HOME       SLOTT     JOHNSON     PERROTT    BILLY BUDD

Response by Paul Melters to Richard Christie concerning allegations of “quote mining” levied against Louise Mantella.
November 30, 2013

COMMENT 48030 Paul Melters December 1, 2013 at 10:11 am|

In COMMENT 47955, Richard Christie writes:

RICHARD: "As did Steve Slott earler (sic), I have gone over these abstracts.

Mantella’s quote dump was obviously designed to use selective quotes to suggest low or negative efficacy of fluoride for caries prevention ."


PM Response: Just as with Slott and Billy Budd before you, your ploy here is not going to work.

Mantella specified the context 4 times - including in a comment directly to you (47727): whether fluoride in enamel had any beneficial effect on caries reduction. 

Read my post again, and go back to her comments. To make it easy for you, my comment is also posted here, with hyperlinks, to make verifying the evidence easier:
http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/cedric_-_melters.html

Do you still have trouble understanding the context?

If there is something wrong with any one of her quotes/comments - provide the evidence. Stop making it into something else. You’re just going to end up looking very foolish.

RICHARD: "Quote mining is not excused by using a letter-for-letter, word-for-word accurately pasted/copied quote.
It is about use of the quote and spinning it to distort the source’s position.

It is dishonest and made worse when no easy means of checking the quotes is supplied."


PM Response: Mantella did supply full citations.

Every single quote has been addressed in my comment above (47953).

Name one that is out of context, and used inappropriately.

It is YOU who is using Mantella’s quotes and spinning them to distort her position. Again - that ploy is not going to be successful. 

RICHARD: “Thank you Paul for the links that expose such a sordid little episode.”

PM Response: I look forward to the evidence that you surely will bring forward any time now?

There are 14 quotes. Have your pick. Where is the “quote mining”?

A copy of this comment will also be posted at:
http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/richard_-_melters.html

Paul Melters

===================================================

UPDATE:

On Dec 1, Richard Christie responded as follows:

COMMENT 48080 Richard Christie  December 1, 2013 at 10:44 pm

Paul Melters

[Richard cristie] :Mantella’s quote dump was obviously designed to use selective quotes to suggest low or negative efficacy of fluoride for caries prevention .”

PM Response: Just as with Slott and Billy Budd before you, your ploy here is not going to work.

Well then, lets just add Mantella’s own distillation of the issue under discussion

At discussion here is the amount of fluoride in enamel and if that contributes to caries reduction.

Paul, pleae (sic) be sure to post this on your tinfoil hat website.

Paul Melters Response

COMMENT 48083 Paul Melters  December 1, 2013 at 11:20 pm  |

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

IN COMMENT 48080 Richard Christie wrote

RICHARD: “Well then, lets just add Mantella’s own distillation of the issue under discussion

At discussion here is the amount of fluoride in enamel and if that contributes to to caries reduction”

PM Response: Exactly. Maybe one day you’ll get it. See, the discussion wasn’t about “does fluoride reduce caries”, as you and Slott were trying to make it into. If you actually understood the issue you would know there are several modes of action by which fluoride is thought to inhibit caries, antimicrobial action being another one. This one was only about fluoride in enamel, in response to Ken’s points regarding fluoride content in bone and teeth. End of story.

Richard: “Paul, pleae (sic) be sure to post this on your tinfoil hat website.”

PM Response: You can count on it.

As expected - you were not able to name ONE quote stated out of context, to prove your “quote mining” allegations.

Paul Melters

===============================

Many hours later - comment still “awaiting moderation”...surprised?

I presume comment is “too aggressive” - as was Ken’s reason behind disallowing Louise’s comment, which wasn’t aggressive at all. Her only mistake was to make Ken look like a fool. He then proceeded as if the disallowed comment didn’t exist - very low tactics indeed - ethics anyone? More on that, click here.

Keep in mind that Cedric is allowed to call people “idiots”, tell them to “shut their pie-hole”, etc. etc.

Nothing aggressive about that - right?

What a sham.

===============================

UPDATE:

On Dec. 2, 2013 Ken Perrott posted the following “explanation”:

COMMENT 48168 Ken  December 2, 2013 at 4:20 pm  |

Paul Melters - I have held back a few of your comments as they have been antagonistic and added nothing to the discussion. If you wish to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin or Louise’s comments then do so on your own web site (Of course you will need to allow commenting to accomadate (sic) that).

Louise is more than welcome to rejoin the discussion and make her pwnpoints (sic) but surely doesn’t need you to act as her advocate.

RESPONSE by Paul Melters
Dec. 9, 2013

In COMMENT 48168 Ken wrote:

KEN PERROTT: “Paul Melters- I have held back a few of your comments as they have been antagonistic and added nothing to the discussion. If you wish to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin or Louise’s comments then do so on your own web site (Of course you will need to allow commenting to accomadate (sic) that).

PM Response: Interesting, Ken Perrott. 
 
But let’s be real - the reason you’re holding back comments has nothing to do with them being “antagonistic’ or “not adding to the discussion”. You are censoring, plain and simple. The last comments (48078, 48083)
actually added much to the discussion - but of course you can not have someone embarrassing you or your small legion of minions once again, could you now? What if nobody can produce a quote guilty of “quote mining” as requested - oh no - you’d have to show fool Cedric the door, actually. Can’t have that now, can we? You were supposed to be the “arbiter”, weren't you?

CEDRIC: I’ll let Ken be the arbiter as to whether David (or someone else) has made sufficient demonstration and I promise to abide by any decision Ken might make.
His word is final.
That way nobody can accuse me of shifting the goal posts or welching on the deal.
I can’t be fairer than that.

PM Response: The mighty Ken Perrott!

Is this how you do “arbitration”?

Instead of addressing the issue - you censor comments because they “add nothing to the
discussion”?...Right... That way you don’t have to deal with any more embarrassing issues. You know very well that no “quote mining” took place. Otherwise you’d be able to provide an example. Just ONE. But you can’t. Quite the fair arbiter you are!

Just like Mantella’s request for a reference for your ridiculous “deficiency claim” was embarrassing to you. You couldn't find a reference because not one exists. It's total nonsense. But of course you couldn’t allow a 23-year old Tox student to embarrass you - nooo! You had to “disallow” that comment and then even go on pretending it didn’t exist and that you never read it.

Low. Very low.

I am forever grateful to Louise for sending me that PDF.

You’ve shown your true colors.

BTW - if you do want to make a comment on the website, you are certainly welcome to do so by sending an email, as is stated on the home page. 

And - oh yes - here comes the nonsense about “number of angels on a pinhead” again. I presume references to John Birch, anti-vaxxers, and climate deniers are not far behind? You guys really are all the same.

Have fun with your “science” blog - complete with censorship, red herrings and the merry strawmen!

KEN: Louise is more than welcome to rejoin the discussion and make her pwnpoints (sic) but surely doesn’t need you to act as her advocate.”

PM Response: I am sure Louise is more than capable of defending herself. I simply responded to fool Cedric’s challenge in comment 47890. You should read your own blog more carefully.

And - just so that you know - in the end it doesn’t matter that much to me if you allow these comments or not, because they will exist on my web page anyways. I am much more interested in having a public record of what is really happening on your blog.

Paul Melters