This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RK (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 16 March 2003 (Response to Zoe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:31, 16 March 2003 by RK (talk | contribs) (Response to Zoe)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)RK, as I said on your talk page, I have no viewpoint on this subject. But I am not going to let you get away with such terms as "mysterious" and "unidentifiable". That is hardly NPOV. -- Zoe
- Do not lie. The subluxation is very mysterious, as it is a scientific fact that it is unidentifiable. No scientist or medical doctor has ever seen such chirpractic subluxations, ever. There is a difference between having differents points of view on a phenomenon, and lying about facts that you are uncomfortable with. Sadly, you have crossed that line. RK
Zoe, I am still willing to work with you. But what you are doing now verges on vandalism. Stop pushing this pseudoscientific religious belief as some sort of scientific fact. Your continued refusal to discuss the issue, your huge deletions, and the way you hide facts that make you uncomfortable identify you as a vandal. Is this what you want? If you think that particular facts need some context, or needs to be rewritten in a different way, then fine. Let's work together. But I won't let people push pseudoscientific and religious beliefs as facts. That is a violation of Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. RK
Wow. This is the first time I've had any particular dealings with you, RK, and I don't see why we can't work together on this. I have no intention of leaving the Misplaced Pages, but the use of the terminology that you use is hardly NPOV. Please tell me what is NPOV about "mysterious and unidentifiable." As I keep telling you, I have NO POV on this subject, but you obviously do, and it isn't letting you remain neutral. A disagreement is not vandalism, and you know it. -- Zoe
- "Unidentifiable" is fine, I think, but "mysterious" is definitely not.
- Whoever claimed that disagreements are vandalism? Not I. But wiping out 75% of an article at first looked a bit like vandalism! I just don't think you have yet responded to my specific points, nor to the points in the material which I added. (Material, by the way, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of medical doctors and scientists!) This subject is a scientific, historic and religious issue, but you seem to be overlooking the science, and even Palmer's own 18th century religious views. What is left? A discussion of your own theory of chiropractice. RK