Respectful Insolence

Oh, lovely.

Before I leave the topic of mercury-autism conspiracy mongering for a while, something perverse has led me to feel the need to point out something I’ve become aware of: Not surprisingly, it looks as though our favorite “Christian Libertarian” commentator from WorldNet Daily, tireless fighter against women’s suffrage, and overall antivaccination loon Vox Day has foolishly and credulously falls hook, line, and sinker for the Geiers’ claim in their mind-numbingly bad dumpster-diving paper that autism rates have fallen since the removal of thimerosal in vaccines.

Vox, whom I’ve not yet introduced since moving to ScienceBlogs, is really not worth my spending much time debunking, especially since I and others have deconstructed in great detail the Geiers’ bad science in general and the awful article cited by Vox in particular (although when I’m made aware of something particularly idiotic that he’s said I sometimes decide to respond.) So I’ll simply list for Vox some blog posts (by both me and others) that dissect the Geiers’ work and show what a steaming pile of crap the “science” to which Vox refers is. Hope springs eternal that Vox might actually be educable (or at least learn to look at the actual study, the massive flaws of which are quite obvious to anyone with even minimal formal training in statistics or science). After all, as he mentions in About Vox Day, he does belong to Mensa, evidence that IQ tests don’t necessarily measure critical thinking skills.

Here are some in-depth analyses of the flaws in the paper itself:

The Geiers go dumpster-diving yet again (and again)
Math Slop: Autism and Mercury
A Review of “Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines”
Foreordained conclusions

Here, it’s pointed out what a low-quality, ideologically biased antivaccination “journal” the study was published in:

Strange Bedfellows
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Medical “science” as dubious as it gets

(Personally, I like Citizen Cain’s quip that “‘peer review’ in JAP&S means approval by a panel consisting of Phyllis Schlafly, Randall Terry, Jack D. Ripper, and a chipmunk.”)

Next, let’s turn Vox on to some discussions of the real science that shows that there almost certainly isn’t an “autism epidemic,” a concept that is one of the key underpinnings of all this mercury-autism conspiracy-mongering in the first place:

Evidence against an “autism epidemic”
Autism groups turn to misrepresentation

And, finally, let’s just give Vox an example of the other “science’ the Geiers have contributed to the world that should be considered:

Why not just castrate them?
Below junk science
Armchair science versus real science
Patent medicine
The Geiers try to patent chemical castration as an autism treatment

And, let’s not forget one of my favorite examples of the Geiers’ reliability, an incident when, as an “expert” witness in a case against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Mark Geier overstated the concentration of endotoxin in Wyeth’s DTP vaccine by an order of magnitude, admitting that “when I did the calculation, I must have missed a zero.”

If I did that with a patient, very likely I’d rapidly become a defendant.

Vox is so predictable on this issue that I’m actually quite surprised it took him over a month to find the Geiers’ “study” and trumpet it on his blog. (On the other hand, that’s a good thing, because it allowed time for all the links that I cite above to be posted.) Of course, no doubt Vox didn’t bother to actually read anything other than the news story. Besides, it’s been over three months since I last fisked Vox for his antivaccination nonsense. I’m overdue.

I had also considered debunking some of his “I’m not anti-evolution, but…” creationist apologia or his other antivaccination wingnuttery (maybe Tara could take this latter one on in more detail than I, given that she’s already addressed the situation once, although Vox’s “criticism” is not all that difficult to demolish). However, there’s only so much of Vox’s blog that I can take in one dose. Maybe some other time. That’s the thing about Vox; if you ignore one of his wingnut columns, you can be sure that he’ll produce more. He’s like the Energizer Bunny that way.

In actuality, I now wish I hadn’t become aware of this stuff. The next time someone sends me links to anything by Vox, I promise to try to resist the urge to click on them. I probably won’t always succeed, but I’ll try.

Comments

  1. #1 bigdumbchimp
    April 13, 2006

    eek.

    The comment sections alone are creepy enough.

  2. #2 Tracy P. Hamilton
    April 13, 2006

    No point in having Tara address his arguments. Vox won’t listen to Tara because… she’s a *girl*!

  3. #3 dAVE
    April 13, 2006

    Oh yeah, Vox is a creep. He had some post up a couple of months ago basically saying how rape isn’t that harmful or something… And you get the sense that the only reason he isn’t a criminal is because of his fear of supernatural punishment.

    Incidentally, I got banned from his blog. He had a post justifying his chickenhawkery, and I commented that any warrior in history would either kill him or enslave him for having that attitude.

  4. #4 BronzeDog
    April 13, 2006

    And you get the sense that the only reason he isn’t a criminal is because of his fear of supernatural punishment.

    I’ll make a note to call him a monster if someone catches him making an explicit quote.

  5. #5 Graculus
    April 13, 2006

    I’ll make a note to call him a monster if someone catches him making an explicit quote.

    Here ya go

    “most so-called “date rape” is not rape nor a crime of any kind”

    Here’s another

    “if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who …., in the absence of such consent, rapes her.”

    Google is your friend.

  6. #6 Nathan Myers
    April 13, 2006

    People like Vox & the Geiers only got traction because so many people equipped to know better lied — usually with the best intentions! — about the meaning of the studies published. Despite all the money spent on real work done (never mind on failed attempts at damage control), we still don’t have anything to definitively exonerate ethyl mercury in vaccines as contributing to neurological problems of some sort or another in segments of the population. (That’s not to impugn the work, it’s just very hard.)

    In the internet era, argument from authority doesn’t work as it once did; everybody can read the evidence themselves. While it’s easy for people like me to get lost in jargon and minutiae, and to misinterpret conventional expressions, some signals come through loud and clear. When a press release about a study directly contradicts the conclusion of the study itself, non-specialists are correct to be suspicious, both of the statements in the press release and of the persons and the organization behind it. When this happens again and again, it looks like smoke, with a fire in there somewhere. Blaming the “mercury parents” for the resulting hysteria may feel satisfying, but it does nothing to fix the problem or prevent the next one.

    I don’t doubt that people who cited scientifically insufficient evidence in defense of vaccines meant well: widespread distrust of vaccines could breed disasters as great as present exposures to lead, tobacco, fallout, and coal-soot. What is being bred, now, though, is widespread distrust of those responsible for ensuring the safety of vaccines. That seems worse, because while trust in a vaccine can be fixed simply by replacing it, trust in those responsible is much harder to restore.

  7. #7 Prup aka Jim Benton
    April 13, 2006

    Thanx for the latest addition to my ‘loonies — religious and other’ bookmarks. Vox belongs there, with such as the group that sees Elian Gonzalez as the Messiah: http://www.religioustolerance.org/elian.htm
    and the seriously poisonous “GQ” A sunni Muslim whose level of hate is almost funny:
    http://allaboutgq.blogspot.com/

    Thanx again.

  8. #8 Orac
    April 13, 2006

    People like Vox & the Geiers only got traction because so many people equipped to know better lied — usually with the best intentions! — about the meaning of the studies published.

    A specific example of such “lying,” please, preferably with a link. You’re long on accusations but short on verifiable examples.

    Despite all the money spent on real work done (never mind on failed attempts at damage control), we still don’t have anything to definitively exonerate ethyl mercury in vaccines as contributing to neurological problems of some sort or another in segments of the population. (That’s not to impugn the work, it’s just very hard.)

    Yes and no. We can’t rule out with 100% certainty the possibility that mercury in vaccines might cause problems for a small segment of the population that is genetically predisposed to such sensitivity (although the existing evidence makes even that possibility pretty doubtful). We do, however, have more than enough evidence to state with a high degree of certainty that the claims of groups like Generation Rescue that “autism and autism spectrum disorders are misdiagnoses for mercury poisoning” are a load of crap. We can also say with a great deal of certainty that mercury in vaccines and vaccines themselves are not major causes of autism. Indeed, they are almost certainly not even minor causes of autism, either.

    And we have more than enough evidence to conclude that Vox Day is an arrogant windbag who doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to vaccines.

    I don’t doubt that people who cited scientifically insufficient evidence in defense of vaccines meant well: widespread distrust of vaccines could breed disasters as great as present exposures to lead, tobacco, fallout, and coal-soot.

    You keep mentioning “scientifically insufficient evidence in defense of vaccines,” yet you never discuss any such evidence. For example, look at the way I and others dissected the Geiers’ studies to show them to be scientifically lacking. Can you do the same for any of these “studies” you keep mentioning without providing citations or explanations why they are “scientifically insufficent”?

  9. #9 LB
    April 13, 2006

    I don’t think he is educable; he is too arrogant for one thing. I wonder if he’ll dare link to you this time.

    It looks like he has been desperately trying to pick a fight with Pandagon and Feministe, saying he was the ideal man for one of them. They didn’t bite. I guess you can’t show the world how cool you are if no one is paying any attention.

    Before this the last time I ventured over there he was promoting polygamy. He is pushing 40 and I’m guessing Spacebunny (his wife) is too. Given what he thinks of women past their “expiration date” I suppose he thinks she is getting too saggy and just ain’t so fun in the sack anymore. How is he supposed to show the world how super hot he is if all he has is one not-so-hot used up female?

  10. #10 María Luján
    April 13, 2006

    Hi Orac
    You say
    “Yes and no. We can’t rule out with 100% certainty the possibility that mercury in vaccines might cause problems for a small segment of the population that is genetically predisposed to such sensitivity (although the existing evidence makes even that possibility pretty doubtful).”
    Thank you very much for your open mind. I must say is not common in my experience.
    Do you know the Dr Woods work?
    Dr Woods studied Hg interaction with humans since 1977. There are 50 manuscripts cited in Pubmed.
    The kinds of polymorphisms he mentions have not been studied in autistic children yet, except GMST1 and the results were positive for correlation (2006, recently published)
    “GSMT1 paper “:http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16472391
    I do think that the polymorphisms Dr Woods mentions (BNDF, GMST, CPOX) deserves further studies or consideration in autism.
    The following are some of the manuscripts of Echeverria and Woods et al:
    1-Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005 Nov-Dec;27(6):781-96.
    Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with cognitive and motor function.
    Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman DS, Farin FM, Bittner AC Jr, Li T, Garabedian C.
    2-Toxicol Sci. 2004 Oct;81(2):354-63. Epub 2004 Jul 14.
    Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with self-reported symptoms and mood.
    Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, Bittner AC Jr, Farin FM, Garabedian CC, Woods JS.
    Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Seattle, WA 98109,
    3-Toxicol Lett. 2006 Feb 20;161(2):159-66. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
    A cascade analysis of the interaction of mercury and coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX) polymorphism on the heme biosynthetic pathway and porphyrin production
    4-Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Aug 7;206(2):113-20.
    The association between genetic polymorphisms of coproporphyrinogen oxidase and an atypical porphyrinogenic response to mercury exposure in humans.
    Woods JS, Echeverria D, Heyer NJ, Simmonds PL, Wilkerson J, Farin FM
    5- Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006 Jan-Feb;28(1):39-48. Epub 2005 Dec 15.
    The association between a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase, dental mercury exposure and neurobehavioral response in humans.
    Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman D, Farin FM, Li T, Garabedian CE.
    And recent published reports on vaccines and reactions in susceptible people:
    1-Eur J Dermatol. 2004 Mar-Apr;14(2):86-90.
    Autoimmune diseases and vaccinations.
    Vial T, Descotes J.
    Centre Antipoison et Centre Regional de Pharmacovigilance, 162, avenue Lacassagne, 69424 Lyon, France.
    .. We suggest that a potential link between vaccines and autoimmune diseases cannot be definitely ruled out and should be carefully explored during the development of new candidate vaccines.
    2-Child Neurol. 2004 Jun;19(6):413-7.
    Polymorphisms in xenobiotic metabolism genes and autism.
    Serajee FJ, Nabi R, Zhong H, Huq M.
    Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
    …studies of polymorphisms in metal-regulatory transcription factor 1(MTF1), a multispecific organic anion transporter (ABCC1), proton-coupled divalent metal ion transporters (SLC11A3 and SLC11A2), paraoxonase 1 (PON1), and glutathione S-transferase (GSTP1) genes in 196 autistic disorder families. There was deviation from the expected pattern of transmission for polymorphisms in MTF1 (Single nucleotide polymorphism database reference identification number, dbSNP rs3790625, P = .02) and divalent metal ion transporter SLC11A3 (dbSNP rs2304704, P = .07) genes. Although these results might represent chance finding, further investigations of genetic variations of metal metabolism in autism are warranted.
    3-Toxicology. 2004 Mar 15;196(3):211-6.
    Autoimmunity, environmental exposure and vaccination: is there a link?
    Ravel G, Christ M, Horand F, Descotes J.
    MDS Pharma Services, 69210 St Germain sur l’Arbresle, France. guillaume.ravel@mdsps.com
    …Nevertheless, the results tend to support the hypothesis that vaccination could enhance the risk of autoimmunity in genetically susceptible individuals when exposed to certain environmental chemicals

    I do not think in vaccines or thimerosal as causes because I do think that the root is genetics; I think in a potential negative effect ( in the sense it has not been proven) because of the particular gene expression/epigenetics in some children with autism, that can make them susceptible. I think that further research is needed to stablish how and why this can happen.
    Thank you in advance.
    María Luján

  11. #11 Nathan Myers
    April 14, 2006

    Orac: Thank you for not calling me a loon. It makes civil discussion much easier to maintain.

    Your request for detailed references is reasonable. However, the last time I looked carefully into the matter — i.e.., comparing claims on vaccinesafety.edu to the papers referenced — was in 2002. Subsequently my daughter did develop Asperger’s and ADD, despite all of her doctor’s and my precautions. Today I find myself with a lot less time for tracking down and reading research papers, which you will understand if you have a child with a similar condition. Furthermore, vaccinesafety.edu has been altered since 2002.

    When I say a paper is scientifically insufficient to back a claim of (e.g.) vaccine safety, I’m not criticizing the paper or the work. Those I read back in 2002 very carefully circumscribed what conclusions could be drawn from the evidence they presented. From my position as a nonspecialist they looked unassailable. Nevertheless, scientists reading others’ papers seem almost always to find published results less generally applicable than the authors do, and can identify reasons to doubt them and to wait for confirmation from others.

    My experience reading those papers and the public announcements interpreting them was entirely the opposite. The announcements from authorities reassuring us of the safety of vaccines wildly extended and generalized the conclusions of the papers they cited. I understand their motivation for having done so. The result, though, has been unfortunate. Perhaps it wasn’t really very predictable, at the time. Internet effects were not so familiar then, and official credibility seemed more secure.

    As Levitt noted in Freakonomics, experts of all stripes have turned out to be far less disinterested than they have preferred for us to believe, medical doctors not less so than others. (Cf. frequency of caesarians in areas with rising vs. falling birth rates.) Experts need to be more scrupulous, and more transparent, than was necessary before. All that non-experts really want is for the experts to do the jobs they claim to be doing, and not to cover up for those experts who clearly aren’t.

    Years ago the work that would be needed to establish the safety of ethyl mercury hadn’t been done. When this fact came out, the stuff should have been eliminated, immediately, and kept out until its safety could be established (which hasn’t really happened even yet). The dilatory action and the prevarications (e.g. continuing to inject ethyl mercury even in 2003 while claiming it had been eliminated in 2001, for a recent example) made the hysteria inevitable.

    Maybe you feel vindicated by recent studies, but in 2000 those hadn’t been done, and you had no objective reason for the confidence your colleagues (and you?) expressed then. You have no more reason now to believe that it doesn’t contribute to other problems (ADD?). It doesn’t matter if you can rebut Vox Day or Generation Rescue; the damage is already done when they get enough traction to need rebutting. They get that when intelligent people see scientists violate their own standards of evidence.

    If you (collectively) don’t learn some humility, you will step in this again.

  12. #12 Socialist Swine
    April 14, 2006

    Vox must be slipping. Normally when people are critical of him he immediately begins a trolling campaign. I’m surprised he hasn’t called you some name indicative of his homophobia yet.

  13. #13 LB
    April 15, 2006

    Deep down Vox is chikcenshit. He’ll wait a few days and then call Orac a girl without linking so his followers can read for themselves. That’s just his way.

  14. #14 Orac
    April 15, 2006

    Actually, Vox only does that when it’s about a topic that he thinks he knows something about, for example, when I made fun of him for using bad Nazi analogies. When faced with incontrovertible evidence showing that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he usually stays silent. When I fisked Vox for his comments on Dan Olmsted’s article about a population in Chicago that was supposedly unvaccinated and had a very low rate of autism, he never responded.

  15. #15 LB
    April 15, 2006

    Good point, Orac. I stand corrected. He is a bigger chickenshit than I gave him credit for.

  16. #16 MikeT
    April 15, 2006

    Orac,

    Your biggest problem is that you think far too highly of yourself. In that sense, you and Vox are exactly the same.

    I would think that someone who is claims to be a scientist would be open-minded toward the possibility that thimerosal does in fact have a damaging effect on children if there is a study that lends credence to that belief. But then, to think that I would have to assume that you are above establishment loyalties and capable of questioning corporations and government.

    For years we were told that the food pyramid sponsored by the corporate-government bloc was good for us. Lo and behold, it turned out to be a crock of shit. Today, anyone can see that a recommended 6-11 full servings of bread and other carbs is a one way ticket for most people into obesity. That’s the difference between you and Vox. As much as I hate to say it, as I am not exactly a supporter of his, at least he can learn from history.

  17. #17 Pretty Lady
    April 15, 2006

    Now, now, ladies and gentlemen. I believe you are doing my dear friend Vox a disservice. I have always found him to be a perfect gentleman, when he is treated politely. There are many ways to conduct a scientific debate and inquiry without resorting to the usage of pejorative epithets.

    And as far as Vox’s admittedly offensive-seeming opinions regarding females are concerned–reacting with wounded, hyperbolic ire to the mere words only serves to prove his point.

  18. #18 Gene
    April 15, 2006

    I know this post is about someone you disagree with, but I would like to point out a serious problem with Autism itself many are unaware of. Joey Travolta is making a film about this problem.

    What you consider normal communication, such as in this post, is harmful for an Austic. They don’t read social signals properly and don’t have the social skills to cope with insulting and condescending communication.

    One of the major problems with Autism isn’t the autism itself, but the way people with autism are treated by others. The tone of this original post is the behavior that becomes acceptable and standard in the classroom and makes harmonious life unpleasant for most. It makes life unbarable for those who have autism.

    Since you can’t tell an autistic person from anyone else, and none of us wouldn’t want to harm a defenseless autistic person, I don’t see why “being decent” to everyone would be too much to ask unless your “self-worship” and “pride” are just too precious to you.

  19. #19 Kristjan Wager
    April 16, 2006

    Gene, that’s a very good point, except for the fact that this is not a debate where autistic people don’t participate. I don’t see any names I recognize in this thread, but in the debate about autism in general there are several regulars who are autistic themselves.

  20. #20 Kristjan Wager
    April 16, 2006

    Pretty Lady, Vox wouldn’t know polite if it bit him. He often pretends to be so in the comment section of ofter blogs, but when he posts about it at his own blog, his true nature shows.
    His a sexist, anti-scientific idiot, who keeps bragging about his Mensa membership.

    I think the best slap-down of him was when he tried to claim that women can’t do science/write hard science fiction at Electrolite.
    However, I have yet to see Vox enter a debate he didn’t loose.

    And as far as Vox’s admittedly offensive-seeming opinions regarding females are concerned–reacting with wounded, hyperbolic ire to the mere words only serves to prove his point.

    You know what, we react to offensive words because they are offensive, or in this case, we react to the offensive idea that to be called a woman is supposed to be offensive.
    I also reacted strongly to his post “The merits of anti-semitism” – does that prove something as well?

  21. #21 Pretty Lady
    April 16, 2006

    we react to offensive words because they are offensive, or in this case, we react to the offensive idea that to be called a woman is supposed to be offensive.

    Darling, you misunderstand me. Certainly Vox is sexist, but I have not found him to be an idiot, once one examines his logical train of thought in the absence of knee-jerk emotional responses. When one approaches a seemingly offensive point of view with the unshakable conviction that the proposition is self-evidently untenable, it ceases to be offensive and becomes risible. Would you be offended if I told you, in all seriousness, that I should be allowed to vote three times, once for each of my personalities?

  22. #22 Orac
    April 16, 2006

    I would think that someone who is claims to be a scientist would be open-minded toward the possibility that thimerosal does in fact have a damaging effect on children if there is a study that lends credence to that belief. But then, to think that I would have to assume that you are above establishment loyalties and capable of questioning corporations and government.

    I would think that someone trying to refute me would not use such an obvious straw man argument.

    I am open to the the possibility that thimerosal has a “damaging” effect on children. That is not what I am talking about here, though. I am talking about the specific claim that the mercury in thimerosal causes autism, a claim I considered carefully and no longer consider scientifically plausible. I base my conclusion on the large amount of evidence published over the last several years that fails to support a link and on my observation that every study that claims to support a link in the past few years has either been amazingly badly done (especially the Geiers’ studies) and by the same small group of activists. Read the list links to see the reasons why, as I and others explain them in great detail and I don’t feel like repeating myself this morning. If a convincing well-designed study contradicts my conclusion, I will consider it with an open mind, as I considered the vitamin C studies released over the last month and became willing again to consider the possibility that high dose vitamin C might have a role in cancer treatment. That study could be about a link between thimerosal and autism or thimerosal and another “damaging” effect attributed to thimerosal. Unfortunately, all the arguments for a link between thimerosal and autism are based on a nonexistent “autism epidemic,” correlations that don’t equal causation (and aren’t even really correlations), and very bad statistics.

    I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide any such evidence.

    As for your insinuation questioning whether I am “above establishment loyalties and capable of questioning corporations and government,” give me a break. That’s another logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well,” a subset of ad hominem arguments.

    Finally, as to whether I think more highly of myself than is warranted, well, being myself I can’t really comment objectively on whether that is true or not, now, can I? However, one thing I can say is this: Unlike Vox, I tend to try to stay (mostly) on topics that I know something about. When Vox discusses science fiction and fantasy, he’s actually not so bad, at least when he doesn’t let his sexist views intervene. When he discusses vaccines, though, he’s almost always full of crap.

  23. #23 Orac
    April 16, 2006

    Darling, you misunderstand me. Certainly Vox is sexist, but I have not found him to be an idiot, once one examines his logical train of thought in the absence of knee-jerk emotional responses.

    I never said Vox was an idiot. What I did say is that Vox doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to vaccines–and I have demonstrated that his antivaccination bias is based on either dubious or no data. There’s a difference.

    In fact, Vox is, as I pointed out, an excellent example of how IQ tests don’t necessarily evaluate critical thinking skills or knowledge of how to evaluate scientific studies. Indeed, as far as I can tell, with regard to vaccines, Vox has no real logical train of thought, other than to cherry pick studies that supposedly show that vaccines cause harm and to ignore all the others showing the benefits of vaccines.

  24. #24 LB
    April 16, 2006

    Re: Vox’s brilliance…

    1. Some Jews in the U.S. complain about Christmas decorations in malls, therefore one can sympathize with mass persecutions against them in the Middle Ages (if Middle Ages Jews were like today’s Jews). Think he would say that about others, like the Japanese, for example?

    2. Conservative publications in the U.S. have a disprportionate number of Jewish writers. As Jews as a group are liberal, these conservative publications need to consider who does and who does not represent their interests when hiring people (in other words, stop hiring from a group that is liberal. Ignore the views of the individual and his or her writing abilities and views and so forth, and scrutinize them closely because 75% of his ethnic group is liberal). Can you spot the logical flaws?

    3. He says he is a Christian. Then he makes comments that if he wanted more children and his wife was unable to have children, he would divorce her (can anyone honestly think he cares that much about his wife after a comment like that? To publicly announce that is demeaning to her, much less the sentiment itself). I guess the “til death to us part” is irrelevant. For him anyway–can you imagine his hysteria if a woman said that about her husband?

    4. He constantly brags about himself. When pointed out, he says that not bragging about himself equals “false modesty” and that it would be like a tall man saying he was short. Can you spot the logical fallacy here? Not constantly telling everyone how smart you are, what you drove, your fighting skills, etc., means you are “falsely modest” and demeaning yourself.

    5. Yeah, Vox linked to Orac in the past, as everyone at this blog knows. It was being pointed out that Vox does not link, and doesn’t even mention criticism, when he can’t refute it. Vox’s answer is “I’ve linked to Orac in the past!!!”, completely ignoring the point. I guess the answer is to call him chickenshit.

  25. #25 Graculus
    April 16, 2006

    Vox’s utterances are obscene, it’s just the individual words that aren’t.