New posts

Reply to thread

Message

Actually there are quite a few ways to tell if you are having a discussion with an 'sincere' person.

They also include 'playing the person' instead of the ball (issue) and jumping to conclusions or deliberately misquoting such as I said I had training in... and you misquote "are a behavioural psychologist".

If you were a 'professional' person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it.

You are part correct... I am a conscious objector to unjustice in the public service. I'm not bitter or have a vendetta against the medical profession... on the contrary, I'm very supportive of and thankful for the medical profession generally and friends and relatives in the profession.

By way of example I have recently beat a traffic fine where a vengeful cop tried to make a point. Two different magistrates found in favor of the cop in the hearing and rehearing, but upon appeal to the district court the prosecution was forced to withdraw.

The short story and moral is, the prosecution tried to manipulate the law and play on the credability of the police service inherent in the law, over the truth and facts. Their undoing was I played the facts in the context of accountability under the law and the prosecution was found to have mislead the court.

Similarly with fluoridation, there are legal/class actions being planned and they will win in the end for the same reasons... key people in the regulatory authorities didn't play buy the rules and deliberately or negligently mislead people.

So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation?

<blockquote data-quote="Whiskers" data-source="post: 751000" data-attributes="member: 10916">Actually there are quite a few ways to tell if you are having a discussion with an &#039;sincere&#039; person.They also include &#039;playing the person&#039; instead of the ball (issue) and jumping to conclusions or deliberately misquoting such as I said I had training in... and you misquote &quot;are a behavioural psychologist&quot;.If you were a &#039;professional&#039; person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it.You are part correct... I am a conscious objector to unjustice in the public service. I&#039;m not bitter or have a vendetta against the medical profession... on the contrary, I&#039;m very supportive of&nbsp; and thankful for the medical profession generally and friends and relatives in the profession. By way of example I have recently beat a traffic fine where a vengeful cop tried to make a point. Two different magistrates found in favor of the cop in the hearing and rehearing, but upon appeal to the district court the prosecution was forced to withdraw. The short story and moral is, the prosecution tried to manipulate the law and play on the credability of the police service inherent in the law, over the truth and facts. Their undoing was I played the facts in the context of accountability under the law and the prosecution was found to have mislead the court. Similarly with fluoridation, there are legal/class actions being planned and they will win in the end for the same reasons... key people in the regulatory authorities didn&#039;t play buy the rules and deliberately or negligently mislead people.So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whiskers, post: 751000, member: 10916"] Actually there are quite a few ways to tell if you are having a discussion with an 'sincere' person. They also include 'playing the person' instead of the ball (issue) and jumping to conclusions or deliberately misquoting such as I said I had training in... and you misquote "are a behavioural psychologist". If you were a 'professional' person on whom you communication was being relied upon, you would be guilty of negligence by misquoting and misrepresenting the facts and fraud if you stood to gain from it. You are part correct... I am a conscious objector to unjustice in the public service. I'm not bitter or have a vendetta against the medical profession... on the contrary, I'm very supportive of and thankful for the medical profession generally and friends and relatives in the profession. By way of example I have recently beat a traffic fine where a vengeful cop tried to make a point. Two different magistrates found in favor of the cop in the hearing and rehearing, but upon appeal to the district court the prosecution was forced to withdraw. The short story and moral is, the prosecution tried to manipulate the law and play on the credability of the police service inherent in the law, over the truth and facts. Their undoing was I played the facts in the context of accountability under the law and the prosecution was found to have mislead the court. [B]Similarly with fluoridation, there are legal/class actions being planned and they will win in the end for the same reasons... key people in the regulatory authorities didn't play buy the rules and deliberately or negligently mislead people.[/B] So Calliope, what is your adgenda... are you claiming the medical profession is above reproach, are you just being an annoying troll, or have you some constructive input to the issue of fluoridation? [/QUOTE]

Verification