I'm back, and I miss you all

[gillianren]

If I say cold weather causes cold I should be refured becasue cold doesn't cause common cold but exposes the body to viruses which causes common cold *sigh* ..  I just thought that I don't have to be so specific..

Except that isn't true, either.

Look, I'll be blunt, here.  The problem is not your English, at least not for me.  The problem is your tendency to believe nonsense and then assume that, when we correct you, it's because of how you phrased it.  If you're here to learn, I'm perfectly willing to have you here.  If you want to keep going on about "dangerous artificial chemicals" without learning why that's a nonsense phrase, and post non-Wikipedia links claiming they're from Wikipedia, and so forth, well, that's your right, but there's no reason to read it.

[LionKing]

Except that isn't true, either.

"Weather as an Indirect Cause of the Cold

While simply stepping outside in cold weather without a jacket doesn't cause a cold, hypothermia (the lowering of the body's core temperature) suppresses immunity, which can lead to colds. "Most cold symptoms are produced by the body's immune system physically responding to the rhinovirus," says Belilovsky. "So, someone with a stronger immune system in the cold will produce more [mucus], while the one with the weaker immune system will sniffle longer, but less dramatically." The person with the weaker immune system probably will have more complications, such as sinusitis or ear infections, Belilovsky adds.

Cold weather may be indirectly responsible for colds, however. Vasoconstriction — when blood vessels close to the outside of the body, such as those found in the nose, narrow — leads to dryness. "This dryness compromises the nose's ability to filter infections," Belilovsky explains. "On returning to warm air, rebound vasodilation occurs, where your hands get pink and your nose starts running as blood returns to it." The cycle continues if the runny nose is severe enough to cause mouth breathing. Bypassing the nose's ability to filter inhaled air, combined with dry indoor air, allows the inhalation of virus-bearing mucus, which may trigger colds and lower respiratory infections.
"
http://www.everydayhealth.com/cold-and-flu/colds-and-the-weather.aspx

Look, I'll be blunt, here.

rather rude, as usual

The problem is not your English, at least not for me.  The problem is your tendency to believe nonsense and then assume that, when we correct you, it's because of how you phrased it.

sometimes I think I am clear as an infant should be able to understand..I just get disappointed that I am not

If you're here to learn, I'm perfectly willing to have you here.

It is not your choice to have me here or not. It is LO's.

 

If you want to keep going on about "dangerous artificial chemicals" without learning why that's a nonsense phrase, and post non-Wikipedia links claiming they're from Wikipedia, and so forth, well, that's your right, but there's no reason to read it.

I can learn about artificial chemicals , but the Wikipedia issue was not intended mistake. The format looked a lot like Wikipedia so I thought it as such. The main issue is the kind of summary that the information are compared, not if it is Wikipedia or not. try to think deeper about the core of things.

[Echnaton]

I can learn about artificial chemicals

The problem is that the distinction between artificial and natural chemicals, is itself, artificial.   It is mostly a marketing ploy by people that want to sell things to the unaware. 

Chemicals are chemicals and the way they are made is irrelevant.

I just have a hard time understanding if you do or do not accept this fact of nature because you keep talking about "natural" as if it were meaningful. 

[Zakalwe]

Cold weather may be indirectly responsible for colds, however

The important word is in bold.

[Jason Thompson]

The format looked a lot like Wikipedia so I thought it as such.

The website is called 'Wikispooks', the url had 'wikispooks' in it, and the page had a logo that said 'wikispooks'. None of those three things said wikipedia.

try to think deeper about the core of things.

Try not to patronise people. You can't gloss over your mistakes by sweeping them under the rug as if they don't matter. The source of information you present is a critical element of any argument, here or anywhere else. That's why texts cite their sources in the first place. In this case the source of the material pretty much dictates what kind of material it is, so it may have been a mistake on your part, but it was not a trivial one.

[LionKing]

The website is called 'Wikispooks', the url had 'wikispooks' in it, and the page had a logo that said 'wikispooks'. None of those three things said wikipedia.

I know, I mistakenly depended on the format that looked like Wikipedia. you don't have to repeat this when I say it was a mistake in the same thread.

Try not to patronise people.

try not to tell me how I should reply when attacked. Thank you.  Plus, it wasn't addressed to you.

You can't gloss over your mistakes by sweeping them under the rug as if they don't matter. The source of information you present is a critical element of any argument, here or anywhere else. That's why texts cite their sources in the first place. In this case the source of the material pretty much dictates what kind of material it is, so it may have been a mistake on your part, but it was not a trivial one.

the source of information is pro-hoax. this is what the forum here is supposed to debate. it doesn't look at where it comes from but at the substance.

[LionKing]

I can learn about artificial chemicals

The problem is that the distinction between artificial and natural chemicals, is itself, artificial.   It is mostly a marketing ploy by people that want to sell things to the unaware. 

Chemicals are chemicals and the way they are made is irrelevant.

I just have a hard time understanding if you do or do not accept this fact of nature because you keep talking about "natural" as if it were meaningful.

Hi Echnaton,
I will read more about the topic and post my reply later in the appropriate thread.  thanks

[gillianren]

the source of information is pro-hoax. this is what the forum here is supposed to debate. it doesn't look at where it comes from but at the substance.

The problem is that there isn't any substance.

[Jason Thompson]

I know, I mistakenly depended on the format that looked like Wikipedia. you don't have to repeat this when I say it was a mistake in the same thread.

I just want to understand why you went by the overall look rather than taking any notice of the actual words. It's a pretty significant mistake.

Plus, it wasn't addressed to you.

Irrelevant. It was a comment made on a forum I can read, so I feel perfectly fine responding to it, thanks.

the source of information is pro-hoax. this is what the forum here is supposed to debate. it doesn't look at where it comes from but at the substance.

It definitely does look at where it comes from, like any other debate. The source of information is a very important part of the any debate or argument. It also dictates how people respond to it. If it's just another hoax site that regurgitates the same stuff it will get less interest than something new or from a seemingly more credible source.

[LionKing]

I just want to understand why you went by the overall look rather than taking any notice of the actual words. It's a pretty significant mistake.

bcz i'm interested in the content and they way they presented it comparing what nasa said to what the hoax theory said

Irrelevant. It was a comment made on a forum I can read, so I feel perfectly fine responding to it, thanks.

then don't be biased

It definitely does look at where it comes from, like any other debate. The source of information is a very important part of the any debate or argument. It also dictates how people respond to it. If it's just another hoax site that regurgitates the same stuff it will get less interest than something new or from a seemingly more credible source.

nothing is credible that is pro-hoax as considered by the forum as it contains mistakes and misunderstandings so can't be credible so no matter where the info comes from it is the same..

let us drop this debate that leads no where

[LionKing]

and wikipedia is not a reliable source anywaysif this is what you  mean

[Andromeda]

No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - nobody said it was.  It does point to reliable sources via citations, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by "don't be biased".

No, hoax claims aren't credible, because they are always based on faulty thinking, incorrect physics etc.

[Allan F]

No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source - nobody said it was.  It does point to reliable sources via citations, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by "don't be biased".

No, hoax claims aren't credible, because they are always based on faulty thinking, incorrect physics etc.

- you should have started with "outright lies".

Edit: What Andromeda means is that the hoax claims - all of them - have been looked into by real scientists and real engineers who have pointed out exactly where the hoax logic fails. When you trace the hoax claims back you'll often end up with a handfull of individuals who sell something - like a badly written book or a DVD with dishonestly edited video. Bart Sibrel is one of them, he'll gladly take 29.95 USD for a DVD containing "secret NASA footage" which have been publicly available for 40+ years. He makes a claim using this footage, and cuts just before the footage itself proves his claim is an outright lie. And other people claiming to be experts in photoanalysis, but don't know the first thing about it. People who take JPGs off the internet, manhandle them in photoshop, and then sell books with stores about "secret alien glass buildings" on the moon, using JPG compression artefacts as their proof.

[raven]

Or David Percy, with his transparency claim. Both it and the cutout claim are debunked by edited out parts of their videos. He also used a publicity version of the famous portrait shot of Buzz Aldrin on the moon that was cropped at the bottom with the black above extended  to claim the centre cross hair was off centre.
 Or, on the amateur front, Adrian quote mining and even out right lying about what Frank Borman said to make it sound like Van Allen had worries before the flight for the crew's radiation exposures.
The list goes on.
The thing is, while some are simply wrong, all too many conspiracy theorists are willing to change, edit,  and mislead in their efforts to present their position. The worst I can say about my fellow Apollo nutters and I is that they are sometimes wrong themselves, all too often I see the claim 'If you want to see Apollo is real, just point a telescope at the moon', and that some are rude and disrespectful, a few  to the point where I have taken the time to either report or chastise them personally.

[Allan F]

Yes, the "telescope to the moon"-idea comes up again and again. I use the argument, that the mirror of such a contraption should be around 50 times the diameter of the HST's mirror to make a descent stage one single pixel on a camera equal to the HST's best.