Should state mandate immunizations? New requirements effective in July

May 4, 2011 Full story: Chattanoogan.com 9,583

Immunizations are one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to protect children against childhood diseases and Tennessee law requires documented immunizations.

Full Story
no one cares

Madrid, Spain

#7902 May 29, 2013
seriously wrote:
Yes.
no one cares

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#7903 May 31, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's the links.
How many cases of polio in India before the gift from Bill Gates.
Links please?
Dates of these million polio cases.
Links please.
It was 47 plus thousand.Already put links up previously.You are welcome.
http://www.cdc.gov/polio/progress/

There you go.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#7904 May 31, 2013
just saying wrote:
<quoted text>
You know damn well I'm not posting any of their names and as for articles in the paper, what world do you live in where you think that every death has an article. I would give you the Doctors name though if I knew it as for the state and town it doesn't really do much good but it was Ft. Myers Florida around 5 years ago. I would give you an exact date but I have to find the papers from the funerals. But even if I did it wouldn't matter because you're on a crusade and nothing short of your family members dying would ever change your mind.
This is the problem with you guys. You make up a story and provide absolutely no evidence to support it, then you expect everyone to make changes to the laws based on your fictional claim.
just saying

Pelham, TN

#7905 May 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the problem with you guys. You make up a story and provide absolutely no evidence to support it, then you expect everyone to make changes to the laws based on your fictional claim.
You're right it's all made up, your beloved pharmaceutical companies are perfect, and everyone who ever says anything different is just jealous of the control they have on the government and people like you. And posting anything that proves you wrong is easy but I have done it in the past and it doesn't make a difference, you just ignore it like it never happened. The story however is not made up but I wouldn't expect someone as narrow minded as yourself to believe that. Maybe you should work on opening your eyes a little, you might just gain enough insight to to write something that someone might buy, instead of spending all your time trying to poorly defend your precious pharmaceutical companies. Also if your half as smart as you act like you are then you would know that doctors, coroners and everyone else in the medical field protect each other, because all it takes is a small mistake to ruin someones life in medical professions, thus it is vary hard to prove malpractice without the money for malpractice lawyers and independent doctors and medical examiners. But that's good for you, this way you can keep pushing your propaganda.

You should change your name to "The Pusher" it would fit you much better, I mean "Nuggin" that just sounds like you love your marijuana, that't fine though I have no problem with that.
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7906 May 31, 2013
just saying wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right it's all made up, your beloved pharmaceutical companies are perfect, and everyone who ever says anything different is just jealous of the control they have on the government and people like you. And posting anything that proves you wrong is easy but I have done it in the past and it doesn't make a difference, you just ignore it like it never happened. The story however is not made up but I wouldn't expect someone as narrow minded as yourself to believe that. Maybe you should work on opening your eyes a little, you might just gain enough insight to to write something that someone might buy, instead of spending all your time trying to poorly defend your precious pharmaceutical companies. Also if your half as smart as you act like you are then you would know that doctors, coroners and everyone else in the medical field protect each other, because all it takes is a small mistake to ruin someones life in medical professions, thus it is vary hard to prove malpractice without the money for malpractice lawyers and independent doctors and medical examiners. But that's good for you, this way you can keep pushing your propaganda.
You should change your name to "The Pusher" it would fit you much better, I mean "Nuggin" that just sounds like you love your marijuana, that't fine though I have no problem with that.
Mostly name calling and nominees here. Little substantive evidence.
Hey

Cookeville, TN

#7907 May 31, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
Mostly name calling and nominees here. Little substantive evidence.
So I am guessing you will be bringing us much needed information and of course many links to all that information.
We will be waiting.
Thankyou very much.We are real glad you arrived.
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7908 May 31, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
So I am guessing you will be bringing us much needed information and of course many links to all that information.
We will be waiting.
Thankyou very much.We are real glad you arrived.
I guess you really missed the point-- that there was no factual content provided in the post.

I made no claims here--so I need not provide evidence.

Those who do make claims do need to provide evidence.

I trust that this is something you are capable of comprehending.
just saying

Pelham, TN

#7909 Jun 1, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you really missed the point-- that there was no factual content provided in the post.
I made no claims here--so I need not provide evidence.
Those who do make claims do need to provide evidence.
I trust that this is something you are capable of comprehending.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension a little bit. There is no name calling only a suggestion, I can see how you would think calling him or her narrow minded is name calling but when you look at the many many months of his or her posts you begin to see a pattern that leads to the conclusion that he or she is narrow minded. Now I did say "if you're half as smart as you act like you are" this wasn't meant as an insult it was a phrase that was added to add emphasis the statement that was made, It was a little harsh though so sorry if I offended you. Plus I thought I should give him or her a little advise, he or she claims that he or she is a screen writer (no proof was ever given so it's probably just a made up story) and I thought if he or she would spend less time on Topix and spent more time working on screen writing then he or she wouldn't have soooo much time to waist. But if there is no proof then it has to be BS. If you read the post you can easily tell that it has nothing to do with evidence, it was a statement in response to his or her statement. Also what exactly were you reading because I didn't nominate anyone for anything? I read it over a couple times but I'm not sure what you meant by that.

Buy the way here's the definition of "Narrow Minded"
(Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty.)

I think narrow minded fits the situation vary well.

Maybe you should try to bring something "substantive" to the table yourself or you can just keep riding on Noogies coat tails.

Now that had a little name calling in it albeit it was lighthearted and lacked the harshness that is normally associated with name calling.

If you need anymore help I'll try to help if I have the time.

Now that last sentence is whats called condescending.
Hey

Cookeville, TN

#7910 Jun 1, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you really missed the point-- that there was no factual content provided in the post.
I made no claims here--so I need not provide evidence.
Those who do make claims do need to provide evidence.
I trust that this is something you are capable of comprehending.
From this statment it appears there is no point at all and it appears you do not want to take responsibility for absolutely no point at all.
So therefore I am comprehending quite a bit of BS which you do not want to provide evidence for.
What ever.
roxyb

Charlotte, NC

#7911 Jun 1, 2013
We booted ur ass,now deal mofo ;p
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7912 Jun 1, 2013
just saying wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension a little bit. There is no name calling only a suggestion, I can see how you would think calling him or her narrow minded is name calling but when you look at the many many months of his or her posts you begin to see a pattern that leads to the conclusion that he or she is narrow minded. Now I did say "if you're half as smart as you act like you are" this wasn't meant as an insult it was a phrase that was added to add emphasis the statement that was made, It was a little harsh though so sorry if I offended you. Plus I thought I should give him or her a little advise, he or she claims that he or she is a screen writer (no proof was ever given so it's probably just a made up story) and I thought if he or she would spend less time on Topix and spent more time working on screen writing then he or she wouldn't have soooo much time to waist. But if there is no proof then it has to be BS. If you read the post you can easily tell that it has nothing to do with evidence, it was a statement in response to his or her statement. Also what exactly were you reading because I didn't nominate anyone for anything? I read it over a couple times but I'm not sure what you meant by that.
Buy the way here's the definition of "Narrow Minded"
(Lacking tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy; petty.)
I think narrow minded fits the situation vary well.
Maybe you should try to bring something "substantive" to the table yourself or you can just keep riding on Noogies coat tails.
Now that had a little name calling in it albeit it was lighthearted and lacked the harshness that is normally associated with name calling.
If you need anymore help I'll try to help if I have the time.
Now that last sentence is whats called condescending.
If the discussion is about pharmaceutical companies, then no information is added to that issue by calling the person "narrow minded" . That is what was meant by the statement that there was little substance in the post.

So, the substance of my post is a matter of logic.
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7913 Jun 1, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
From this statment it appears there is no point at all and it appears you do not want to take responsibility for absolutely no point at all.
So therefore I am comprehending quite a bit of BS which you do not want to provide evidence for.
What ever.
There is a point--a matter of logic, not a matter of fact.
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7914 Jun 1, 2013
roxyb wrote:
We booted ur ass,now deal mofo ;p
I truly admire the pithy way you can express you thoughts.
just saying

Pelham, TN

#7915 Jun 1, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
If the discussion is about pharmaceutical companies, then no information is added to that issue by calling the person "narrow minded" . That is what was meant by the statement that there was little substance in the post.
So, the substance of my post is a matter of logic.
OK I see you still need a little help understanding reading comprehension. If you look at the beginning of the said post you will find something called sarcasm, after that is a sentence that gives one of the reasons that gives evidence to his or her narrow mindedness (although there was no proof given to his or her narrow mindedness, I would assume anyone reading these posts who really wanted facts could read previously posted comments to verify said observation.) Then there was a statement of a well known fact. After that there was a suggestion. Nothing in the said post was written with an argument toward substantive logic in mind, because if you read the post in the context it was written in you can see plain as day that it was written as a statement in reply to a previous post. So your argument that it didn't have anything substantive in it does nothing, it's a pointless argument. It's like watching Honey Boo Boo then making a fuss because you didn't learn how to rebuild your carburetor. But if you really want to get technical then all you have to do it look at the last two sentences in the said post you will find something that is substantive and logical that is well known. So either way you look at it your argument is ineffectual.
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7916 Jun 1, 2013
just saying wrote:
<quoted text>
OK I see you still need a little help understanding reading comprehension. If you look at the beginning of the said post you will find something called sarcasm, after that is a sentence that gives one of the reasons that gives evidence to his or her narrow mindedness (although there was no proof given to his or her narrow mindedness, I would assume anyone reading these posts who really wanted facts could read previously posted comments to verify said observation.) Then there was a statement of a well known fact. After that there was a suggestion. Nothing in the said post was written with an argument toward substantive logic in mind, because if you read the post in the context it was written in you can see plain as day that it was written as a statement in reply to a previous post. So your argument that it didn't have anything substantive in it does nothing, it's a pointless argument. It's like watching Honey Boo Boo then making a fuss because you didn't learn how to rebuild your carburetor. But if you really want to get technical then all you have to do it look at the last two sentences in the said post you will find something that is substantive and logical that is well known. So either way you look at it your argument is ineffectual.
Your arguments are simply ad hominems. You are attacking character rather than attempting to refute the opposing claims regarding the problems with pharmaceuticals.

Let me make the distinction abundantly clear.

Consider the differences between
1. What you say about the moon being made of green cheese is false because you are a jerk (or your hair is brown, etc)

2. What you say about so and the moon is false because samples that were brought back in the late 1960's contained no cheese of any color.

The difference between 1 and 2 should be clear even to the casual reader. 1 lacks substance.

There is a third claim

3. Your claim about the moon being made of green cheese is false because you are narrow-minded--and have a reputation for uttering falsehoods.

Number 3. may provide us with statistical reason for us to doubt what the person says, but we cannot claim with certainty that what there person is saying is false on that occasion. So much for the history of posts by that the person who opposes your point of view.

Twice you have claimed That I have a problem with reading comprehension. Let me counter by saying that as go now, you are unable at thos time (an ad hominem would be if I said that your are narrow-minded, and thus refuse) to comprehend the distinction being made here.

Which two sentences are you referencing? Which post?

Another irrelevant comment about the truth of the claims made about the value of immunizations: so and so was reported at some Internet site about having problems with immunization. There have been several such cases.

That is anecdotal evidence, which carries no more weight in a rational discussion of scientific issues than does an attack on persons involved in e discussion.
just saying

United States

#7917 Jun 1, 2013
Someone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arguments are simply ad hominems. You are attacking character rather than attempting to refute the opposing claims regarding the problems with pharmaceuticals.
Let me make the distinction abundantly clear.
Consider the differences between
1. What you say about the moon being made of green cheese is false because you are a jerk (or your hair is brown, etc)
2. What you say about so and the moon is false because samples that were brought back in the late 1960's contained no cheese of any color.
The difference between 1 and 2 should be clear even to the casual reader. 1 lacks substance.
There is a third claim
3. Your claim about the moon being made of green cheese is false because you are narrow-minded--and have a reputation for uttering falsehoods.
Number 3. may provide us with statistical reason for us to doubt what the person says, but we cannot claim with certainty that what there person is saying is false on that occasion. So much for the history of posts by that the person who opposes your point of view.
Twice you have claimed That I have a problem with reading comprehension. Let me counter by saying that as go now, you are unable at thos time (an ad hominem would be if I said that your are narrow-minded, and thus refuse) to comprehend the distinction being made here.
Which two sentences are you referencing? Which post?
Another irrelevant comment about the truth of the claims made about the value of immunizations: so and so was reported at some Internet site about having problems with immunization. There have been several such cases.
That is anecdotal evidence, which carries no more weight in a rational discussion of scientific issues than does an attack on persons involved in e discussion.
Once again you fail to understand what CONTEXT means.

Also your response to my post was made to a post that was made after my first post thus you weren't referring to my original post you were referring to the post you quoted (I can't believe I have to point this out.)

Plus you bring nothing to the table except for your a fondness for Noogie. Also what is your exact motive for trying to change the subject, I mean if all you care about if scientific fact,(which is good) then why are you dragging out a pointless discussion on a post that was made that had nothing to do with scientific facts.

As for adding links to websites, you and Noogie make it vary clear that it doesn't matter what website you post, it is a complete waist of time because Noogie or "Someone" will just dismiss it then go on a rant about Polio. So in your reality nothing is ever true because it all can be faked.

Also if you were to read my first post you would know that I didn't say I had a problem with vaccinations but what I did say was doctors should spread them out.

And yes I did attack Noogies character. But his character has needed an attack for a long time, I guess you have no problem with all the characters he has attacked in his long posting history. But for some reason you seem so offended that I picked on the little bully named Noogie. Why is that, who is he to you?

Also if you read my original post you will find that it was speculative thus voiding your whole argument.

Since you can't figure out how to look for a post I will help you out, the original post was #7884

Plus if you want to call me narrow minded then go right ahead, you see it doesn't bother me because I know the truth.

Ow and Noggie isn't always wrong but he is a jerk.
SSS

Paris, TN

#7918 Jun 1, 2013
C'mon, tell the truth! Are you two the Same Poster and you're arguing with yourself and trying to sound sooo intelligent and educated?
Whether you are or not, both Posts sound like a bunch of Double Talk, and trust me, I know the difference between intelligent conversation and double-talk...and that's all double-talk!
OW does that "double-talk' thing alot. Since he was mentioned in one of the Posts, could it be...
Ginger

Arlington, TX

#7919 Jun 1, 2013
SSS wrote:
C'mon, tell the truth! Are you two the Same Poster and you're arguing with yourself and trying to sound sooo intelligent and educated?
Whether you are or not, both Posts sound like a bunch of Double Talk, and trust me, I know the difference between intelligent conversation and double-talk...and that's all double-talk!
OW does that "double-talk' thing alot. Since he was mentioned in one of the Posts, could it be...
You should know all about talking to yourself.
just saying

United States

#7920 Jun 1, 2013
SSS wrote:
C'mon, tell the truth! Are you two the Same Poster and you're arguing with yourself and trying to sound sooo intelligent and educated?
Whether you are or not, both Posts sound like a bunch of Double Talk, and trust me, I know the difference between intelligent conversation and double-talk...and that's all double-talk!
OW does that "double-talk' thing alot. Since he was mentioned in one of the Posts, could it be...
If you think that is unintelligible gibberish then what are you doing reading posts in the first place. I may not agree with "Someone" but his and my posts are vary easy to read and understand, so if you find it as unintelligible gibberish or "double talk" then you need to break out the old dictionary and try a little harder.
Someone

Trezevant, TN

#7921 Jun 1, 2013
just saying wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you fail to understand what CONTEXT means.
Also your response to my post was made to a post that was made after my first post thus you weren't referring to my original post you were referring to the post you quoted (I can't believe I have to point this out.)
Plus you bring nothing to the table except for your a fondness for Noogie. Also what is your exact motive for trying to change the subject, I mean if all you care about if scientific fact,(which is good) then why are you dragging out a pointless discussion on a post that was made that had nothing to do with scientific facts.
As for adding links to websites, you and Noogie make it vary clear that it doesn't matter what website you post, it is a complete waist of time because Noogie or "Someone" will just dismiss it then go on a rant about Polio. So in your reality nothing is ever true because it all can be faked.
Also if you were to read my first post you would know that I didn't say I had a problem with vaccinations but what I did say was doctors should spread them out.
And yes I did attack Noogies character. But his character has needed an attack for a long time, I guess you have no problem with all the characters he has attacked in his long posting history. But for some reason you seem so offended that I picked on the little bully named Noogie. Why is that, who is he to you?

Also if you read my original post you will find that it was speculative thus voiding your whole argument.
Since you can't figure out how to look for a post I will help you out, the original post was #7884
Plus if you want to call me narrow minded then go right ahead, you see it doesn't bother me because I know the truth.
Ow and Noggie isn't always wrong but he is a jerk.
Regarding your last two statements in that post:
Now I'm not saying all vaccinations are bad and maybe their all fine but doctors need to stop giving infants many vaccinations all at the same time. I think one of the biggest problem is most doctors care more about cramming everything they can charge for into the shortest amount of time as possible so they can maximize on their profits, and this is hurting everyone's health in the long run.

The first statement is a an ought statement, and not a statement of fact.

The second statement , certainly is a speculation, but you seem to believe it to be an established fact--not the same thing at all. The problem is that you do not seem to recognize the difference.

You are correct, that my first post was made not to your original post. That post lacks substance.

Finally, you complained in your response that I was condescending. You have responded threefold.

"Content ext has nothing to do with my point. Calling Noggie a jerk has nothing to do with the veracity of his claims.

I suspect that you have little reason to be condescending: you have consistently misspelled "waste" as "waist". That makes me wonder whether you have enough command of the language to understand the distinction I have made here.

I can see at corresponding with you is a "waist" of time, and so will not be responding to any response that you make here. As you have written, you don't care anyway--but if so, why the long tirades?

A final insult: you are a very confused person.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does anyone remember Bottoms UP (Sep '10) 12 min curious 206
'Behold, Atheists' New Ten Commandments*' 20 min shapeshift 14
Feeling lonely for the holidays 23 min Dixie iron fist 97
Why so paranoid? 29 min Perry Noid 8
"Greeneville police: 2 infants found dead in ho... 32 min People are pathetic 34
Murder of 8month baby by jennings in greenevill... 43 min TryToSmile 5
Pooja (Mar '14) 44 min TryToSmile 10
Principal at Mosheim 3 hr oh lawd 55
wheel tax 16 hr cougarnut 119
Aggravated Statutory Rape in Greene County Thu Counsler Bob 97
Greeneville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Greeneville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Greeneville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:56 am PST

NFL 9:56AM
Cam Newton (back) probable for Panthers vs. Browns
NBC Sports 9:56 AM
Panthers list Cam Newton as probable for Sunday
NBC Sports10:31 AM
Coach: 'Very confident' Newton starts vs. Browns - NBC Sports
ESPN11:21 AM
Rivera 'confident' Newton will start Sunday
NBC Sports 3:14 PM
Losers of 13 of 14, Titans set for top draft pick - NBC Sports