Badlyshavedmonkey equation is dissproved!

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Badlyshavedmonkey at this forum derived an equation to explain the effect of Avogadro's Number on homeopathic dilutions. On that equation Dr. MAS offered million dollar ruppees with the help of many homeopathic pharmacies in Pakistan and said, if anybody who will prove BSM equation, he will give million ruppees. the equation should be endorsed with two Ph.D doctors.

Now at NCH forum a member named "highdesert" clarified that

Dr. MAS, when Badly Shaved Monkey's equation was rejected at the first step, it was because he made a small mistake. He fixed it. It did not change the result.

http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=474&st=30



This proves that Dr. MAS was right. At this stage even then, BSM or anyother feels that he wants to win the prize then the offers still stands.

Visit http://www.nchpakistan.com site and read the offer.

[Mojo]

Do you have any evidence to support the assertion in your sig yet?

Just asking.

[Mojo]

This proves that Dr. MAS was right. Wrong!

1. BSM's calculations have not been "disproved". There was merely a mistake in the first version, which was subsequently corrected, as pointed out in the very post you're quoting!

2. Even if the result of BSM's calculations were proven to be wrong, this would not prove that MAS is right. That is a false dilemma.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Actually the derived equation was divided into many steps. The first step was absoultly wrong and Dr. MAS pointed out and said, if you insist the step is correct then I will offer you million ruppees. BSM is now corrected the equation and informed the NCH members through highdesert (a possible alias).

You are a sensible person, how can an equation could be derived correctly if you commit a mistake in calculation in the very first step. On the basis of that mistake a correct equation cannot give you same answer.

[Z]

Have you worked out the remaining equation from that corrected step?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

yes, that is wrong!

[Mojo]

You are a sensible person, how can an equation could be derived correctly if you commit a mistake in calculation in the very first step. On the basis of that mistake a correct equation cannot give you same answer.Read the post you quoted: He fixed it. Do you understand? The error was corrected.

Now that we've disposed of that, are you going to provide some evidence to back up the claim in your signature, or are you going to admit that it isn't true?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Badlyshavedmonkey at this forum derived an equation to explain the effect of Avogadro's Number on homeopathic dilutions. On that equation Dr. MAS offered million dollar ruppees with the help of many homeopathic pharmacies in Pakistan and said, if anybody who will prove BSM equation, he will give million ruppees. the equation should be endorsed with two Ph.D doctors.

This proves that Dr. MAS was right. At this stage even then, BSM or anyother feels that he wants to win the prize then the offers still stands.


Dr. A,

Could you increase the prize money? You see, 1,000,000 Rupees is only worth about 38 cents in the US.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

[Z]

yes, that is wrong!

Seems not everyone agrees with you. How about you post what you worked out, right here, so we can all see how the correction by BSM in fact altered the rest of the equation.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Who pointed out the error?

[Z]

Who pointed out the error?

Quit changing the subject. Just post your work, demonstrating the variance from BSM's corrected work, and this discussion can continue.

[ungoliant]

and please provide evidence proving your signature.

[Z]

Oh, and while we're making impossible demands, go ahead and post the credentials allowing you to call yourself a doctor. Thanks!

[Dr. A Sheikh]

again! who put the equation correct?

[Garrette]

Apparently, Badly Shaved Monkey did, as soon as he was made aware of the error.

This is in marked contrast to you and to other homeopaths who obfuscate and ignore when errors are pointed out.

Kudos to BSM.

[Hitch]

Dr. A,

Could you increase the prize money? You see, 1,000,000 Rupees is only worth about 38 cents in the US.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
About $22,700 at the moment. (Just sayin')

Hey, Central Scrutinizer, can I borrow 38 cents?

[ungoliant]

Oh, and while we're making impossible demands, go ahead and post the credentials allowing you to call yourself a doctor. Thanks!

well, i am royal doctor to the emporer norton 1st.

and who put the equation correct? purple vomit dishwasher! testing....testing...onetwothreefourfivetwelve.... testing.....testes....

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Apparently, Badly Shaved Monkey did, as soon as he was made aware of the error.

This is in marked contrast to you and to other homeopaths who obfuscate and ignore when errors are pointed out.

Kudos to BSM.

You did not participate in the discussion, you are not aware of anything.

[Dr Adequate]

Well done! "Dr" Sheik. Let me in return point out some of your mistakes:

(1) The trash in your signature appears to be the delusional ravings of a halfwit, a lunatic, or a particularly clumsy liar.
(2) You claim to be a "Dr" when you have no such qualification.
(3) You think that people can be healed using stupid magic water.

[Garrette]

You did not participate in the discussion, you are not aware of anything.My deepest apologies for assuming I could take meaning from what you yourself posted.

I will not make that mistake again, I assure you.

[ungoliant]

were you aware of the equation? water sugar to heal and such! or something. and if you do not "dr" me then how can you prove my rupees?

also, homeopathy is a fraud.

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. A... There is one and only one Dr A on these forums. Moreover, I earned the title to which the charlatan pretends.

[Rolfe]

Can someone give the link to what exactly BSM posted, and where he corrected it?

Rolfe.

[tkingdoll]

My deepest apologies for assuming I could take meaning from what you yourself posted.

I will not make that mistake again, I assure you.

Wait, it's worse than that. You didn't take part in the discussion, therefore you are not aware of ANYTHING! It's like achieving enlightenment, only in reverse.

*plays Coma by Guns n' Roses*

[Garrette]

Bah. I find awareness and enlightenment tend to diminish my enjoyment of weekend sports. I'll take me as I am.

[Ohmer]

Can someone give the link to what exactly BSM posted, and where he corrected it?

Rolfe.

I think he is reffering to this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1032746&postcount=37

Apparently, you proved Dr Mas was right.
:dl:

[Z]

again! who put the equation correct?

Again! Put up or shut up, you fraud. Either demonstrate the variance in the equation due to the corrections made by BSM, or STFU.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Don't be so annoyed.

[Z]

Don't be so annoyed.

Don't be such a fraud and troll.

[Lothian]

About $22,700 at the moment.
To be fair, in Pakistan, that is enough to get their national cricket team to throw a couple of international matches.

[Rolfe]

Apparently, you proved Dr Mas was right.
:dl:Oh dear!

Apparently, I once proved that Roger Coghill was right too. At least, according to him!

I must mend my ways.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

About $22,700 at the moment.
To be fair, in Pakistan, that is enough to get their national cricket team to throw a couple of international matches.Now why didn't the England team think of that...

[Lothian]

Now why didn't the England team think of that...
They tried Fletcher gave the money to Pieterson to pass on to Inzi but unfortunately said “You know who this is for…. capisci.”

[Dr. A Sheikh]

I said, you did not participate in the old discussion threads. If I hurt you I say sorry. Please accept my applogy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I said, you did not participate in the old discussion threads. If I hurt you I say sorry. Please accept my applogy.

Dr. A,

Do you love me?

[Nucular]

I said, you did not participate in the old discussion threads. If I hurt you I say sorry. Please accept my applogy.
Sheikh,

You don't seem particularly to be be joining in your own thread.

I wonder, could you explain the equation you say was wrong, and then explain what was wrong with it both before and after its correction?

Just thought that might help move things along.

Also, you haven't changed your signature yet, could you do that too? Thanks.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

please post that long equation here. I am unable to find at this forum.

[Mojo]

please post that long equation here. I am unable to find at this forum.So, once again, it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Nucular]

please post that long equation here. I am unable to find at this forum.
YOU brought it up, Sheikh, YOU post the equation.

And if you wouldn't mind explaining what was wrong with it before and after the corrections you mentioned, that would be interesting.

I don't have any qualifications in chemistry, so I'm an interested layman - I've followed all the discussion up till now though, so don't worry too much about technical language, Doctor. But if you could post the equation you mean, and your understanding of the error, the correction, its current status, and why
This proves that Dr. MAS was right
I'd be very interested.

Thanks.

[MRC_Hans]

Dr. A Sheikh:

The quotation and the correction is here:

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
MAS, let's say you have a 1ml of 1 molar solution of Na2SO4 solution. In 1 litre you would have 6.022 x 1023 of each of the component moieties of Na2SO4. In 100ml you will have 6.022 x 1022.

If you want to use this as the basis for your next 1 in 100 dilution you will draw 1ml into a pipette and add 99ml water.

If the solution was well-mixed when you drew up that 1ml it will contain 6.022 x 1020 of each of the components of Na2SO4.

You have suggested that there may be some other number drawn up.

How many? What are the chances that the aspirate will contain a number substantially different from 6.022 x 1020?
Just in case this got buried under all the banter.

(Actually, BSM, that will be 2 x 6.022 x 1020 sodium ions, plus 6.022 x 1020 sulphate ions. So perhaps we should just concentrate on the sulphate ions for now.)

Mas, you may recall that in one of my posts that you didn't reply to, I went through the quesiton of pipetting accuracy. I pointed out that part of the homoeopathic procedure is succussion, which even at its least vigorous pretty much guarantees a more or less uniform mixing of the solution. I also pointed out that pipetting accuracy is something which is well understood, and that a careful worker should be able to manage less than 2% variation, while even a rather careless operator will still manage 5%.

So, given these facts, what are the chances that the 1ml that BSM is talking about will contain more than 6.323 x 1020 sulphate ions, or less than 5.721 x 1020? If you repeat the procedure 10 times, what are the chances that all 10 repetitions will all contain more than 6.022 x 1020 sulphate ions?

Now, please explain what is wrong with it, and why it does not explain the effect of Avogadro's number on homeopathic preparations.

Or admit you were wrong.

If you don't do either, I shall make sure to tell the story about your dishonesty on the NCH forum.

And change your signature or point to where skeptics made the claim you cite.

NOW!

Hans

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Hans your tone is a commanding tone, a General is ordering to his sepoy. If you will not do it then I will do it this and that.... You are behaving like a cat who is a lion at home. :D

I will explain it further and will also point out various locations where randi forum given the statement but before that edit your threating mail.

when you remove my signature then also remove the signature of rolfe. That statement is totally wrong.

[Mojo]

Dr. Sheikh, you have promised (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1379773#post1379773) to prove homoeopathy works or to permanently cease practicing it. If you wish to take the first step towards keeping your promise, there's a thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1381267) for you to post your proposed protocol.

Off you go.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hans your tone is a commanding tone, a General is ordering to his sepoy. If you will not do it then I will do it this and that.... You are behaving like a cat who is a lion at home. :D

I will explain it further and will also point out various locations where randi forum given the statement but before that edit your threating mail.

when you remove my signature then also remove the signature of rolfe. That statement is totally wrong.

Sorry for the derail, but Dr Sheikh (or may I just call you A?), can you post a good recipe for homeopathic chile? You see, the football games are on this afternoon, and I'd like to make a batch to enjoy. Thanks!

OK, now back to this: :hb:

[RandFan]

I will explain it further and will also point out various locations where randi forum given the statement but before that edit your threating mail. Why? Here is your chance to prove yourself. It's difficult to imagine why you would put a roadblock up to yourself.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

ok I will keep follow what you want.

[Rolfe]

Rolfe's sig is not only entirely true, it contains a link to the H'pathy forum pages which demonstrate clearly just how true it is.

Sheikh, nobody has ever said that 1X preparations are incapable of having any physiological effect, or that a "1X" preparation of a recognised medicine will not have exactly the same effect as a 10% solution. If I'm wrong about this, how about a link?

(What has been said of course is that just because it's possible that a 1X or 10% preparation might have a physiological effect, that doesn't prove that such a preparation of any substance whatever will have such an effect, or that any homoeopathic claim of cure is justified. Personally, I don't think Sheikh is bright enough to tell the difference between those statements.)

Rolfe. (So happy the sig line is having its desired effect, you know.)

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Rolfe's sig is not only entirely true, it contains a link to the H'pathy forum pages which demonstrate clearly just how true it is.

Sheikh, nobody has ever said that 1X preparations are incapable of having any physiological effect, or that a "1X" preparation of a recognised medicine will not have exactly the same effect as a 10% solution. If I'm wrong about this, how about a link?

(What has been said of course is that just because it's possible that a 1X or 10% preparation might have a physiological effect, that doesn't prove that such a preparation of any substance whatever will have such an effect, or that any homoeopathic claim of cure is justified. Personally, I don't think Sheikh is bright enough to tell the difference between those statements.)

Rolfe. (So happy the sig line is having its desired effect, you know.)

Your link does not go to hpathy forum. This is also wrong.

In your statement you first denied my sig statement and you also accepted in the next para.

[PixyMisa]

Your link does not go to hpathy forum. This is also wrong.
Huh?

Did you click on it?

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Your link does not go to hpathy forum. This is also wrong.



Well, I just clicked on the link and it took me straight to the hpathy forum.

Explain to me how this is wrong!


Violentvomitpurplewashingmachine indeed!

[steenkh]

No, actually the link does not go to the H'pathy forum, but to a saved copy at another place. Probably the original damaging post has been removed, and has been preserved for posterity at this place.

I am sure it is not faked, but the trustworthiness is definitely lowered when it is not hosted at the original site.

[Mojo]

ReFLeX found (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1382582#post1382582) it in about two minutes, here (http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=1716). Simply scroll down to the 16th post on the thread, or search the page for the word "mistake" (Sheikh, if you're using Internet Explorer, click on edit and select Find (on This Page); other browsers should work in a similar way).

[Rolfe]

Clarification. The original link went to the H'pathy thread, but at some point it was found to be broken. I thought it had been emiminated by Stalin's airbrush, and repaired it with a link to a saved copy. However, it appears that the thread is still there, it was just moved. It looks a lot different, but it is the same text.

Sheikh seems smart enough when it suits him. So where is the problem with understanding the calculations that demonstrate Avogadro's limit?

(By the way, does anyone know if the "Seven week old young cows dying" thread is still there in any shape or form? That was a cracker.)

Rolfe.

[PixyMisa]

Ah. Apologies to Dr Sheikh then.

[Rolfe]

Your link does not go to hpathy forum. This is also wrong.

In your statement you first denied my sig statement and you also accepted in the next para.A link has been given to the same thread on the H'pathy forum. Do you still have a problem with this?

Now, I explained why what you say in your sig is wrong, and I explained what the real position is. I then remarked that I didn't think you were bright enough to tell the difference. You seem to have proved me right on that.

I'll try it again, as I'm bored.

Many, indeed most proven drugs have an effect in a 10% solution. It doesn't matter if you call this 1X, the effect is still the same. This does not prove that any random substance whatsoever will have an effect in a 10% solution. It also does not prove that any effect any random substance may have at any concentration will cure disease.

If you still claim not to understand that, you are a troll.

Rolfe.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

still your link lands on vetpath.co.uk not at hpathy forum.

[Mojo]

still your link lands on vetpath.co.uk not at hpathy forum.You do realise that it's exactly the same text as at hpathy, don't you?

[Rolfe]

Main difference is that one of the links - the link to Snoopy's ghastly essay where she exhorts people to "consult a homoeopath first" rather than be poisoned, burned, maimed and relieved of their lives' savings by people who actually have the education to recognise things like Addison's disease - has also changed. In the re-posted version I edited the link in my post so that it still gets you the article, while of course the link in the original post is now dead. And that article is an eye-opener and a half, revealing Snoopy as an arrogant, ignorant uneducated wannabee. For this reason, I'm hesitant to revert back to linking to the H'pathy site.

Oh yes, and I fixed a typo. Shocking, ain't it?

Rolfe.

[anor277]

Main difference is that one of the links - the link to Snoopy's ghastly essay where she exhorts people to "consult a homoeopath first" rather than be poisoned, burned, maimed and relieved of their lives' savings by people who actually have the education to recognise things like Addison's disease - has also changed. In the re-posted version I edited the link in my post so that it still gets you the article, while of course the link in the original post is now dead. And that article is an eye-opener and a half, revealing Snoopy as an arrogant, ignorant uneducated wannabee. For this reason, I'm hesitant to revert back to linking to the H'pathy site.

Oh yes, and I fixed a typo. Shocking, ain't it?

Rolfe.

The irony of that thread was that Rolfe was entirely guiltless in the whole affair; she did not try to bait a trap for the homeopaths to answer. The homeopaths dug the pit, laid the stakes, and fell into the pit all by their own efforts.

[Rolfe]

The thread only went on as long as it did because it happened to be the 4th of July, and JanZy (who is Merikan) was otherwise engaged.

Actually, looking at the current version of Snoopy's sickening and ignorant article (http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/lewis-choose-homeopathy.asp), I think she changed it a bit after the Addison's episode - I don't think the acknowledgement thatit really is a good idea to get a proper medical diagnosiswas there originally. Of course this is first of all entirely contrary to all the principles of homoeopathy, where diagnosis is held to be irrelevant and indeed impossible to achieve. It also makes a nonsense of her basic argument, which is that patients should go to a homoeopath first. Oh yes, so where are they supposed to get that diagnosis from in that case?

I suspect a bit of butt-covering, as a result of realising she really could be liable for serious damages in real life.

Rolfe.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

You do realise that it's exactly the same text as at hpathy, don't you?

It means i pointed out correctly. that was not hpathy forum. Actually a site having hpathy copied thread which may or may not have exact copy.

rolfe you change your signature and clarify it in bold.

You know just like I got the impression, the same other can also take it in the same way.

This is not fair. you must clearly indicate it if you have some ethics of presenting facts.

[Rolfe]

How about you have some ethics of presenting the facts behind what you claim in your sig?

Rolfe.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

you made your signature first then I will explain after you.

[Rolfe]

Nothing wrong with my signature. The link gives the correct reference, and this has been verified as being identical to the text as it apparently still exists on the H'pathy server. What is your problem with this?

I have no intention of reverting to the direct link, as it now in its turn contains some broken links, which I was able to repair in the saved version. Readers should still be able to access Snoopy's disgraceful essay in all its awfulness, I believe.

Now, justify your sig or remove it.

Rolfe.

[steenkh]

Sheikh, even if Rolfe had misrepresented the argument in her sig - which I do not think - it does not make your sig better! The two are not conencted. It has been made clear that you what you are claiming for the skeptic argument is completely wrong, and you cannot find a skeptic - except possibly a very stupid one - who has this position.

If you want a serious debate with skeptics, it does not help to show that you either do not want to understand skeptic arguments, or that you are unable to do so.

[Mojo]

Of course this is first of all entirely contrary to all the principles of homoeopathy, where diagnosis is held to be irrelevant and indeed impossible to achieve. Exactly. They just look at the symptoms exhibited and prescribe a remedy according to those.

None of this "holistic" nonsense! ;)

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Nothing wrong with my signature. The link gives the correct reference, and this has been verified as being identical to the text as it apparently still exists on the H'pathy server. What is your problem with this?

I have no intention of reverting to the direct link, as it now in its turn contains some broken links, which I was able to repair in the saved version. Readers should still be able to access Snoopy's disgraceful essay in all its awfulness, I believe.

Now, justify your sig or remove it.

Rolfe.

you must clarify to new members that "you can read snoopy saved thread at new website due to broken links at old sites" this will clarify the whole situation when you write "hpathy forum", my first impression was i am visiting "hpathy real forum" but actually it was not. This is a protocol to decieve new comers. when as an old member I was decieved then you can imagine about the new members. This is a ethical point, if you could understand.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

One more thing, if you intentionly given link to a new site by deceinving "hpathy forum" so that your IP address may not be registered or catched by hpathy team then you can remove the link from your signature.

Yes, it is true that when anybody will click on your signature link, it will land on hpathy site and hpathy site admin can see who is coming from where? And when that member will get registeration at hpathy site the admin will have the idea who that person could be.

The best idea is to change your wording as I mentioned above if you want to hide your ip.

I am not worried about my IPs. I have only one dial up connection and we have only one isp in my town.

[Rolfe]

Your best idea would be to change the wording of your sig so that it tells the truth.

Rolfe.

[ClusterBoy]

this is a protocol to decieve new comers.

as a new comer, i find it most clear where the link takes me. I have no problem understanding the context. This is not really an ethical point. The problem Dr Sheikh, with skeptics, is that when they make an argument, they tend to have evidence to back it up (otherwise they make pretty rubbish skeptics, lets face it.) New skeptics, such as myself, do tend to appreciate it when evidence is given.

[Rolfe]

This is a protocol to decieve new comers. when as an old member I was decieved then you can imagine about the new members.How dare you accuse me of deceiving new members! Apologise for that immediately, before I report you to the moderators.

You were not deceived, you saw where the link went. However, even if you had not, in what way would you have been deceived? The saved pages contain exactly the same text as the original pages on the H'pathy server, as has been confirmed, and can be verified by anyone. Therefore, you will now apologise for accusing me of deceiving members.

You know perfectly well that the link in my sig goes to saved copies of the pages because I had believed that the originals had been deleted by the H'pathy admins. And if you don't believe me, I'll find the JREF thread where a member complains to me that the link in my sig (to the original H'pathy url) is dead, and I reply that I'll have to repair it by linking to saved copies of the pages.

And you know that the text on the saved pages is identical to the text on H'pathy, because it turns out that the original pages are still there, only the url had changed.

So, apologise, and withdraw your accusation.

I have explained that I will not change the sig link to lead back the the H'pathy server now, because some of the links in these pages are now dead, and I have been able to repair these links in the saved copy. In particular, I think readers should be able to see Snoopy's disgraceful essay (http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/lewis-choose-homeopathy.asp) where she tells sick people that real doctors will poison them, mutilate them and relieve them of their lives' savings, therefore they should see an untrained and ignorant homoeopath instead.

I'm waiting for that apology.

Rolfe.

Edited to add link to the original thread on the H'pathy server, because I found it very difficult to track down.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=1716&PN=26

[steenkh]

Sheikh, can you link to a saved copy of the misquotes you make in your sig, which we can verify?

[Rolfe]

Sheikh, can you link to a saved copy of the misquotes you make in your sig, which we can verify?Yes, I want to see the evidence for Sheikh's sig. So far he has provided none at all.

Rolfe.

[The_Fire]

*Backs up Rolfe*
Quiet frankly, this thread, and it's sisterthreads, are giving me a headache but I will also say that I, as a newcomer and a newbie sceptic on these forums, in no way are feeling like I'm being decieved by the links Rolfe have suplied. As such a slur like yours, Dr. Sheikh, against the honour of Rolfe is looking more and more like a desperate attempt at redirecting atention somewhere else than the subject at hand:
1: Evidence that your socalled medicine works
2: A request to explain your signature and it's origins.


Edit: Horrible punctuation. And while we are at it: Equally horrible Spelling.

[Blue Bubble]

How dare you accuse me of deceiving new members! Apologise for that immediately, before I report you to the moderators.

Please Moderators, do NOT ban Dr Sheikh; this would only provide him/her with an easy get-out. I'm sure that's his/her intention (although I just might be attributing too much intelligence ...)



Edited to fix spelling.

[Rolfe]

Oh dear me no, you'd have to do a lot more then that to get banned around here! Rapped knuckles, though, are a different matter.

Rolfe.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

How dare you accuse me of deceiving new members! Apologise for that immediately, before I report you to the moderators.

If you wish you may please report. I will prove it that you wrongly put the link. I was decieved with your provided link. I thought I am reading hpathy forum threads but you traced my IP address with your vetpath domain. This is cheating.

You were not deceived, you saw where the link went. However, even if you had not, in what way would you have been deceived? The saved pages contain exactly the same text as the original pages on the H'pathy server, as has been confirmed, and can be verified by anyone. Therefore, you will now apologise for accusing me of deceiving members.

You know perfectly well that the link in my sig goes to saved copies of the pages because I had believed that the originals had been deleted by the H'pathy admins. And if you don't believe me, I'll find the JREF thread where a member complains to me that the link in my sig (to the original H'pathy url) is dead, and I reply that I'll have to repair it by linking to saved copies of the pages.

And you know that the text on the saved pages is identical to the text on H'pathy, because it turns out that the original pages are still there, only the url had changed.

So, apologise, and withdraw your accusation.

I have explained that I will not change the sig link to lead back the the H'pathy server now, because some of the links in these pages are now dead, and I have been able to repair these links in the saved copy. In particular, I think readers should be able to see Snoopy's disgraceful essay (http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/lewis-choose-homeopathy.asp) where she tells sick people that real doctors will poison them, mutilate them and relieve them of their lives' savings, therefore they should see an untrained and ignorant homoeopath instead.

I'm waiting for that apology.

Rolfe.

Edited to add link to the original thread on the H'pathy server, because I found it very difficult to track down.

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=1716&PN=26

I will never hesitate to applogise first whether I feel I am right in my opinion because I am not coming here to dishonour anybody. But in your case you are cheating in the sense that you have designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members (old or new) who are posting at randi forum. They click at your given signature with the hope that they are clicking on hpathy forum but actually they go to a different site. This was also happend with me. If I had the idea that I may be land on vet site, I will never click on it.

Your members also accepted that you have the habit of designing such traps, just like you did with snoopy.

I think, you should appologize to all members.

[Rolfe]

No, I have no idea what your IP is, and I do not care.

You accused me of deceiving members, when I have deceived nobody. Now please apologise.

Also, note that I did not deceive Snoopy. I didn't even post the case at H'pathy, that was done by a poster called Naturalhealth, as you can easily see. I posted the hypothetical case here, as can be seen from the links, with full explanation of what it was all about. What then happened when Naturalhealth decided to copy that to H'pathy without my permission was no fault of mine.

Maybe some day we can discuss whether you think you can spot life-threatening symptoms reliably enough to tell people to go immediately to a real doctor. But today, I'll settle for an apology.

Rolfe.

[ClusterBoy]

you have designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members (old or new) who are posting at randi forum

What???

the hope that they are clicking on hpathy forum

No. We hope for evidence of assertions, not that we get taken to a particular website. It is up to the person who clicks the link to weigh up the value of the evidence. In this case, a potential misunderstanding happened, an original link was posted as well, allowing us to weigh the evidence again. And it is exactly the same.

[Mojo]

Your members also accepted that you have the habit of designing such traps, just like you did with snoopy. You mean like this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1383554#post1383554)? The irony of that thread was that Rolfe was entirely guiltless in the whole affair; she did not try to bait a trap for the homeopaths to answer. The homeopaths dug the pit, laid the stakes, and fell into the pit all by their own efforts.Can you provide a link to where anyone other than you or the rest of the homoeopaths has claimed that Rolfe is in the habit of designing such traps?

If you can't, you owe Rolfe, and the rest of the forum, another apology.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Please Moderators, do NOT ban Dr Sheikh; this would only provide him/her with an easy get-out. I'm sure that's his/her intention (although I just might be attributing too much intelligence ...)
Edited to fix spelling.

I am not worried about anything. Don't involve administrator in your personal trapping affairs. An administrator is that person who is a impartial judge who will only interefere when you breach any rule. It is rolfe who is breeching the rule by deceiving members to trace the IP addresses of uk based web site when she actually the link is given in the name of hpathy forum. I hope administrator will not become a party over here.

[Mojo]

I take it that homoeopathy is no good at treating paranoia either.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

No, I have no idea what your IP is, and I do not care.

You accused me of deceiving members, when I have deceived nobody. Now please apologise.

Also, note that I did not deceive Snoopy. I didn't even post the case at H'pathy, that was done by a poster called Naturalhealth, as you can easily see. I posted the hypothetical case here, as can be seen from the links, with full explanation of what it was all about. What then happened when Naturalhealth decided to copy that to H'pathy without my permission was no fault of mine.

Maybe some day we can discuss whether you think you can spot life-threatening symptoms reliably enough to tell people to go immediately to a real doctor. But today, I'll settle for an apology.

Rolfe.

who is natural health? a member of randi forum?

[Rolfe]

You mean like this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1383554#post1383554)? Can you provide a link to where anyone other than you or the rest of the homoeopaths has claimed that Rolfe is in the habit of designing such traps?

If you can't, you owe Rolfe, and the rest of the forum, another apology.Oh, one apology will do for all.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

who is natural health? a member of randi forum?Good question.

Now, which forum has the name "Naturalhealth" in its members list? JREF or H'pathy? Surely someone who can see the url of a web site can work this out?

Rolfe.

[The_Fire]

Oh for BOB(tm)'s sake!
Ip tracking?!
I wasn't aware that Paranoia was listed as a qualification of being admitted to ANY medical studie at ANY university in ANY country!
You are sidetracking again, Sheikh!
Now answer the questions or belt up!

[Dr. A Sheikh]

No, I have no idea what your IP is, and I do not care.

But you traced the Ip if you are the owner of the site or your campanion is operating that site.

By the way, who is the owner of the site www.vetpath.co.uk (http://www.vetpath.co.uk) what the owner has relationship with you? Why you or others put the whole thread there?

You accused me of deceiving members, when I have deceived nobody. Now please apologise.

I have been decieved. You cheated with me.

Also, note that I did not deceive Snoopy. I didn't even post the case at H'pathy, that was done by a poster called Naturalhealth, as you can easily see. I posted the hypothetical case here, as can be seen from the links, with full explanation of what it was all about. What then happened when Naturalhealth decided to copy that to H'pathy without my permission was no fault of mine.

You supported natural health by providing link in your signature when he or she did something wrong without your permission then why you provided that link?

Maybe some day we can discuss whether you think you can spot life-threatening symptoms reliably enough to tell people to go immediately to a real doctor. But today, I'll settle for an apology.

Rolfe.

I only suggested to change words of "hpathy" forum. You change your words. I will openly apologize to you. The problem will be solved. No need to involve administrator here. We are not child who cannot solve our issues.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Good question.

Now, which forum has the name "Naturalhealth" in its members list? JREF or H'pathy? Surely someone who can see the url of a web site can work this out?

Rolfe.

natural health could be you. It is so easy to discuss with different names at different forums. Can you provide the sceintific evidence that you are not natural health???

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Oh for BOB(tm)'s sake!
Ip tracking?!
I wasn't aware that Paranoia was listed as a qualification of being admitted to ANY medical studie at ANY university in ANY country!
You are sidetracking again, Sheikh!
Now answer the questions or belt up!

When mojo for the first time objected on my signature in four to five different threads at that time where you were? Why you did not object when he was clearly derailing the topic.

[Metullus]

I will never hesitate to applogise first whether I feel I am right in my opinion because I am not coming here to dishonour anybody. But in your case you are cheating in the sense that you have designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members (old or new) who are posting at randi forum. They click at your given signature with the hope that they are clicking on hpathy forum but actually they go to a different site. This was also happend with me. If I had the idea that I may be land on vet site, I will never click on it.

Your members also accepted that you have the habit of designing such traps, just like you did with snoopy.

I think, you should appologize to all members.
Sir,

Please provide evidence that Rolfe has "designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members (old or new) who are posting at randi forum"

Please provide evidence that "members also accepted that [Rolfe has] the habit of designing such traps, just like [she] did with snoopy."

If you are not able or willing to provide such evidence please withdraw your accusations and apologize to Rolfe.

I do not believe you to be honorable and so I do not expect you to either provide the evidence or to appologize to Rolfe. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Metullus

[Dr. A Sheikh]

[quote=Metullus;1386300]Sir,

Please provide evidence that Rolfe has "designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members (old or new) who are posting at randi forum"

This I have explained in my previous post. The word "Hpathy Forum" is written in her sigature. When I clicked at link, the link was not gone at hpathy forum. Although the word hpathy forum was written on the linked site but that was not hpathy site. 1. she cheated in the sense that she decieved me. 2. she copied the material of hpathy forum (copyright) without their permission 3. she supported that unethetical members who in her sense copied the material without taking her permission. 4. Inspite of this she supported that member by providing the link in her signature.

How many evidence you required?

Please provide evidence that "members also accepted that [Rolfe has] the habit of designing such traps, just like [she] did with snoopy."

This has been explain by randi forum that a game was played with snoopy and she was trapped. Snoopy also admitted that she was trapped with fictitious health case. A case which was not geuinine, on that case, medical advised was asked. Now snoopy might will not provide good advice on geunine case, again unethical. rolfe is the party / person who supported that unethical habit. Non of the other members supported that by putting under signature.

If you are not able or willing to provide such evidence please withdraw your accusations and apologize to Rolfe.

I have provided enough evidence for senisble persons for those who know the meaning of moral obligations and ethics of society. how to discuss and how to treat when you sit in social gathering. I am ready to apologize without any demand. I just make a request, to remove the word "hpathy" in her signature. On rest of the signature it is not my issue. If admin will feel that she is breeching rule then admin will himself contact her.

I do not believe you to be honorable and so I do not expect you to either provide the evidence or to appologize to Rolfe. Feel free to prove me wrong.
clarification is given above follow them.

[Metullus]

Sir,

Please provide evidence that Rolfe has "designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members (old or new) who are posting at randi forum"

This I have explained in my previous post. The word "Hpathy Forum" is written in her sigature. When I clicked at link, the link was not gone at hpathy forum. Although the word hpathy forum was written on the linked site but that was not hpathy site. 1. she cheated in the sense that she decieved me. 2. she copied the material of hpathy forum (copyright) without their permission 3. she supported that unethetical members who in her sense copied the material without taking her permission. 4. Inspite of this she supported that member by providing the link in her signature.

How many evidence you required?
How about evidence that Rolfe "designed a cage to trace the IP addresses of members"? This you do not address in your quoted response.


Please provide evidence that "members also accepted that [Rolfe has] the habit of designing such traps, just like [she] did with snoopy."

This has been explain by randi forum that a game was played with snoopy and she was trapped. Snoopy also admitted that she was trapped with fictitious health case. A case which was not geuinine, on that case, medical advised was asked. Now snoopy might will not provide good advice on geunine case, again unethical. rolfe is the party / person who supported that unethical habit. Non of the other members supported that by putting under signature.

What trap? A question, even a hypothetical scenerio, is not a "trap". Snoopy was provided with a summary of symptoms and asked what her advice and treatment would be. This is in what way a "trap"? This was in what way unethical? Snoppy's responses were hers and hers alone. Was she in any way coerced into responding? Did Rolfe somehow trick her into responding? No.

If you are not able or willing to provide such evidence please withdraw your accusations and apologize to Rolfe.

I have provided enough evidence for senisble persons for those who know the meaning of moral obligations and ethics of society. how to discuss and how to treat when you sit in social gathering. I am ready to apologize without any demand. I just make a request, to remove the word "hpathy" in her signature. On rest of the signature it is not my issue. If admin will feel that she is breeching rule then admin will himself contact her.

You have provided no evidence in support of your accusations.

I do not believe you to be honorable and so I do not expect you to either provide the evidence or to appologize to Rolfe. Feel free to prove me wrong.
clarification is given above follow them.

Your "clarification" includes no evidence in support of your accusations.



edited for punctuation and {QUOTE} issues.

[ClusterBoy]

Dr Sheikh,
1) No she did not. You choose to see it as deception, many other posters here don't think that is the case.
2) Thats possible regarding copyright. i don't know. However, given strong evidence of homeopaths behaving badly, some people like to keep a record of this so they can show other people. The website could have chosen to remove the thread, it could have been lost to the mists of time. I should imagien that is why a copy was made
3) No. At no point, according to any of the links i have seen, and there have been a few (though none from you), did Rolfe condone this behaviour
4) Again, no. She has merely shown you where evidence can be found backing up her claims about homeopaths. Not claims about people laying traps. Not about anything else, except exactly what she is referring to.

[Ducky]

Paranoia and sidetracking aside, can you in fact spot life threatening symptoms, Dr. Sheikh?

If so, how about an excersize? I will give you specific and very real presenting symptoms of a very real and specific medical case. You tell me what the diagnosis and prognosis is. Deal?

I'll make it easy.

Here are the symptoms:

loss of appetite, fatigue, muscle weakness, restlessness, chronic pain in back and ribs.

Those were the real presenting symptoms of a 28 year old white male with no history of systemic disease in family.

What's the diagnosis?


ETA: This should be a no brainer.

[Rolfe]

I only suggested to change words of "hpathy" forum. You change your words. I will openly apologize to you. The problem will be solved. No need to involve administrator here. We are not child who cannot solve our issues.I am going to change no words in my sig. What is in my sig is true, and the exact circumstances can be read from the link, protected from deletion by the H'pathy admins. Long may all Snoopy's patients continue to be hypothetical. Now, how about some backup for the statements in your sig?But you traced the Ip if you are the owner of the site or your campanion is operating that site.Please provide evidence that I or anyone known to me has traced your IP. I have no interest whatsoever in your IP, even if it were possible for me to trace it, which I simply do not know.

For your information, posting links to sites I control is much more likely to allow you to trace my identity than the other way around. But then, I don't care because I have nothing to hide. Have you got something to hide, Sheikh?By the way, who is the owner of the site www.vetpath.co.uk what the owner has relationship with you? Why you or others put the whole thread there?The ownership of the site is for you to find out, please do if you feel so inclined. I already told you why those pages were put on that domain. And if there is any copyright question, that is up to H'pathy to complain about, it is nothing to do with you.

(But hey guys, Sheikh did me a favour. That domain has two quite different web sites on it, plus I park some pages I want to link to, such as those H'pathy pages. I had never thought about what one might find if one clicked on the bare link as given above. In fact it gets a page that I shouldn't be displaying, which was accidentally left there when some pages were rearranged. I must go and fix that. .... Ah, that's better.)I have been decieved. You cheated with me.How were you deceived? How did I cheat you?

I have neither deceived nor cheated you. I posted a link to the evidence that what I said in my sig was true. You might try that some time. It has now been shown independently that every word on that page is exactly as on the original. I insist you apologise for accusing me of cheating and deceiving.You supported natural health by providing link in your signature when he or she did something wrong without your permission then why you provided that link?How can you say that my link is supporting Naturalhealth? She behaved very badly and the link proves that. In the linked page, I criticise her very strongly.And by the way, have you thought at all about "Naturalhealth", who used to have a sig with a couple of lay-person homoeopathic diplomas listed, but has more recently started claiming to be a real qualified doctor, with a diploma only available to qualified doctors? I think accepting that she's lying is more charitable than imagining that a real doctor could so totally miss the significance of a list of classic symptoms of a life-threatening disease copied straight from a text-book. Do you approve of people on your site claiming qualifications they don't have, in their sig lines no less?

Oh, I just noticed your rule 5. "We would also appreciate, if all members can add their qualification/Occupation and/or real name to their signatures. This is not compulsory but will help to create a more professional atmosphere in the long run." What do you think about someone adding a qualification she doesn't actually have?If you want to know about Naturalhealth, it's a long story.

She came here calling herself Homeoskeptic, telling a pack of lies about being a man whose wife was dabbling in homoeopathy. Read all about it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=20649). However, be warned that the truth doesn't emerge until quite a long way into the thread. Later, she started to claim to be a qualified doctor, but she made a mistake about what qualifications she should be claiming to have. That is all documented as well (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=564684#post564684). Once she had that sorted out she changed her sig at H'pathy to (falsely) claim these qualifications there too.

Some little time later she re-registered here as Corallinus, and this identity was later banned because as you know you are not allowed to have two identities here. However, it was as Corallinus that she boasted here about having posted my Addison's case over at H'pathy. Quite openly. In fact she started a thread about it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25571). Can you still imagine that I might be Naturalhealth, reading that little lot?

Neither Homeoskeptic nor Corallinus has posted here for some time. If you look at Sarah-I, however, you may note an uncanny similarity of both literary style and argument.

Now, about that apology....

(Actually, just provide evidence for the statement in your sig, or delete it. That will be quite enough.)

Rolfe.

[Zep]

Talking of deception and cheating, Sheikh, why do I get the strongest impression that you sound just like our "friend" Dr. MAS? The wording and the subject and even the posting style (with the coloured fonts, etc) all certainly bear a strong resemblance... Does the acronym "MAS" involve the word "Sheikh", perhaps?

If you are, of course, you do know the rules about sock-puppets here? (We will probably have to explain that term, of course.)

[Rolfe]

Oh God, not that again! Yes, the're all the same, the MAS collective is one poster, but who cares apart from the admins?

On the other hand, this thread has irretrievably deteriorated anyway, maybe we can get it moved to AAH too.

Sheikh, provide evidence that you are not MAS. And Non-sense Homeopath. And the rest of them.

Rolfe.

[Metullus]

I think they are all Zep. Can't prove it though.

[Mojo]

Oh God, not that again! Yes, the're all the same, the MAS collective is one poster, but who cares apart from the admins? I wouldn't be so sure about this. In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50601) someone using the Dr. Sheikh account seems to be claiming that the threads the account spammed the forum with were not started by him.

[The_Fire]

When mojo for the first time objected on my signature in four to five different threads at that time where you were? Why you did not object when he was clearly derailing the topic.

?!
Did you by any chance notice my signup date?!
Now answer the ****** questions!

[The_Fire]

I wouldn't be so sure about this. In board wond let fire post urls for another couple of posts this thread, someone using the Dr. Sheikh account seems to be claiming that the threads the account spammed the forum with were not started by him.

That sound suspiciously like something I've encountered on other boards after someone had backed themselves into a corner....what was it again....oh yes:
"My kidbrother used my account to alienate the entire board. Can we please start over?" or something to the same effect. Unfortunately the twit used the same spelling mistakes as the "alleged" kid brother........
I'm go to reserve the right to being suspicious about this.......

[Mojo]

You mean a bit like saying (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1027043#post1027043) "please keep in mind that for my assistant it is very easy to use my log in identity to send posts at JREF forum under my real name Dr. MAS and for you to recognize my dummy posts is very difficult if he does not write his real name but if this happens then this would be a great fraud and my inner conscious does not permit me to adopt this technique where my assistant is sending posts under my name and people are not aware of this fact that they are discussing not with me but with my camouflage assistant in the form of disguise Dr. MAS"?

[Zep]

I think they are all Zep. Can't prove it though.Not f**king likely!

[The_Fire]

You mean a bit like saying "please keep in mind that for my assistant it is very easy to use my log in identity to send posts at JREF forum under my real name Dr. MAS and for you to recognize my dummy posts is very difficult if he does not write his real name but if this happens then this would be a great fraud and my inner conscious does not permit me to adopt this technique where my assistant is sending posts under my name and people are not aware of this fact that they are discussing not with me but with my camouflage assistant in the form of disguise Dr. MAS"?

eh......My linguistic centre just shut down....
*Squints at mojos post*
You are evil....
Ok, I think I got it...
Yeah. Something like that. Only in much simpler language......And Dr. MAS would be wise NOT to send out email/forum posts in a public arena and change his password every week like the rest of us security freaks...

Again: Url from mojos original post removed due to rights issues...

[MRC_Hans]

"Dr. Sheikh has succeeded in totally derailing this and other threads here.

Sheikh, I don't give a damn about your signature (it just demonstrates what a fool you are, anyway), and I don't give a damn about what you feel about Rolfe's signature, if you don't like it, sue her.

Now, how about addressing the real subjects here? You were going on about how high-potency remedies had active substance in them....

Hans

[Dr. A Sheikh]

?!
Did you by any chance notice my signup date?!
Now answer the ****** questions!

you have given your clarification. I do accept.

But your logic is wrong. There might be lot of members who have registered with duplicate alias and not posting at the moment, they wait for suitable time to appear.

[anor277]

you have given your clarification. I do accept.

But your logic is wrong. There might be lot of members who have registered with duplicate alias and not posting at the moment, they wait for suitable time to appear.


If you suspect someone is using a sock-puppet then report them to the administrators; include the reasons for your suspicion.

[The_Fire]

you have given your clarification. I do accept.

But your logic is wrong. There might be lot of members who have registered with duplicate alias and not posting at the moment, they wait for suitable time to appear.
Exactly WHAT are you accusing me off, Sheikh?
ANd you still haven't answered the questions!

[Metullus]

Not f**king likely!
Hey, it was just a theory...

mumblemumblegrumblegrumble...

[Metullus]

If you suspect someone is using a sock-puppet then report them to the administrators; include the reasons for your suspicion.
Someone besides Zep. He's a mite bit tetchy for some reason.

[Dr. MAS]

Sheikh sahib is not me. He is famous homeopath of Pakistan. He is also using his real name at net. If you have anyother point to discuss then come in front. Otherwise don't waste our time.

Question: What we have to prove? Justify your demand with evidence?

[Mojo]

Question: What we have to prove? For the JREF challenge, you have to prove that there is a difference between a homoeopathic preparation of over, say, 13c and the stock solvent used in its preparation. You would need to agree an actual test protocol with them, not with people posting on their forum. You have already been provided with contact details and links to information about the challenge.

Of course, this would not actually prove that homoeopathy works, so it would also be nice if you could prove via properly controlled and blinded tests that homoeopathic treatment produces better results than a placebo treatment.

[drfrank]

Well I hope Sheikh doesn't have any problem with the quote from him I use in my signature ;)

[Nucular]

Otherwise don't waste our time.
Strange, my equipment is going haywire.

:i: :bs:

Question: What we have to prove? Justify your demand with evidence?
What Mojo said.

Though why you want to prove anything when you've already won the million is confusing me - you have won the JREF million dollars, right MAS?

Cos if you haven't, there's a lie about you springing up on the internet, which I'd respond to if I were you.

[Dr. MAS]

Anything left that is yet to proove?

[steenkh]

Anything left that is yet to proove?
Now that you have given up trying to prove that Avogadro's limit does not hold for homoeopathy, you could try proving that there is a difference between a homoeopathic preparation above 12C and the corresponding stock solvent.

[Dr. MAS]

For the JREF challenge, you have to prove that there is a difference between a homoeopathic preparation of over, say, 13c and the stock solvent used in its preparation. You would need to agree an actual test protocol with them, not with people posting on their forum. You have already been provided with contact details and links to information about the challenge.

Of course, this would not actually prove that homoeopathy works, so it would also be nice if you could prove via properly controlled and blinded tests that homoeopathic treatment produces better results than a placebo treatment.

We will only prove that thing which we claim. ;)

we do not claim what you have written in your post.

We claim homeopathic potencies available in the market for treatment purpose have starting material otherthan the solvent. Avogadros law is not applicable in the right way as you are applying on the potencies which are available in the shops for sale.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Mojo:
For the JREF challenge, you have to prove that there is a difference between a homoeopathic preparation of over, say, 13c and the stock solvent used in its preparation. You would need to agree an actual test protocol with them, not with people posting on their forum. You have already been provided with contact details and links to information about the challenge.

Of course, this would not actually prove that homoeopathy works, so it would also be nice if you could prove via properly controlled and blinded tests that homoeopathic treatment produces better results than a placebo treatment.
We will only prove that thing which we claim. ;)

we do not claim what you have written in your post. So you are now stating that you do not claim either that there is a difference between a high potency (i.e. over 13c) homoeopathic preparation and the solvent used to prepare it, or that homoeopathy works. Those are the two claims that I suggested you prove in the post you quoted.

What are you trying to prove?

[Mojo]

We claim homeopathic potencies available in the market for treatment purpose have starting material otherthan the solvent. Avogadros law is not applicable in the right way as you are applying on the potencies which are available in the shops for sale.It appears from this that you are merely claiming that there are homoeopathic products on the market that are incompetently prepared. This may well be true, but it doesn't help your case. If anything, it makes you look even more of a quack than you did already.

[MRC_Hans]

We will only prove that thing which we claim. ;)

we do not claim what you have written in your post.

We claim homeopathic potencies available in the market for treatment purpose have starting material otherthan the solvent. Avogadros law is not applicable in the right way as you are applying on the potencies which are available in the shops for sale.I'm sure you are right. There will be lots of stuff in them, as there is not likely to be a single homeopathic pharmacy in the world capable of producing an unadulterated 12C remedy (in fact I doubt there is such a lab at all).

Now, since we got that aside, are you claiming that the effect of homeopathic remedies rests on the random contaminations that will exist in all of them?

Hans

[juninho]

Sheikh sahib is not me. He is famous homeopath of Pakistan. He is also using his real name at net. If you have anyother point to discuss then come in front. Otherwise don't waste our time.

Question: What we have to prove? Justify your demand with evidence?

Famous? Are you sure?

A quick google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=pakistan+homeopathy+&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=dr.+a+sheikh&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images) suggests otherwise. All the hits either point to this forum or the nch forum. Me thinks you are trolling yet again.

[steenkh]

We claim homeopathic potencies available in the market for treatment purpose have starting material otherthan the solvent. Avogadros law is not applicable in the right way as you are applying on the potencies which are available in the shops for sale.
So, if you do claim that homoeopathic remedies are different from stock solvent, then could you please tell us the influence that manufacturing method has on this? If a remedy is produced with the Hahnemannian method with new glasses for every step and as much care as possilbe to avoid contamination, will that remedy not be as effective as remedies produced with the Korsakov method, with lots of contaminants?

[Mojo]

Famous? Are you sure?Perhaps he means "infamous".

[Mojo]

So, if you do claim that homoeopathic remedies are different from stock solvent Actually, he has stated quite clearly that he doesn't claim this: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1404943#post1404943 Originally Posted by Dr. MAS:
Originally Posted by Mojo:
For the JREF challenge, you have to prove that there is a difference between a homoeopathic preparation of over, say, 13c and the stock solvent used in its preparation.

... We will only prove that thing which we claim.

we do not claim what you have written in your post.

[steenkh]

Mojo, if he does not claim that there is any difference between the remedy and the stock solvent, it must include the healing effect, right? So ... the stock solvent cures just as well as the remedy!

MAS, do you agree?

[Mojo]

Mojo, if he does not claim that there is any difference between the remedy and the stock solvent, it must include the healing effect, right? Yes, that's what I thought. At least, that's what he seems to be claiming at the moment. He also, in the same post, indicated that he doesn't claim that homoeopathy actually works.

[steenkh]

He also, in the same post, indicated that he doesn't claim that homoeopathy actually works.
Indirectly, it is true :) Though I am not sure that we could make him admit it openly!

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Famous? Are you sure?

A quick google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=pakistan+homeopathy+&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=dr.+a+sheikh&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images) suggests otherwise. All the hits either point to this forum or the nch forum. Me thinks you are trolling yet again.

Hint: unless you know what "A" is stand for, google will not give you anything. Ask to administrator he knows everything. :p

[Nucular]

Hint: unless you know what "A" is stand for, google will not give you anything. Ask to administrator he knows everything. :p
Annoying? Amoral? Absurd? Aardvark? Oh do tell.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

No problem. ;)

[Nucular]

Go on then. ;)

[steenkh]

What about "Abbas"?

[anor277]

What about "Abbas"?

That's the shrewdest guess I've heard.

[Mojo]

Well, I've posted this before, but here goes: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/1409.html

Warning: long legal judgment, of which you only need to see the name of the claimant.

[Dr. MAS]

What about "Abbas"?

Who is abbas?

Is he the memebr of randi forum?

[Jeff Corey]

Well, I've posted this before, but here goes: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/1409.html

Warning: long legal judgment, of which you only need to see the name of the claimant.
Anal Sheikh?

[steenkh]

Who is abbas?

Is he the memebr of randi forum?
Or is he a member of the NCH forum who happens to repost posts from this forum made by Sheikh (http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=569&hl=)?

[Mojo]

Anal Sheikh?Sheikh, baby, Sheikh.

We ain't feikhin', whole lotta sheikhin' goin' on.

[Mojo]

Anal Sheikh?Why not? There's a preacher called Oral.

[juninho]

Hint: unless you know what "A" is stand for, google will not give you anything. Ask to administrator he knows everything. :p

Ok then, I was only taking Dr MAS's (your) word for it that you post here under your real name.

Mind you, there is a Dr Sheikh homeopath in Pakistan here (http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/colleagues/pakistan_1202.html)

I can understand now, no wonder you are disinclined to think critically about anything that crosses your path, you could end up on death row. Not only that, he is a homeopath AND called Dr Sheikh as well. If you ever emigrate perhaps you can "come clean" about what you really believe. My thoughts are with you brother.

BTW: I like the bit about "Mubarik Ahmad, friend of Dr. Sheikh, reports that he visited Dr. Sheikh in his death row cell on December 2, 2002. He reports that Dr. Sheikh is having problems with his eyes and teeth due to his diabetes. Mr. Ahmad told Dr. Sheikh about his visit to the PHR office in September." Couldn't he have smuggled in some water, er sorry, homeopathic remedies to help him with his condition?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Anal Sheikh?

enjoy yourself, we will not leave the forum unless you will ask to do so.

[steenkh]

That is OK, you are welcome to stay. We all like a bit of fun now and then.

But we really would enjoy it even more if you would engage in serious discussion and not shirk away when you do not have an answer.