shadow71 writes:
Wounded King writes:
How can we have a debate when as a response all you do is post huge chunks of quote from other people instead of making a reasoned argument yourself? If you really want to debate CRISPRs I'm game, either in a new topic or in a great debate, but I want to debate with you not with a giant wall of text taken from various different papers, e.g. Message 735.
Citations are supposed to support your argument not be your argument.
I am not a scientist so I have to rely on papers etc to support my contentions.
Being a scientist or not being a scientist is quite irrelevant here; some are, and some are not (such as you and I). The issue here is
what understanding of your own of the science you yourself can bring to the table.
For example when I brought to jury trial a medical malpractice case I had to rely on my experts explanation of what was wrong with the medical treatment and present that to the jury in the testimony of my experts and then in closing argument explain that to the jury. That is what I try to do on this board.
Unfortunately, your overt reliance on typical lawyer tactics do not
and will not get you very far on this type of forum. That is the usual problem with advocates of pseudoscience: they think victory is achieved through swaying the lowest common denominator to their side at all costs. That's not scientific debate; that's just puerile politics.
But it gets quite annoying when all you get is silly combacks and not argument.
How sad for you, since juries seldom argue back.
DWIII
™ Version 4.2
