More commentary on Jobs and idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48*pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. *The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead.
At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more
targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of
effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you
actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only
to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."


Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48*pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. *The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's dead.
At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really, more
targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the list of
effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you
actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve only
to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."

Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he
means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over
another lie in prevention.

I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ...

He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got
it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he
talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's
dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really,
more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the
list of effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you
actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve
only to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."

Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he
means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over
another lie in prevention.

I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ...

He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got
it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he
talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'?

I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the
object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure."

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's
dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really,
more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the
list of effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what you
actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve
only to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."

Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that he
means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over
another lie in prevention.

But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning
of what he wrote.

I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ...

He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got
it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is he
talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'?

I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is the
object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure."

As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you
get it. You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if
food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you
get the food.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as
well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's
dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really,
more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the
list of effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what
you actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve
only to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."

Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that
he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over
another lie in prevention.

But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning
of what he wrote.

I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ...

He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got
it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is
he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'?

I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is
the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure."

As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you
get it.

True. The "once you've got it" was unnecessary, I agree with you.

You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if
food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you
get the food.

Right, but he wasn't saying about about that.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:03:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as
well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's
dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really,
more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the
list of effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what
you actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve
only to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."

Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that
he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over
another lie in prevention.

But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning
of what he wrote.

I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ...

He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got
it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is
he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'?

I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is
the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure."

As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you
get it.

True. The "once you've got it" was unnecessary, I agree with you.

You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if
food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you
get the food.

Right, but he wasn't saying about about that.

He has two subjects in the sentence (food and cancer) but gives no
clue as to which one the 'it' applies.

My wife does this to me. She talks about two of her friends and then
says 'she said' leaving me guessing as to which 'she' she is
referring.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:20:25 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:45:27 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:03:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:35:32 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:10:20 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:47:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:48 pm, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:29:13 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Quacks. The whole supplement industry is a massive sham as
well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinio...ndex.html?hpt=...

"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."

Nothing will cure cancer before you have got it.

Food won't cure cancer before you have got food.

What are you really trying to say?

That Jobs ignored conventional, proven treatment, thought a
"macrobiotic (what is this, 1975??) diet" could work, and he's
dead. At least he admitted he made a mistake.
The only things that work on cancer are surgery, radiation and
chemotherapy. There are some therapies on the horizon (really,
more targeted forms of chemotherapy) that might be added to the
list of effective measures.
All the rest is crap thought up by witch doctors and quacks.

You didn't understand my point any more than you understood what
you actually wrote in your header.

Your final words "once you've got it" were unnecessary and serve
only to confuse your meaning.

Consider
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got it."
versus
"... idiots who think food can cure cancer."

Choice of the word "cure" aside, I think it's fairly obvious that
he means that any cancer-related advantages to one food choice over
another lie in prevention.

But he never actually wrote that. You are changing around the meaning
of what he wrote.

I'm in danger of being a net-nanny but, ...

He said "... idiots who think food can cure cancer once you've got
it." without ever stopping to define what he means by 'it'. What is
he talking about? 'Food', or 'cancer'?

I don't think his meaning is unclear. "cancer once you've got it" is
the object; it is what "(idiots who think) food can cure."

As I have already pointed out, you can't cure an ailment before you
get it.

True. The "once you've got it" was unnecessary, I agree with you.

You may be able to prevent it but you can't cure it. Nor, if
food is a cure, can you use the food to cure the ailment before you
get the food.

Right, but he wasn't saying about about that.

He has two subjects in the sentence (food and cancer) but gives no
clue as to which one the 'it' applies.

My wife does this to me. She talks about two of her friends and then
says 'she said' leaving me guessing as to which 'she' she is
referring.

I'll have to take your word for how your wife speaks (my mom has often
used pronouns before even mentioning the person by name) but with the
case at hand I have to wonder if it's your habit to try and parse
every sentence out-of-context, or at best limit the context to what's
been said in the current conversation or, in this case, the current
post.

The sentence is the title of the thread and sets the context, or
hadn't you noticed.

I must admit I'm reacting to junk journalism where spelling,
puctuation and grammar works against understanding what the author is
actually getting at. The heading RichA chose for his thread is a
classic example of writing by someone who doesn't know how to express
what they are thinking. What was he thinking?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2011-10-30 02:14:21 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

Le Snip
The sentence is the title of the thread and sets the context, or
hadn't you noticed.

I must admit I'm reacting to junk journalism where spelling,
puctuation and grammar works against understanding what the author is
actually getting at. The heading RichA chose for his thread is a
classic example of writing by someone who doesn't know how to express
what they are thinking. What was he thinking?

What Rich was thinking was, this was a way to call Jobs an idiot, when
all he actually did was to make yet another statement confirming his
own character flaws.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-10-30 08:45:58 -0700, John A. said:

Le Snip

I also noticed the larger context, bearing in mind what was being
written about, and figured out, without even thinking about it much,
or even consciously, what was meant.

Are you also confused by such sentences as "Abraham Lincoln wrote the
Gettysburg Address while traveling on the back of an envelope"?

Aaaagh!

....and that is a trule demonstration of fractured syntax, illuminating
the ignorance of the writer, rather than the interpretive skills of the
reader.


Conversation and extemporaneous writing, such as on usenet, are full
of such sub-optimally formed sentences. That's life. Most of us learn
to deal with it and go with the default sensible meaning. If you're
having trouble doing that intuitively, try not using strict parsing
logic but rather applying some Bayesian inference. (That's what's
apparently going on subconsciously in the rest of us, from what I've
heard of recent research.) Do we all get it at first glance every
time? No, of course not. But we look again and figure it out pretty
quickly and move on.

However, sometimes the error is excruciatingly painful, confusing,
deliberately misleading, not excusable and should be addressed.


--
Regards,

Savageduck