If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2 "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? Regards, Eric Stevens |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48*pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. *The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Regards, Eric Stevens |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48*pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. *The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over another lie in prevention. I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ... He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'? Regards, Eric Stevens |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A. wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over another lie in prevention. I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ... He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'? I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A. wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over another lie in prevention. But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning of what he wrote. I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ... He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'? I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure." As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you get it. You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you get the food. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A. wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over another lie in prevention. But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning of what he wrote. I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ... He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'? I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure." As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you get it. True. The "once you've got it" was unnecessary, I agree with you. You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you get the food. Right, but he wasn't saying about about that. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:03:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A. wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over another lie in prevention. But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning of what he wrote. I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ... He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'? I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure." As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you get it. True. The "once you've got it" was unnecessary, I agree with you. You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you get the food. Right, but he wasn't saying about about that. He has two subjects in the sentence (food and cancer) but gives no clue as to which one the 'it' applies. My wife does this to me. She talks about two of her friends and then says 'she said' leaving me guessing as to which 'she' she is referring. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:20:25 -0400, John A.
wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:45:27 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:03:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A. wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=... "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it. Food won't cure cancer before you have got food. What are you really trying to say? That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a "macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake. The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of effective measures. All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks. You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you actually wrote in your header. Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only to confuse your meaning. Consider "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." versus "... idiots who think food can cure cancer." Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over another lie in prevention. But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning of what he wrote. I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ... He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'? I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure." As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you get it. True. The "once you've got it" was unnecessary, I agree with you. You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you get the food. Right, but he wasn't saying about about that. He has two subjects in the sentence (food and cancer) but gives no clue as to which one the 'it' applies. My wife does this to me. She talks about two of her friends and then says 'she said' leaving me guessing as to which 'she' she is referring. I'll have to take your word for how your wife speaks (my mom has often used pronouns before even mentioning the person by name) but with the case at hand I have to wonder if it's your habit to try and parse every sentence out-of-context, or at best limit the context to what's been said in the current conversation or, in this case, the current post. The sentence is the title of the thread and sets the context, or hadn't you noticed. I must admit I'm reacting to junk journalism where spelling, puctuation and grammar works against understanding what the author is actually getting at. The heading RichA chose for his thread is a classic example of writing by someone who doesn't know how to express what they are thinking. What was he thinking? Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On 2011-10-30 02:14:21 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
Le Snip The sentence is the title of the thread and sets the context, or hadn't you noticed. I must admit I'm reacting to junk journalism where spelling, puctuation and grammar works against understanding what the author is actually getting at. The heading RichA chose for his thread is a classic example of writing by someone who doesn't know how to express what they are thinking. What was he thinking? What Rich was thinking was, this was a way to call Jobs an idiot, when all he actually did was to make yet another statement confirming his own character flaws. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it
On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A. said:
Le Snip I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was being written about, and figured out, without even thinking about it much, or even consciously, what was meant. Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of an envelope"? Aaaagh! ....and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax, illuminating the ignorance of the writer, rather than the interpretive skills of the reader. Conversation and extemporaneous writing, such as on usenet, are full of such sub-optimally formed sentences. That's life. Most of us learn to deal with it and go with the default sensible meaning. If you're having trouble doing that intuitively, try not using strict parsing logic but rather applying some Bayesian inference. (That's what's apparently going on subconsciously in the rest of us, from what I've heard of recent research.) Do we all get it at first glance every time? No, of course not. But we look again and figure it out pretty quickly and move on. However, sometimes the error is excruciatingly painful, confusing, deliberately misleading, not excusable and should be addressed. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Online Jobs.Earn $500 or more per month.Part time Data Entry Jobs.No | nario | Digital Photography | 1 | March 14th 08 01:54 AM |
Is dry cat food good enough, or do they need canned food too? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | February 8th 05 04:40 AM |
Is dry cat food good enough, or do they need canned food too? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 6th 05 05:54 PM |