Response by Paul Melters to Richard Christie concerning allegations of “quote mining” levied against Louise Mantella.
In COMMENT 47955, Richard Christie writes:
RICHARD: "As did Steve Slott earler (sic), I have gone over these abstracts.
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:
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.
Name one that is out of context, and used inappropriately.
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:
On Dec 1, Richard Christie responded as follows:
[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
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.
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.
What a sham.
On Dec. 2, 2013 Ken Perrott posted the following “explanation”:
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.
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.
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.
PM Response: The mighty Ken Perrott!
Is this how you do “arbitration”?
Low. Very low.
I am forever grateful to Louise for sending me that PDF.
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.