. I'd love to see She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ get sued. She deserves it.
baby steps, BBE
BBE writes: "One MD calling another MD a quack in writing is libel. "
It's not libel if it's true. Here's one definition of "quackery" --
"Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe unscientific medical practices."
She believes that Dr. Dach advocates unscientific medical practices. That is the issue in question. If that's true, then what she said isn't libelous. Derogatory, yes. Libelous, no. There is no reason to believe that what she said about Dr. Dach is false, unless you can show that it is false. Of course, that would mean that you would actually have to deal with the issues rather than just making personal attacks.
Other than that you're left with the simple fact that she expressed strong disapproval and contempt for his opinions. But since derogatory comments are your stock-in-trade, you have no reason to complain about that.
BBE: "Only one MD called the other MD a quack. Not once, but three times."
You called one OS member a "cunt" -- actually in the title of one of your posts. In another post you dared potential "little censoring cunt ratfinks" to try to get one of your posts deleted. This is in addition to various other derogatory comments that you've made about other members.
If you want to talk about whether Dr. Dach's opinions are medically sound, that's fine. But if you want to criticize other people for making derogatory comments, all I can say that you have lost all credibility on that.
PL writes: "BBE is a great journalist who records history and brings it back to remind us what was said."
Let's not forget what the "great journalist" himself has said, and let's hold him accountable to the same standards to which he holds others.
It's not libel if it's true. Here's one definition of "quackery" --
"Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe unscientific medical practices."
She believes that Dr. Dach advocates unscientific medical practices. That is the issue in question. If that's true, then what she said isn't libelous. Derogatory, yes. Libelous, no. There is no reason to believe that what she said about Dr. Dach is false, unless you can show that it is false. Of course, that would mean that you would actually have to deal with the issues rather than just making personal attacks.
Other than that you're left with the simple fact that she expressed strong disapproval and contempt for his opinions. But since derogatory comments are your stock-in-trade, you have no reason to complain about that.
BBE: "Only one MD called the other MD a quack. Not once, but three times."
You called one OS member a "cunt" -- actually in the title of one of your posts. In another post you dared potential "little censoring cunt ratfinks" to try to get one of your posts deleted. This is in addition to various other derogatory comments that you've made about other members.
If you want to talk about whether Dr. Dach's opinions are medically sound, that's fine. But if you want to criticize other people for making derogatory comments, all I can say that you have lost all credibility on that.
PL writes: "BBE is a great journalist who records history and brings it back to remind us what was said."
Let's not forget what the "great journalist" himself has said, and let's hold him accountable to the same standards to which he holds others.
Yawn.
Frankly, I find both Dr. Amy and Dr. Dach pompous in their own way. But there is room for all kinds here. Since there is no ignore function, I rarely read either of them. Works for me.
The absence of a specific mea culpa to her main antagonist does beg the question, Was Dr. Amy's blanket apology to the OS community a strategic gambit in her ongoing competition with Dr. Dach? Is she taking responsibility for past rudeness or is she ingratiating herself with an audience that is the ultimate stake in this "battle of the sawbones?" I don't know the answer to this question but I think it's worth considering.
It is a one sided antagonism and a one sided competition.
Dr. Dach has never attacked She Who Could Not Be Wrong™.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ will never apologize for calling Dr. Dach a quack. Just as she will never stop hating Palestinians and thinking they should all be exterminated. Just as she will never admit doctors are responsible for washing their hands and preventing infections caused by poor hygiene.
Physicians like She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ who think it is not a doctor's responsibility to wash their hands before examining patients are guilty of causing over 100,000 negligent homicides each year. To put it in perspective, AIDs claims around 14,000 Americans per year. Doctors like her kill seven times the number of people AIDs does due to their laziness.
Remember, she is She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ for a reason.
Dr. Dach has never attacked She Who Could Not Be Wrong™.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ will never apologize for calling Dr. Dach a quack. Just as she will never stop hating Palestinians and thinking they should all be exterminated. Just as she will never admit doctors are responsible for washing their hands and preventing infections caused by poor hygiene.
Physicians like She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ who think it is not a doctor's responsibility to wash their hands before examining patients are guilty of causing over 100,000 negligent homicides each year. To put it in perspective, AIDs claims around 14,000 Americans per year. Doctors like her kill seven times the number of people AIDs does due to their laziness.
Remember, she is She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ for a reason.
I'll be honest here. If she goes back to being the know-it-all she was and won't for a second open her mind to the possibility that others might be right or have a point, I'll go back to boycotting her blog.
Let's hope there was sincerity behind the apology. For now I'll read and see what happens.
Let's hope there was sincerity behind the apology. For now I'll read and see what happens.
What is the need for a trademark after Dr. Amy's moniker? The last time I saw one of those on a site, it started a board war. Just an observation.
Libertarius raises an interesting question.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is playing all of you.
Just google her and see what what She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ has wrought all over the internet. OS is not her first play ground.
Just google her and see what what She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ has wrought all over the internet. OS is not her first play ground.
BBE
Since I am raising the possibility that Dr. Amy's apology just might be insincere, instrumental, even cynical, I don't see how I am being "played" by her. If anything, I am suggesting that the many OS supporters of her new gentler brand of expertise should be wary.
Since I am raising the possibility that Dr. Amy's apology just might be insincere, instrumental, even cynical, I don't see how I am being "played" by her. If anything, I am suggesting that the many OS supporters of her new gentler brand of expertise should be wary.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is playing everyone except for people like libertarius.
She's not playing me.
I am always leary of apologies and most especially when someone has something to gain by doing so.
We'll see.
I am always leary of apologies and most especially when someone has something to gain by doing so.
We'll see.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is playing everyone except for people like libertarius and J L Davis.
Now wait a minute BBE. I said libertarius has a point didn't I?
I can't even bring myself to read the apology post. I dealt with family not so long ago and it wore me out, I'm just not up for dealing with Dr. Amy's stuff yet.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is playing everyone except for people like libertarius and J L Davis and Black Bart. I'd include UK except she says she is too tired to get involved at this juncture.
BBE writes: "She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is playing all of you."
And what a sight this is. Here's BBE, the official Grand Ayatollah of Open Salon, deciding who can be forgiven and who can't, who has a sincere apology and who doesn't, issuing yet another one of his pathetic little fatwas against a perceived evildoer.
It's not really working this time dude. Maybe if you shout a little louder.
And what a sight this is. Here's BBE, the official Grand Ayatollah of Open Salon, deciding who can be forgiven and who can't, who has a sincere apology and who doesn't, issuing yet another one of his pathetic little fatwas against a perceived evildoer.
It's not really working this time dude. Maybe if you shout a little louder.
Yawn.
Okay, I read it. My gut reaction is exactly like JL's on this. We'll see.
I've been posting with Dr. Amy for a while (probably four or five months every week on her homebirthdebate site, and then have been familiar with her writings through the natural childbirth community for about three years), and perhaps this has made me cynical, but she's never, ever apologized for anything before. Ever. So, either she is truly turning over a new leaf (which I find doubtful- especially since she has yet to apologize on homebirthdebate and she's even worse over there) or she realized that her hardass approach wasn't working on OS signified by the decline in traffic, and decided to take a different approach which required an apology. I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think she's a bad person per se, but I really don't think she would apologize unless it held some benefit for her (increased traffic, etc.). She's never been concerned about other people and their feelings before, so why start now? Just all of a sudden she cares about other people? Huh. I'm skeptical.
Blue Eyes,
you' re just going to have to get yourself another crusade.
you' re just going to have to get yourself another crusade.
I agree with BBE, but don't greatly care. I respect Amy for the humility it took for even what she did do, and am sure Doc Dach is fully capable of defending his own honor. Then again, allowing one to vent is one of the primary uses of a blog, and if you don't like the rant, simply say nothing or register your disapproval once and leave it at that, as you preach to others. Ya'll ain't gonna educate BBE, and most of us shouldn't presume to anyway.
POT! KETTLE!
BLACK!
BLACK!
Aprisa, suck it.
I've never apologized because I am not sorry. Neither is She Who Could Not Be Wrong™, but you have already proved you fall in the one born ever minute sucker category with your mindless Dear Leader Good German ways.
I've never apologized because I am not sorry. Neither is She Who Could Not Be Wrong™, but you have already proved you fall in the one born ever minute sucker category with your mindless Dear Leader Good German ways.
RickyB, o'fluffy wouldn't be o'fluffy if she wasn't busy telling me how awful I am and that I should be "nice" instead. The Community Scold earned that appellation for good reason. Humility has nothing to do with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s "apology." It is cosmetic and brought on by declining traffic. The people fawning all over She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ for her fake apology will soon see she hasn't changed one bit.
Dr. Dach has taken the high road with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ and that is commendable. My place is in the muck though and She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is of the muck as well.
It is laughable to see how many of the commenters here tried to make this about me and their perceived need for me to apologize. Apples and Oranges. But that is why they are scolds.
Dr. Dach has taken the high road with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ and that is commendable. My place is in the muck though and She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is of the muck as well.
It is laughable to see how many of the commenters here tried to make this about me and their perceived need for me to apologize. Apples and Oranges. But that is why they are scolds.
Well, I was wondering if you'd get around to posting about this.
I read her apology, and I agree it took a degree of humility to post it. That's about as far as I'm willing to go. When I see self-proclaimed experts spouting off, "requiring" detractors to post facts and citations supporting those facts when the initial post hasn't a shred of either, I walk away now. People will believe what they will.
Truth, BTW, is not necessarily a defense against libel (for whomever it was saying it wasn't libel if it was true). Please look up the legal definition of the word.
Thumbed, even though I get the feeling this is going to turn into quite a slingfest.
Oh, one question BBE (and this is sincere, I'm not snarking on you or anything) - you've never been sorry, but have you been wrong? I'm just curious.
I read her apology, and I agree it took a degree of humility to post it. That's about as far as I'm willing to go. When I see self-proclaimed experts spouting off, "requiring" detractors to post facts and citations supporting those facts when the initial post hasn't a shred of either, I walk away now. People will believe what they will.
Truth, BTW, is not necessarily a defense against libel (for whomever it was saying it wasn't libel if it was true). Please look up the legal definition of the word.
Thumbed, even though I get the feeling this is going to turn into quite a slingfest.
Oh, one question BBE (and this is sincere, I'm not snarking on you or anything) - you've never been sorry, but have you been wrong? I'm just curious.
I'm wrong all the time.
BBE…listening to you complain about rudeness or inappropriateness or about inadequacy of apologies…
…is like listening to a wart hog complaining about how ugly other animals are!
…is like listening to a wart hog complaining about how ugly other animals are!
Which is why you keep coming back for more, Dear Leader Good German.
I am pointing out the glaring absence of Dr. Dach in that fake apology, not complaining. I never expected She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ to do the right thing by Dr Dach.
I am pointing out the glaring absence of Dr. Dach in that fake apology, not complaining. I never expected She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ to do the right thing by Dr Dach.
BBE…listening to you mention fakery or insincerity in anyone else…
…is like listening to a wart hog mentioning how ugly some other animals are!
…is like listening to a wart hog mentioning how ugly some other animals are!
Yawn.
BBE writes: "It is laughable to see how many of the commenters here tried to make this about me . . .
It is about you. You have a history of denouncing other OS members in your posts even though you've only been around here for three months. You denounce people who have offended you personally. And then, if you can't pick a personal fight with someone, you import someone else's fight into your blog.
BBE: ". . . and their perceived need for me to apologize."
I don't think you need to apologize to anyone. It's just that having called other OS members fools, cunts, and "close minded OS fuckers" you simply have no standing to criticize anyone else's choice of language.
I just think people need to know who they are dealing with, and when they give you a "thumbs up," they need to know what it is they are approving. And what they are approving is a post from someone whose posts often don't have any actual content other than attacking other people, the purpose of which is to keep controversies alive long after they would have died out.
Other than a few political posts and recipes it's pretty much just venom and ridicule directed toward various OS members, and trying to incite some kind of "feeding frenzy" against those people. And then you deride anyone who doesn't sufficiently foam at the mouth over your "enemy of the day" selection.
The only real question is after Dr. Amy, who next? So far four out of five of your personal attack posts have been directed toward women. Is that because you see women as soft targets, or were they merely targets of opportunity? So who will be next? The person who gives you a "thumbs up" today may be the subject of your attack post tomorrow. It's a matter of when, not if.
It is about you. You have a history of denouncing other OS members in your posts even though you've only been around here for three months. You denounce people who have offended you personally. And then, if you can't pick a personal fight with someone, you import someone else's fight into your blog.
BBE: ". . . and their perceived need for me to apologize."
I don't think you need to apologize to anyone. It's just that having called other OS members fools, cunts, and "close minded OS fuckers" you simply have no standing to criticize anyone else's choice of language.
I just think people need to know who they are dealing with, and when they give you a "thumbs up," they need to know what it is they are approving. And what they are approving is a post from someone whose posts often don't have any actual content other than attacking other people, the purpose of which is to keep controversies alive long after they would have died out.
Other than a few political posts and recipes it's pretty much just venom and ridicule directed toward various OS members, and trying to incite some kind of "feeding frenzy" against those people. And then you deride anyone who doesn't sufficiently foam at the mouth over your "enemy of the day" selection.
The only real question is after Dr. Amy, who next? So far four out of five of your personal attack posts have been directed toward women. Is that because you see women as soft targets, or were they merely targets of opportunity? So who will be next? The person who gives you a "thumbs up" today may be the subject of your attack post tomorrow. It's a matter of when, not if.
I have all the standing I need.
On the topic of need, how about your evidently overwhelming need to scold. Comment after comment, paragraph upon stultifying paragraph. My yawns are not for effect, but real.
Yawn.
Funny how you triple count She Who Could Not Be Wrong™. Last I checked she was one woman.
You protest too much. Obviously, you've picked a "side" in the doctor wars and agree with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ about her colleague. And so you pontificate and pontificate and pontificate.
None of which explains She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s glaring omission of Dr. Dach.
Hollycomesalive is right about She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s motives.
How much of your precious life have you wasted scolding me? Will you think about about those moments with regret as you lay dieing? Or is your life that worthless?
On the topic of need, how about your evidently overwhelming need to scold. Comment after comment, paragraph upon stultifying paragraph. My yawns are not for effect, but real.
Yawn.
Funny how you triple count She Who Could Not Be Wrong™. Last I checked she was one woman.
You protest too much. Obviously, you've picked a "side" in the doctor wars and agree with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ about her colleague. And so you pontificate and pontificate and pontificate.
None of which explains She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s glaring omission of Dr. Dach.
Hollycomesalive is right about She Who Could Not Be Wrong™'s motives.
How much of your precious life have you wasted scolding me? Will you think about about those moments with regret as you lay dieing? Or is your life that worthless?
In my humble opinion, She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ writes too little too late. Somehow, her act of contrition just strikes me as empty. If Queen Tute has reached this stage of her life and needs reminders of basic etiquette from her minor child, she exists in a sad place, indeed.
I've recinded my response to Tuteur's apology.
Honestly, I don't support or want anything to do with a racist who once delivered children and who now cheers the bombing and killing of children and women.
Shame on her.
Honestly, I don't support or want anything to do with a racist who once delivered children and who now cheers the bombing and killing of children and women.
Shame on her.
BBE writes: "On the topic of need, how about your evidently overwhelming need to scold."
And notice I do that in comments, not in posts. I've spent a number of years on different internet venues. In my experience when people start attacking each other, things get very nasty and the venue no longer becomes enjoyable for most people to spend time in. And it doesn't take too many personal attacks for things to become unpleasant as people feel they have to choose sides. These things all follow the same pattern over and over again, so it is not difficult to predict what will happen. Its hard enough for people to understand each other through this medium, and personal attacks don't help. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
BBE: "Funny how you triple count She Who Could Not Be Wrong™. Last I checked she was one woman."
Yeah, one woman, three posts. And counting.
BBE: "Obviously, you've picked a "side" in the doctor wars and agree with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ about her colleague. And so you pontificate and pontificate and pontificate."
As far as medical issues go I am on Dr. Amy's side. I share her perspective. And I have engaged Dr. Dach on a number of issues including extreme claims, misuse of research information, and misunderstanding of FDA regulations. These are issues of fact and truth, not personal attacks.
On the issue of Open Salon culture I'm on the side of not calling other members cunts and fools and fuckers.
BBE: "How much of your precious life have you wasted scolding me?"
At this point I'm less interested in scolding you and more interested in letting people know where your approach leads. If people want to spend their time in an unpleasant venue marked by personal attacks and fights, then you are The Man. If not, then I hope that they pause for a moment before giving a thumbs up or joining the feeding frenzy.
And notice I do that in comments, not in posts. I've spent a number of years on different internet venues. In my experience when people start attacking each other, things get very nasty and the venue no longer becomes enjoyable for most people to spend time in. And it doesn't take too many personal attacks for things to become unpleasant as people feel they have to choose sides. These things all follow the same pattern over and over again, so it is not difficult to predict what will happen. Its hard enough for people to understand each other through this medium, and personal attacks don't help. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
BBE: "Funny how you triple count She Who Could Not Be Wrong™. Last I checked she was one woman."
Yeah, one woman, three posts. And counting.
BBE: "Obviously, you've picked a "side" in the doctor wars and agree with She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ about her colleague. And so you pontificate and pontificate and pontificate."
As far as medical issues go I am on Dr. Amy's side. I share her perspective. And I have engaged Dr. Dach on a number of issues including extreme claims, misuse of research information, and misunderstanding of FDA regulations. These are issues of fact and truth, not personal attacks.
On the issue of Open Salon culture I'm on the side of not calling other members cunts and fools and fuckers.
BBE: "How much of your precious life have you wasted scolding me?"
At this point I'm less interested in scolding you and more interested in letting people know where your approach leads. If people want to spend their time in an unpleasant venue marked by personal attacks and fights, then you are The Man. If not, then I hope that they pause for a moment before giving a thumbs up or joining the feeding frenzy.
I agree with Mishima on this BBE. Time to tone down the rhetoric.
No need for me to tone anything down this day.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is busily doing her own self dirt.
Maybe I should add She Who Condones Killing Children™ to her growing list of appellations.
Have you noticed that everything I have posted about her in the past has been essentially her own words? They are indictment enough.
She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is busily doing her own self dirt.
Maybe I should add She Who Condones Killing Children™ to her growing list of appellations.
Have you noticed that everything I have posted about her in the past has been essentially her own words? They are indictment enough.
I was involved in an argument once with Dr.Amy, realised we never could agree and I did not like her tone in the thread so I stopped reading her medical blogs. I haven't read her apology either.
I guess that's that. Why should I spend time and energy trying to make someone do right?
Dr. Dach was attacked, but his refusal to partcipate in this controversy has earned my respect more than Dr.Amy's dogged defence of herself and her opinions. I guess that itself is a victory for Dr.Dach.
I do not imply that my respect is worth anything but just that sometimes silence is a better tactic than debate.
I guess that's that. Why should I spend time and energy trying to make someone do right?
Dr. Dach was attacked, but his refusal to partcipate in this controversy has earned my respect more than Dr.Amy's dogged defence of herself and her opinions. I guess that itself is a victory for Dr.Dach.
I do not imply that my respect is worth anything but just that sometimes silence is a better tactic than debate.
Perhaps she did apologize to Doc Dach in private????
Moana is correct. Dr. Dach has class. Unlike She Who Condones Killing Children™.
And if you believe She Who Condones Killing Children™ apologized in any form or fashion to Dr. Dach, I have this great piece of property I'd like to sell you. She is irrational on three topics, what she perceives to be alternative medicine, her willingness to kill off all Palestinians, and a general inability to attribute any blame to doctors for their mistakes like their spreading of serious and often fatal illness through their failure to wash their hands before examining patients. Gullible Greg has a ring to it.
And if you believe She Who Condones Killing Children™ apologized in any form or fashion to Dr. Dach, I have this great piece of property I'd like to sell you. She is irrational on three topics, what she perceives to be alternative medicine, her willingness to kill off all Palestinians, and a general inability to attribute any blame to doctors for their mistakes like their spreading of serious and often fatal illness through their failure to wash their hands before examining patients. Gullible Greg has a ring to it.
"My place is in the muck though and She Who Could Not Be Wrong™ is of the muck as well."
Deserves a thumb in its own right. :-D
Deserves a thumb in its own right. :-D
All I know about him is that he doesn't know science, he reasons and argues poorly, and he's comment-delete-happy.
No comments:
Post a Comment