On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:18:00 +0100, "JOHN" <john@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Similarly to describe non-Dr Coghill as a purveyor and sup****ter of
>> s**** oil remedies is objectively correct. He sells or promotes the
>> quack devices I mentioned earlier. If he makes unsubstantiated and
>> patently inaccurate statements the only obvious benefit of which are
>> to his own pocket surely it is right to question them?
>
>Yes, I know, its called ad hominem. Look it up
The article you quoted claimed he was a Dr. He is not. He is neither
a Doctor of Medicine nor entitled to the academic form.
It claimed he "sits on a Government advisory committee on mobile
radiation". He doesn't.
It said he had "examined worldwide studies linking proximity of masts
to depression". Possibly he has, but there is little evidence he has
the qualifications, training or experience to fully understand them.
As he said himself - "OK, so I don’t know a lot of physics. Nor
biochemistry, nor microbiology, anatomy, physiology, radio
engineering, physical chemistry,epidemiology, statistics, ..."
It said "Dr Coghill said last night there was strong cir***stantial
evidence that the masts may have triggered depression in those from
Bridgend who took their lives." Neither he nor anyone else has ever
produced credible evidence showing anything of the sort.
It claimed he said "There is evidence of higher suicide rates where
people live near any electrical equipment that gives off radio or
electrical waves." Where is the evidence?
It claimed "Coghill added: "What seems to be happening is that the
electrical energy is having an effect on the chemistry of the brain,
depleting s*****onin levels. " There is no objective evidence of
anything of the sort and no evidence Coghill has the education or
facilities to make an informed judgment on the matter.
You appear to have accepted this re****t uncritically. When
considering how accurate your judgment is likely to be the fact you
believe in the presence of aliens amongst the general population and
mass mind control is relevant.
Challenging unsup****ted, ill informed assertions is not argumentum ad
hominem. Pointing out that the person who made the statements stands
to benefit financially from the publicity by increased their sales of
s**** oil nostrums is not argumentum ad hominem but fact.
I note you have not addressed the substance of the article at all.
|
