Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Via the placebo effect, unfortunately. Not that that's not a useful outcome, just a shame to you to spend enough money to trigger it.

Not to say what you're referring to is just the placebo effect (I wouldn't know), why do you downers always poo-poo the placebo effect?

wher did he poo-poo it?

He specifically said that the effect is useful - "Not that that's not a useful outcome"?

You really should try to make your dis-info less obviously trolling than this!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
You really think there is a big market for chemtrail DVDs and T-shirts?

combined with advertising, speaking engagements, sponsorship and the like - absolutely.

You don't make money from advertising, you spend money on advertising.

Yeah, especially since I'm interested in the subject myself and have absolutely no intention of spending money on it, what a great idea for making money. Whoever came up with that one was a real genius.

Have you ever considered people might actually have a legitimate concern?

Yes I have considered wherther their concern is legitimate, and I believe it is not.

It probably is genuine however - that is how they have been sucked in - they firmly believe the hoax.

Well your first sentence was more honest -- you believe it isn't a legitimate concern.

The step between that and really being able to outright call all this a "hoax," doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Btw why would the FDA go out of its way to take all of someone's work on this subject and burn it all?

Maybe so that gullible people wouldn't use crystals and copper pipe instead of real medicine for their medical problems?

Oh good grief. There are bazillions of "quack" purveyors with plenty of books to be had - but the FDA does NOT burn them. I would say They would only BURN books that had information They didn't want out.

Sorry for offering an explanation. Do you have any record of them destroying his works? Because there sure is a lot of information available about him, I guess they missed all of that?

ETA: Ever seen the warning label on 'quack' remedies that the FDA issues?


ETA 2: Did a little research, the FDA regulates devices and books that make unsubstantiated medical claims. That would include orgone energy for healing. Case Closed.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
wher did he poo-poo it?

He specifically said that the effect is useful - "Not that that's not a useful outcome"?

I missed the second "not," but at least you aren't automatically poo-poo'ing the "placebo effect" like you are everything else here.

You really should try to make your dis-info less obviously trolling than this!

Speak for yourself man, I could do without these comments.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
You really think there is a big market for chemtrail DVDs and T-shirts?

combined with advertising, speaking engagements, sponsorship and the like - absolutely.

You don't make money from advertising, you spend money on advertising.

a website gets money from the advertising it carries

come on dude - make the trolling less obvious - just a little.... please??!!

you should really do some research on "orgone energy" eg spiritual energy...so cloudbusting with the holy spirit in a tube? or whatever. Seems like crack pot theory 101. look it up thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
Seems like crack pot theory 101. look it up thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience.

Not hardly. You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?

Maybe I should point out again, that a lack of evidence, is not positive evidence to the contrary. It's just a vacuum of evidence, period. I didn't claim I had proven its existence in the first place. If you want to claim it's been debunked, put up or shut up.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CaDreamer
Seems like crack pot theory 101. look it up thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience.

Not hardly. You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?

AFAIK the lack of legitimacy has been proven over and over again by the failure of anyone to produce any ascientific evidence (ie verifiable, repeatable, etc) that orgone exists.

So yeah - I guess you were asleep on the job there.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
AFAIK the lack of legitimacy has been proven over and over again

You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for sharing this, I have never heard of Orgone energy and find it very interesting, Star and Flag!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
AFAIK the lack of legitimacy has been proven over and over again

You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.

No - I mean lack of legitimacy - which was the term you used in the post I quoted.

Orgone is not legitimate science because it does not meet the requirements of legitimate science.

Yet again you have a problem with the meanings of words!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.

No - I mean lack of legitimacy - which was the term you used in the post I quoted.

"Legitimacy" is scientifically meaningless.

Orgone is not legitimate science because it does not meet the requirements of legitimate science.

And I didn't claim that it was a legitimate (rigorously proven) science.

Once again, not being proven, is different than being positively refuted.

This is amazing and i will continue on this quest until i am able to get the clouds out of my area. S&F

No! No! Clouds are good to look at and bring rain, which is good too. I don't like the idea of rain clouds being busted up too much. All life (plants, animals, people, etc.) need rain/water, you know.

Originally posted by pikypiky
No! No! Clouds are good to look at and bring rain, which is good too. I don't like the idea of rain clouds being busted up too much. All life (plants, animals, people, etc.) need rain/water, you know.

If you look at the OP again, Reich was actually able to generate rain during a drought in Maine when none had been forecast. He took up some farmers' offer to accomplish this and was actually paid for it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.

No - I mean lack of legitimacy - which was the term you used in the post I quoted.

"Legitimacy" is scientifically meaningless.

It is a term you used - do you want to change your story again now?

Orgone is not legitimate science because it does not meet the requirements of legitimate science.

And I didn't claim that it was a legitimate (rigorously proven) science.

And I didn't say that you did - perhaps you should go read what you wrote.

You claimed, and I quote:

You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?

And I said yes - it has proved that it isn't legitmate.

Once again, not being proven, is different than being positively refuted.[

And if you were as clever as you think you are you would have noticed that I didn't actually say anything at all about it being refuted.

Now come on - I've already asked you to up the ante on your trolling - it's really geting rather too obvious....good trolling should be quite a lote more suble.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It is a term you used - do you want to change your story again now?

I'm not changing my story, I'm reacting/responding to your constant weaseling.

And I didn't claim that it was a legitimate (rigorously proven) science.

And I didn't say that you did - perhaps you should go read what you wrote.

Right, first you say you aren't challenging what I said then you tell me to read my own posts about it.

You claimed, and I quote:

You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?

And I said yes - it has proved that it isn't legitmate.

If you want to split hairs, I said the idea of orgone, not the science of orgone. Have you refuted the idea of orgone or not?

Once again, not being proven, is different than being positively refuted.[

And if you were as clever as you think you are you would have noticed that I didn't actually say anything at all about it being refuted.

That's not what it looks like to me. You are constantly playing words games to make it seem as though you have refuted something which you really haven't.

Now come on - I've already asked you to up the ante on your trolling - it's really geting rather too obvious....good trolling should be quite a lote more suble.

The only trolling is going on on your end.

You can't prove a negative and you're pissed about it.