Challenged to a debate. Nah. I'm good. Besides, Moffie, you can always post here.


I believe that anyone with the interest and the time to kill could read back through our posts and see that you and I have debated this issue repeatedly. I'm sure you feel that you came out on top since you're still here cranking out the woo and I'm on my blog and elsewhere more than I am here. Works for me.

The truth is certainly the truth, but your "truth" is nowhere near mine nor many who are interested in objective science. Since that's true of many people relating to many things, there's not much you can do at the individual level. You believe what you believe and nothing is going to change that. So, not much opportunity for personal growth there, is there? Just a condensing of bitterness.

No, I'm not interested in debating you. Why on earth would I want to be beat my head against a brick wall? I decided I had better uses of my time than to spend my time pointing out just how factually incorrect your posts are on so many things and that if people agreed with you, well, heck, good for them. You wake up with your purpose; I wake up with mine, and I'm just fine that they don't intersect at all.


1 comment:

Liz Ditz said...

I concur with your decision not to debate this Marsha person. Debating implies two reasonable positions in discussion. The "anti-vaccination" and "vaccinations are somehow implicated in autism" positions are not reasonable.