> From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ok time out. > > --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Estrus is hidden in human females. In fact when they are menstruating > > they are __not Fertile__. > > Try telling that to thousands of pregnant 14 year olds who say, "but I can't > be pregnant...I was on my period."
It is impossible for someone to become pregnant when they are having their period. > --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jan said it was incorrect, you told Jan he was wrong, and > > > I posted an article that showed he wasn't. What part of this don't you > > > > > understand? > > > > Get YOUR facts strait next time. > > Extreme positions are seldomly correct. It is still my opinion that the > article or the original research (which is unavailable) is making assumptions > which are untested. I also believe it to be misleading. How is research into Gene Sequences untested? It is not misleading. > While I will put up with that sort of thing from politicians, I will not from > scientists. Because you are anti-science. > Fool, (what's the deal with that name anyway?) you may very easily continue > to believe that pheromones play a very limited part in human sexuality. In > fact I would agree with you that it is a sensible assumption based on the > fact that our VNOs are somewhat limited. However, that limitation to quote, > "or very little ability", is of course a mater of reference. > > I would argue that simply by studying genes (or whatever since the paper is > unavailable) you can not write off a part of human sexuality that many have > anecdotal evidence and in fact be assumed as a matter of fact by many. Science is not based on anecdotes. Anecdotally thousands of people have created cold fusion. You cannot base science on anecdotal evidence. Anyone who does base science on anecdotal evidence is a quack. Lots of quacks claim to be able to cure cancer. > The fact is that pheromones are effective. They do have some significant I thought that was in dispute, but here you are claiming it as fact. > effect on the human body. This, in nature, seems to contradict the paper you > posted. Science contradicts everything you have posted. > I am also of the opinion that it is highly inappropriate to attack the person > who has provided an idea or concept. If for no other reason than that this And yet this is not the first time you have attacked scientists on this list in this way. Hypocrisy? > practice is generally assumed by most to signal nervousness and embarrassment > by the individual doing the attacking. Even when that person is correct, > attacking the person that disagrees with you and not the idea that person is > providing can make it look to the majority as if you are wrong and that you > know it, and that you are unwilling to admit it. > Even if you are unconcerned about such issues of social interactions, or if > you do not believe this particular idea, then you should at least have the > courage and decency to address the idea itself. It is my opinion that if you > believe an idea to be incorrect, then as an intellectual, you have the duty > to state why. I have addressed this issue. You have attacked this scientist. I have stated why. You have not. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
