"medium likelihood"
Scott Nudds
: It seems clear that if there were evidence that it "causes allergic reactions", as
: you claim, then the FDA would have said so, no?
The FDA has said so in it's admission that people have reported allergic
reactions.
Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: If you ever become aware of any evidence that StarLink maize causes allergic
: reactions, please post it here. Thanks.
Evidence has been posted here multiple times - Re: reports of allergic
reactions. Re: Claim of allergic reactions, etc.
Your denial if facts is quite sad.
Chuck Robinson
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:919gi7$77u$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
ON another posting I read about a simple new game called "nuddsie truth".
Nuddsie inserts the thumb of one hand into his mouth.
At the other (rectal) end, he inserts the other thumb.
When someone makes a post he (Nuddsie) wants to change, contest, or in some
way, alter, he must remove both thumbs simultaneously and, at the same time,
yell "change!!!".
He may repeat this as many times as necessary.
Or he can "win" when he finally realizes what it is he has in his mouth and
what he is saying are really the same thing.
Scott Nudds
"evidence", and hence doesn't know what constitutes evidence.
I provide the definition once again, so that he has another opportunity to
improve himself.
Evidence - That which makes evident or clear whether taken singly or
collectively.
Evidence - Any ground or reason for knowledge or certitude in knowledge.
Evidence - Proof whether immediate or derived by inference.
Evidence - A fact or body of facts on which a proof, belief, or
judgement is based.
Evidence - That by means of which a fact is established as dishinguished
from proof, which is the result of evidence or testimony.
Reports of allergic reactions are themselves evidence of allergic
reactions by definition 0, 1, 3, and 4. above.
: > Tracy Aquilla (aqu...@bpmlegal.com) wrote:
: > : It seems clear that if there were evidence that it "causes allergic
: reactions", as
: > : you claim, then the FDA would have said so, no?
: >
: > The FDA has said so in it's admission that people have reported allergic
: > reactions.
: >
: > Tracy Aquilla wrote:
: > : If you ever become aware of any evidence that StarLink maize causes
: allergic
: > : reactions, please post it here. Thanks.
: >
: > Evidence has been posted here multiple times - Re: reports of allergic
: > reactions. Re: Claim of allergic reactions, etc.
: >
: > Your denial if facts is quite sad.
: >
Chuck Robinson (ch...@corridor.net) wrote:
: ON another posting I read about a simple new game called "nuddsie truth".
: Nuddsie inserts the thumb of one hand into his mouth.
: At the other (rectal) end, he inserts the other thumb.
: When someone makes a post he (Nuddsie) wants to change, contest, or in some
: way, alter, he must remove both thumbs simultaneously and, at the same time,
: yell "change!!!".
: He may repeat this as many times as necessary.
: Or he can "win" when he finally realizes what it is he has in his mouth and
: what he is saying are really the same thing.
--
<---->
Jim Webster
>Reports of allergic reactions are themselves evidence of allergic
>reactions by definition 0, 1, 3, and 4. above.
ev-i-dence (ev dns; also, esp. for v. , -dens) n. [[ME < OFr < L evidentia <
evidens , clear, evident < e- , from + videns , prp. of videre , to see: see
WISE2]] 1 [Archaic] the condition of being evident 2 something that makes
another thing evident; indication; sign 3 something that tends to prove;
ground for belief 4 Law something presented in a legal proceeding, as a
statement of a witness, an object, etc., which bears on or establishes a
point in question: distinguished from TESTIMONY and PROOF: see also STATE'S
EVIDENCE --vt. -denced, -denc-ing 1 to make evident; indicate; show
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from The Complete Reference Collection
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
remember that evidence is not proof and can be contradicted by other
evidence
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
Chuck Robinson
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:919rh8$bes$2...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
David Kendra
The only thing that has been posted is CLAIMs of allerginic reactions.
Claims do not constitute evidence., otherwise Gore would be our president :)
:
: Your denial if facts is quite sad.
:
:
David Kendra
: Robinson still doesn't seem able to understand the definition of the word
: "evidence", and hence doesn't know what constitutes evidence.
Scott, please enlighten the masses and tell us YOUR definition of "evidence"
.
:
: I provide the definition once again, so that he has another opportunity to
: improve himself.
:
: Evidence - That which makes evident or clear whether taken singly or
: collectively.
:
: Evidence - Any ground or reason for knowledge or certitude in knowledge.
:
: Evidence - Proof whether immediate or derived by inference.
:
: Evidence - A fact or body of facts on which a proof, belief, or
: judgement is based.
:
: Evidence - That by means of which a fact is established as dishinguished
: from proof, which is the result of evidence or testimony.
Where did you get these definitions?
According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "evidence" is
defined as :
1. an outward sign (INDICATION)
2. something that furnishs PROOF
3. something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a
matter
4. one who bears witness
:
: Reports of allergic reactions are themselves evidence of allergic
: reactions by definition 0, 1, 3, and 4. above.
The reports have not been proven (ie proof) to be due to allerginic
responses. Toxic responses have not been ruled out.
dk
:
:
:
:
Scott Nudds
by definition 1, 2, 3, 3a, and potentially 4
I am particularly amused at #4 which makes it clear that testimony is
evidence, and that evidence is distinguished from proof.
I am amused because Kendra has just tried to claim that Evidence = Proof.
In fact he wrote the equivalence as an equation.
: Scott Nudds wrote in message <
: >Reports of allergic reactions are themselves evidence of allergic
: >reactions by definition 0, 1, 3, and 4. above.
Jim Webster (j...@websterpagebank.spam.freeserve.co.uk) wrote:
: ev-i-dence (ev dns; also, esp. for v. , -dens) n. [[ME < OFr < L evidentia <
: evidens , clear, evident < e- , from + videns , prp. of videre , to see: see
: WISE2]] 1 [Archaic] the condition of being evident 2 something that makes
: another thing evident; indication; sign 3 something that tends to prove;
: ground for belief 4 Law something presented in a legal proceeding, as a
: statement of a witness, an object, etc., which bears on or establishes a
: point in question: distinguished from TESTIMONY and PROOF: see also STATE'S
: EVIDENCE --vt. -denced, -denc-ing 1 to make evident; indicate; show
: ---------------------------------------------------------
: Excerpted from The Complete Reference Collection
: Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights
: Reserved.
: remember that evidence is not proof and can be contradicted by other
: evidence
: Jim Webster
: We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
: Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
: The only thing that has been posted is CLAIMs of allerginic reactions.
: Claims do not constitute evidence., otherwise Gore would be our president :)
A claim is a reason for belief. A claim is testimony. A claim is a
statement which supports a contention. A claim is one element
constituting a proof.
By all measure, a claim is evidence.
However your claim that Evidence = Proof, is disproven by the very
definition of the word "evidence".
I'm still laughing Kendra.
Scott Nudds
definition. Can't you read?
Kendra barks:
: Scott, please enlighten the masses and tell us YOUR definition of "evidence"
: :
: : I provide the definition once again, so that he has another opportunity to
: : improve himself.
: :
: : Evidence - That which makes evident or clear whether taken singly or
: : collectively.
: :
: : Evidence - Any ground or reason for knowledge or certitude in knowledge.
: :
: : Evidence - Proof whether immediate or derived by inference.
: :
: : Evidence - A fact or body of facts on which a proof, belief, or
: : judgement is based.
: :
: : Evidence - That by means of which a fact is established as dishinguished
: : from proof, which is the result of evidence or testimony.
Kendra asks:
: Where did you get these definitions?
From the dictionary sitting beside me.
Kendra writes:
: According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "evidence" is
: defined as :
: 1. an outward sign (INDICATION)
: 2. something that furnishs PROOF
: 3. something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a
: matter
: 4. one who bears witness
Then by <your> definition, the claims are evidence from definitions 1
and 4, and potentially 3.
Kendra yammers:
: The reports have not been proven (ie proof) to be due to allerginic
: responses. Toxic responses have not been ruled out.
Not relevant to the issue. The claims are evidence of many things.
In another thread you claimed that evidence = proof, and you seem to be
holding to that view here.
Yet the very definition you provide above #1, indicates that evidence
need not be proof, simply an outward sign or an indication.
Clearly if someone claims that they had an alergic reaction to starlink
corn, then this is an outward sign, or an indication of the proposition,
and therfore it is clearly evidence.
Give up. You have lost the argument.
Jim Webster
Scott Nudds wrote in message <91b9jp$mpm$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>...
>And by Webster's definition, claims of alergic reactions are evidence
>by definition 1, 2, 3, 3a, and potentially 4
>
not my definition, I am not a lexicographer. I quoted the dictionary I took
it from.
Bob Myers
> By all measure, a claim is evidence.
But evidence of what? You can, for instance, make the
claim that you are visited nightly by the spirit of
Jacob Marley, who then has three ghosts fly you around
London for hours before winding up at the Cratchit's
for a nice Christmas dinner. Does that claim constitute
evidence that Marley's ghost really exist, or does it
constitute evidence that you suffer from a rather
entertaining delusion?
Bob M.
Scott Nudds
: ON another posting I read about a simple new game called "nuddsie truth".
: Nuddsie inserts the thumb of one hand into his mouth.
: At the other (rectal) end, he inserts the other thumb.
Robinson has a fixation on the rectal ends of others. In other posts he
has been caught trying to kiss my ass.
Quite odd.
Scott Nudds
: "Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
: > By all measure, a claim is evidence.
Bob Myers (nomail...@address.invalid) wrote:
: But evidence of what?
In the case under consideration the 45 or so reports of allergic
reactions to starlink corn is evidence that the corn has such properties.
It was falsely claimed by defenders of this corn, that there was no
evidence when it has now been proven that there is.
I don't consider it strong evidence, but that isn't the issue here.
Lawson English
nomail...@address.invalid wrote on 12/14/00 5:09 PM:
Who can say?
It is something that, once presented, warrants further investigation.
--
"It is very material that order, decency and
regularity, be preserved in a dignified public body."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1812, _A Manual of Parliamentary Practice_
"Who cares?" -Patrick J. Buchanan, 2000, Buchanan Reform Party Convention
--
Oz
>> news:91b9pf$mpm$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
>>
>>> By all measure, a claim is evidence.
>>
>> But evidence of what? You can, for instance, make the
>> claim that you are visited nightly by the spirit of
>> Jacob Marley, who then has three ghosts fly you around
>> London for hours before winding up at the Cratchit's
>> for a nice Christmas dinner. Does that claim constitute
>> evidence that Marley's ghost really exist, or does it
>> constitute evidence that you suffer from a rather
>> entertaining delusion?
>
>Who can say?
>
>It is something that, once presented, warrants further investigation.
!!! Give me strength.
Have you been taking your medication?
--
Oz
Bob Myers
> In the case under consideration the 45 or so reports of allergic
> reactions to starlink corn is evidence that the corn has such properties.
By themselves, though, they are practically useless as evidence,
regardless of how many claims are made. You need to have
SOME supporting evidence of a different nature before mere
"claims" can be given much weight - and if you have that
supporting evidence, you don't need the claims as "evidence"
in the first place. Note that "reports" of reactions MIGHT be
different than simple "claims" - if, for example, the reports came
from properly-controlled studies of these reactions rather than
simple anecdotes.
Thousands of people have made the *claim* that power-line
fields cause cancer. The best conclusion we can come to
at this time, based on the research in to such claims, is that
they're wrong.
Thousands of people *claimed* that breast implants were
responsible for all sorts of medical problems in women
who had them. The studies which resulted from these claims
concluded that they, too, were without basis.
Thousands of people *claim* all sorts of things - that astrology
works "every time", that you can run a car on nothing but
water, or that they are delivering messages from creatures
from another world or "in another dimension". By themselves,
such claims are NOT evidence, and in fact can quite often
immediately be shown to be nonsensical, based on the real
evidence at hand.
So once again, a "claim" by itself isn't "evidence", or at the
very least it isn't "evidence" which is independently good for
much.
Bob M.
Scott Nudds
: "Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
: > In the case under consideration the 45 or so reports of allergic
: > reactions to starlink corn is evidence that the corn has such properties.
Bob Myers (nomail...@address.invalid) wrote:
: By themselves, though, they are practically useless as evidence,
: regardless of how many claims are made. You need to have
: SOME supporting evidence of a different nature before mere
: "claims" can be given much weight - and if you have that
: supporting evidence, you don't need the claims as "evidence"
: in the first place.
I agree. But that's not the issue. The claim was made <and argued>
that there was <no> evidence. It was argued that the only evidence is
proof.
It has now been shown that those claims were false and probably designed
to further an ideological agenda.
Meyers writes:
: Thousands of people *claim* all sorts of things - that astrology
: works "every time", that you can run a car on nothing but
: water, or that they are delivering messages from creatures
: from another world or "in another dimension".
Oh, I don't know about that (8-p. I'm an Aries and as you can see, I'm
like a Ram in a china shop, God of war, etc.etc.etc.
Lawson English
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca wrote on 12/16/00 1:34 AM:
>
> It has now been shown that those claims were false and probably designed
> to further an ideological agenda.
When did this come out?
David Kendra
:
: : "Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
: : > By all measure, a claim is evidence.
:
: Bob Myers (nomail...@address.invalid) wrote:
: : But evidence of what?
:
: In the case under consideration the 45 or so reports of allergic
: reactions to starlink corn is evidence that the corn has such properties.
:
: It was falsely claimed by defenders of this corn, that there was no
: evidence when it has now been proven that there is.
According to the CDC many of the cases are not due to allergenic responses
and the others are still inconclusive.
dk
:
: I don't consider it strong evidence, but that isn't the issue here.
:
: