On 22 May 2004 03:50:44 -0700, mtodorov...@yahoo.com (Mirsad
Todorovac) wrote:

>> To conclude, your claims have no factual or scientific basis, and, as
>> one might already be inclined to believe, you are merely spewing all
>> sorts of nonsense. 
>> Now, may we cease writing in English and revert to something commonly
>> spoken on the newsgroups where you usually crosspost, or do you think
>> English gives your preposterous claims more weight?
>
>1. I quoted the book Daniel G. Amen: "CHANGE YOUR BRAIN, CHANGE YOUR LIFE!".
>The conclusion is made (by author and me) based on SPECT (Single Photon
>Emission Computed Tomography) scans of many brains. Author Daniel G.
>Amen explained that the brain in question was severed with LARGE
>quantities of caffeine and nicotine, used as stimulans. (I have no
>permission to scan and publish the SPECT images, sorry! -- but you can
>nevertheless go to website http://www.amenclinic.com/ and try your
>luck!) The image showing the brain of an individual abusing great
>quantities of caffeine speaks for itself, please rent the book and
>see.

One could apply inverse logic and conclude that a person addicted to
both caffeine and nicotine was very disturbed (to say the least!) to
begin with, so the question of causation is very uncertain. Besides, I
saw no experiment performed on a statistically significant group
behind such claims, and, frankly, it would be rather difficult to
isolate the actual active substance responsible for the damage,
because any observed phenomenon could be attributed to several
different causes. A lifestyle that causes addiction likely also causes
neurological disorders and dysfunctions.

>I allow the fact that caffeine in SMALL, prescribed dosages coudl be
>actually benefitial for the brain(!), but this also applies for amphetamine
>in very small dosages (hundred to thousand times less than those used
>as addictive narcotic drug) - then it's called Aderal or Ritalin, but
>don't hold my word 'cause I'm telling this by memory.

It only goes to show that general statements should be avoided in
favor of precisely qualified ones.

>2. About use of English: it is not a show-off, 

Could've fooled me...

>   it is the fact that
>   English translations of Bible I use have greater authority, being
>   closer to Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic originals. 

Where did you come up with that idea? Besides, with this logic it
would be best if you found the Greek and Aramaic originals and quoted
them; doesn't matter that nobody understands them, but they surely are
authoritative...

>   (There is also a
>   problem with diaciritic signs, which are sometimes making the
>   text unreadable, but this is of secondary importance - yet some
>   questioned whether the Bible verse with discritic signs stripped
>   still have divine authority. I hope this explanation satisfies you.

One could also ask whether or not the verses quoted by people who
don't understand their meaning retain divine authority.
But sure, write in English as much as you like, I couldn't care less.
I write books in English. However, English is not the 1st language of
the targeted newsgroups, so you should reconsider your practice.

--
http://www.danijel.org/