Login

Join for Free!
116769 members


The Fiber Disease

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Frank N Stein » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:40 pm

Frank N Stein wrote:Well this one must not be all that weak Sabrina. Why don't you go ahead and answer it. Consider it practice for your deposition
Sabrina wrote:Do you have any proof about your theory on tamtam?


OK, that’s a fair question. Let’s look at what is considered as proof in objective scientific analysis. In logical and scientific analysis, a known object of study is observed and measured for data which define a set characteristics, which in turn support a conclusion. There are many sets of observation which are considered valid. Not all data sets are composed of visible data.

An example of this is atomic observation. No one has seen an atom. Yet we know it exists because of its behavioral characteristics. We know how atoms behave, and therefore draw conclusions based upon their behavior. If one group of atoms behave in one manner, and another group behaves in another manner, we can then categorize them by their behavioral characteristics. We can’t see atoms, but we know from the data characteristics that they display what they are, and how they will effect our environment.

Tam Tam can be evaluated in the same manner. Once again here is a set of known data that defines the conclusions that I have made about Tam Tam.

1) Tam Tam composed an elaborate thesis, but failed to validate it with requested data for over a year. A logical conclusion is that he may be lying, and therefore has no data to support his thesis.
2) Tam Tam operated a very expensive, high bandwidth, web site with no visible means of paying the bill. When questioned about this, Tam Tam stated that he has received funding from investors in the “French Nose & Co.” investment company which does not exist. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is once again lying, and that he is making money to pay his bill from some other source.
3) Tam Tam’s web site used a very professional, and expensive video presentation to capture a target audience, and led them to believe that he had identified the source of their problem, but did not disclose what the source was. The web page then invited the audience to create a “user login” where it is assumed that the audience will gain greater site privileges, and be given more information. After submitting the personal information, the audience finds that there are no more privileges or information beyond that which has already been given on the first and only page. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is using the video presentation to lure people to submit personal information, which he compiles and sells to data mining companies at a profit.

Now there is your data which is acceptable by scientific methodology. These three simple sets of data lead to a conclusion that Tam Tam is nothing more than a common spammer based upon behavioral characteristics. To reach a different conclusion, you would have to include different data. Tam Tam has been asked to provide data which would offset the balance of data displayed here, but has refused to do so.

Now I have answered your question by basing my conclusion upon scientific methodology.

Now I have a question for you, and will continue to ask this same question of you until you provide a valid answer that is also based upon scientific methodology.

Sabrina, what data can you provide that will indicate that Tam Tam is a valid microbiological researcher who has discovered that the source of the morgellons infection is a man made bacterium, that forms intelligent proteins within us, and is assembling insect parts within our bodies?

We will each go one question at a time here, and will not proceed to the next question until each has submitted a valid, objective answer. This is the biology-online.org scientific forum, not the USA Today entertainment forum.
Frank N Stein
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 pm

Postby southcity » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:53 pm

and what would you tell the kids with sores on their skin, and yell out "BUGS, BUGS" as they frantically scratch their skin and look at you for answers? better yet what would you have to say to the various state and federal health monitoring agencies who at best are moving at a snails rate on this problem? if anyone does kill themselves out of fear of contagion, it would be logical to blame the likes of the CDC,NIH,CFID, for their lack of vigilance and lack of competancy, would it not?

you're comments about this have exposed you as not having this illness, so whose pocket are you in Frank?
Southcity


"First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
southcity
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: bay area, ca

Postby southcity » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:00 pm

anyone who has read anything I've written knows that I sign my name with a quote from Ghandi, and it does now appear that many have stopped laughing and now want to fight. however, this is another fight they will not win, so bring it on Frank, and all you other asshole frank wannabe's. it will be good watching you squirm as you are taken down and exposed for whatever or whoever it is that is providing the drive and motivation behind you're current efforts.
Southcity


"First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
southcity
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: bay area, ca


Postby Frank N Stein » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:10 pm

southcity wrote:and what would you tell the kids with sores on their skin, and yell out "BUGS, BUGS" as they frantically scratch their skin and look at you for answers? better yet what would you have to say to the various state and federal health monitoring agencies who at best are moving at a snails rate on this problem? if anyone does kill themselves out of fear of contagion, it would be logical to blame the likes of the CDC,NIH,CFID, for their lack of vigilance and lack of competancy, would it not?

you're comments about this have exposed you as not having this illness, so whose pocket are you in Frank?


I would tell those kid's parents to get a good lawyer and subpoena lunarpages and the "Tam Enterprise."

I would tell them that this thread is archived on both the biology-online.org server, and on several of our machines as well.

I would tell them that if they have suffered any psychological injury from the Tam Scam claim that they have insects growing inside of them, they should have no problem cleaning up.

The only way they can lose is if Tam Tam's claims are valid, in which case they win anyway because they will then know what the source of the infection is.

How's that grab ya scam boy?
Frank N Stein
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 pm

Postby Frank N Stein » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:12 pm

Frank N Stein wrote:Here's your copy scamcity, go ahead, ring the bell and win the prize
Sabrina wrote:Do you have any proof about your theory on tamtam?


OK, that’s a fair question. Let’s look at what is considered as proof in objective scientific analysis. In logical and scientific analysis, a known object of study is observed and measured for data which define a set characteristics, which in turn support a conclusion. There are many sets of observation which are considered valid. Not all data sets are composed of visible data.

An example of this is atomic observation. No one has seen an atom. Yet we know it exists because of its behavioral characteristics. We know how atoms behave, and therefore draw conclusions based upon their behavior. If one group of atoms behave in one manner, and another group behaves in another manner, we can then categorize them by their behavioral characteristics. We can’t see atoms, but we know from the data characteristics that they display what they are, and how they will effect our environment.

Tam Tam can be evaluated in the same manner. Once again here is a set of known data that defines the conclusions that I have made about Tam Tam.

1) Tam Tam composed an elaborate thesis, but failed to validate it with requested data for over a year. A logical conclusion is that he may be lying, and therefore has no data to support his thesis.
2) Tam Tam operated a very expensive, high bandwidth, web site with no visible means of paying the bill. When questioned about this, Tam Tam stated that he has received funding from investors in the “French Nose & Co.” investment company which does not exist. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is once again lying, and that he is making money to pay his bill from some other source.
3) Tam Tam’s web site used a very professional, and expensive video presentation to capture a target audience, and led them to believe that he had identified the source of their problem, but did not disclose what the source was. The web page then invited the audience to create a “user login” where it is assumed that the audience will gain greater site privileges, and be given more information. After submitting the personal information, the audience finds that there are no more privileges or information beyond that which has already been given on the first and only page. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is using the video presentation to lure people to submit personal information, which he compiles and sells to data mining companies at a profit.

Now there is your data which is acceptable by scientific methodology. These three simple sets of data lead to a conclusion that Tam Tam is nothing more than a common spammer based upon behavioral characteristics. To reach a different conclusion, you would have to include different data. Tam Tam has been asked to provide data which would offset the balance of data displayed here, but has refused to do so.

Now I have answered your question by basing my conclusion upon scientific methodology.

Now I have a question for you, and will continue to ask this same question of you until you provide a valid answer that is also based upon scientific methodology.

Sabrina, what data can you provide that will indicate that Tam Tam is a valid microbiological researcher who has discovered that the source of the morgellons infection is a man made bacterium, that forms intelligent proteins within us, and is assembling insect parts within our bodies?

We will each go one question at a time here, and will not proceed to the next question until each has submitted a valid, objective answer. This is the biology-online.org scientific forum, not the USA Today entertainment forum.
Frank N Stein
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 pm

Postby Barz » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:27 pm

So Frank, you said your kids were infected. Is that what you did? Or did ya just take 'em to the beach for some good ole sunshine and give 'em a big hug?
Barz
Banned
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:14 pm

Postby Frank N Stein » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:37 pm

Frank N Stein wrote:Here's your copy to answer Barz, We're all going to answer one question at a time, and all answer the same question
Sabrina wrote:Do you have any proof about your theory on tamtam?


OK, that’s a fair question. Let’s look at what is considered as proof in objective scientific analysis. In logical and scientific analysis, a known object of study is observed and measured for data which define a set characteristics, which in turn support a conclusion. There are many sets of observation which are considered valid. Not all data sets are composed of visible data.

An example of this is atomic observation. No one has seen an atom. Yet we know it exists because of its behavioral characteristics. We know how atoms behave, and therefore draw conclusions based upon their behavior. If one group of atoms behave in one manner, and another group behaves in another manner, we can then categorize them by their behavioral characteristics. We can’t see atoms, but we know from the data characteristics that they display what they are, and how they will effect our environment.

Tam Tam can be evaluated in the same manner. Once again here is a set of known data that defines the conclusions that I have made about Tam Tam.

1) Tam Tam composed an elaborate thesis, but failed to validate it with requested data for over a year. A logical conclusion is that he may be lying, and therefore has no data to support his thesis.
2) Tam Tam operated a very expensive, high bandwidth, web site with no visible means of paying the bill. When questioned about this, Tam Tam stated that he has received funding from investors in the “French Nose & Co.” investment company which does not exist. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is once again lying, and that he is making money to pay his bill from some other source.
3) Tam Tam’s web site used a very professional, and expensive video presentation to capture a target audience, and led them to believe that he had identified the source of their problem, but did not disclose what the source was. The web page then invited the audience to create a “user login” where it is assumed that the audience will gain greater site privileges, and be given more information. After submitting the personal information, the audience finds that there are no more privileges or information beyond that which has already been given on the first and only page. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is using the video presentation to lure people to submit personal information, which he compiles and sells to data mining companies at a profit.

Now there is your data which is acceptable by scientific methodology. These three simple sets of data lead to a conclusion that Tam Tam is nothing more than a common spammer based upon behavioral characteristics. To reach a different conclusion, you would have to include different data. Tam Tam has been asked to provide data which would offset the balance of data displayed here, but has refused to do so.

Now I have answered your question by basing my conclusion upon scientific methodology.

Now I have a question for you, and will continue to ask this same question of you until you provide a valid answer that is also based upon scientific methodology.

Sabrina, what data can you provide that will indicate that Tam Tam is a valid microbiological researcher who has discovered that the source of the morgellons infection is a man made bacterium, that forms intelligent proteins within us, and is assembling insect parts within our bodies?

We will each go one question at a time here, and will not proceed to the next question until each has submitted a valid, objective answer. This is the biology-online.org scientific forum, not the USA Today entertainment forum.
Frank N Stein
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 pm

Postby Barz » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:39 pm

Tell me a little about you first.
Barz
Banned
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:14 pm

Postby Frank N Stein » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:44 pm

Barz wrote:Tell me a little about you first.


Ther's about 50 pages or more of me in here. The Frankster is intellegent enough to do one question at a time, and this is the question of the hour.
Frank N Stein
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 pm

Postby RANDY » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:45 pm

DS wrote:Randy = Smileykins

Or am I the only one that can see through and identify their identical writing styles and favorite words?


Another lie.....they just keep going and going and going. Please people I already asked to lay of the booze and the drugs if you are going to type. We don''t need a confirmed DOP because of you guys!

Frank..they are blind or dumb and can not see logic or are just truly evil.
Light usually opens eyes but in this case they are still in the dark and obvioulsy want o stay there drinnking and smoking and feeling sorry for themselves while they get intimidated by good people doing good work.
Jealous and evil..they go together.

You can not make evil be good or see the light. Trying to make these guys see the truth is like blinding them to sunshine. They are lost in the darkness. I can see that now. I even feel sorry for them because I can no tbelieve they don't see truth when it stares them in their face. But drugs and alcohol will do that to you.

Some of us will get better because we are positive good people , others will get sicker and sicker cause that is their mind set.

I am almost in remission again. I was in remission for 10 years before.

Best to leave those that are negative and destroy their bodies and minds to keep on doing it. They do not want in intervention they want to live in darkenss, so be it.

Evil attracts evil. Tam attracts these people. Apples to Apples..like attracts like.

You can't save everyone Frank. These people are lost cuases to drugs and alcohol and negative thoughts and inactivity. Posers and losers. They will never see the truth..they are in the dark!

They don't want to help themselves they want to be high on another drug that will SAVE them while they sit on their asses and do nothing and that drug for them is this poser Tam. They are addicted to him like any other drug even though it has been proven he is a poser. It is an addiction not common sense that makes them follow him. Can you see that! I can.

It is so clear to me now.

Randy
During the End Times, Good will battle Evil. Where do you stand?
http://unknownskindisease.com
User avatar
RANDY
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:16 am

Postby Barz » Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:47 pm

Those may be logicial conclusions Frank, they may also be illogical conclusions. You have no proof of ANY of that which you are claiming. When you prove 1.,2., and then 3. with true data to back it up you may be believed. However at this point, you are just being the same old asshole from MORGWATCH.


Randy, Ask Frank from Morgwatch, What good work he has done?
Barz
Banned
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:14 pm

Postby Frank N Stein » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:01 am

Barz wrote:Those may be logicial conclusions Frank, they may also be illogical conclusions. You have no proof of ANY of that which you are claiming. When you prove 1.,2., and then 3. with true data to back it up you may be believed. However at this point, you are just being the same old asshole from MORGWATCH.


Randy, Ask Frank from Morgwatch, What good work he has done?


Ah but you see, that's not the way that scientific discovery works Barz. You are on a scientic discussion site. The way scientific discovery works is that you provide a thesis which is supported by data, followed by a conclusion. Tam gave a thesis with no data. I have used this as data to support my thesis that he is a scammer. Now by scientific discovery rules, you don't get to challenge my data. You have to provide your own. If your data proves mine invalid. then we re-examine all of the data tagether to form a new conclusion.

This is not a site where we discuss our opinions of chupacabras Barz. This is a scientific discovery site.

So please, what is your thesis, data and conclusion?
Frank N Stein
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Human Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron