Letters to the Editor

• The Scamming of Sam Sham (pt. 3)

  Another Sam Sham tactic: Claiming you are stating the exact opposite of what you're stating. Example --

  Me: "I think some cults are potentially harmful -- like those that encourage people to avoid seeking real treatment."

  Sam Sham: "So the tragic tale of the Gentle Wind project is nothing to you?"

  Huh? I said "I think cults can be dangerous" and you respond as if I had said "I don't think cults can be dangerous"?

  "Like I said, Ivory Tower."

  I think this is the 4th time that Sam Sham used this ad hominem response (after I had made a pretty succinct point) instead of saying something of substance. This is what I call "losing the debate."

  "David Lynch's been on a crusade to get Transcendental Meditation in schools - specifically for black kids."

  I looked this up on Google and it's interesting. For the record I don't support putting TM in schools, but it doesn't sound like Lynch has anything but good intentions. I suppose you'll paste a bunch of links about how people have died from meditating, right?

  What does this mean:

  Me:"I do agree that society is getting dumbed down."

  You: "But, I gather, you don't know why."

  Wrong. I could probably write an essay on all the reasons I think society has been dumbed down. Something tells me you think it is all reducible to one single reason.

  Sam Sham diverts again with:

  Me: "I also think that Al Gore's movie is the opposite of such dumbing-down."

  Sam Sham: "Gore's publicist, Mrs. Larry David - was screaming AT THE TOP OF HER LUNGS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING on NPR."

  I didn't hear the NPR interview and don't know the context. But how on earth is your comment a response to my comment? I say that Gore's presentation was very clear and educating. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions for some reason, if anything you will walk away with a little better understanding of why scientists think human activity is causing global warming. Whatever Mrs. Larry David might have done on the radio completely irrelevant to this.

  Seriously, Sam Sham, how do you even justify this sort of debate tactic?

  Another diversion/falsehood from Sam Sham:

  Me: "(nobody here -- not Paglia nor any letter writers -- has pointed to a single falsehood in the film)."

  Sam: "No, The New York Times did. Scientists said he over-stated the case. And, again, you're ignoring the links I presented."

  My statement holds: Nobody here, including Paglia, has provided actual facts or reasons why they are skeptical of the science of global warming. You did not provide any links to that effect (which post? which page?). I know which New York Times article you're referring to and all it said was that Al Gore overstated the chances that Hurricane Katrina was linked to global warming. Many scientists have dismissed this part of Gore's presentation as being speculative, but Gore himself has admitted this (and if you watch the movie you can see he's not claiming certainty). Nonetheless, it's important to point out that this part of the movie's presentation only refer to the potential results of global warming and has little to do with the main scientific evidence that warming is occurring.

  Something to keep in mind about Sam Sham's links:

  Me:"Weil promotes the benefits of drinking water? Almost everything he presents is based on mainstream nutritional information."

  You: "Weil promotes quackery and he is a believer in Uri Gellar: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-03/031706carroll.html

  http://www.randi.org/jr/10-25-1999.html"

  I examined those links. They involve things Weil did/said in 1974. I'd like to believe Weil has cleaned up his act since then. I have read one Weil book about nutrition and eating healthy. In this book, Weil provides detailed information about how sugar is absorbed in the body and why it is better to eat whole grains because of the slower process of glucose release. He writes at length about diabetes and other health concerns. There is almost no information in the Weil book I read that I would consider the least bit flaky. He does discuss anti-oxidants and how they are thought to be very helpful, but he doesn't make them out to be a cure-all. I can't imagine why Weil would endorse Deepak Chopra but if that's the worst sin you can come up with for condemning Weil, I wonder if you aren't tilting at windmills.

  Me: ""People die over drinking water?"

  Scam Sham: "You really have to get out more: people don't report these deaths because they don't want to look stupid - or criminal. I personally know of deaths but what do you care? It's all academic to you."

  I ask a legitimate question and your response is "you have to get out more. These things aren't reported. You don't care." What, no links? No explanation? You don't even have the courage of your convictions enough to answer a direct question?

  -- Xrandadu Hutman
  [Read Xrandadu Hutman's other letters]
  Permalink Thursday, April 12, 2007 05:42 PM