You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. But what 
you wrote doesn't answer my challenge to you about citing Quackwatch 
as a legitimate source.

M

At 03:45 AM 8/22/2008, you wrote:
>I suggested looking at Null's Web site because it tells you all you 
>need to know about the way he is profiting from the gullibility of 
>those who are justifiably suspicious of the medical and drug 
>establishments, along with thousands of other lesser quacks like him 
>(one of whom even used to be a member of this list.) Null et al. 
>prey on that gullibility, and of course they are found lurking 
>around the edges of the progressive movement looking for customers 
>and credibility from outlets like Pacifica and now Mitchel's program.
>
>MB
>
>On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Mitchel Cohen 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I'd like to know, actually, WHY you depend on Quackwatch for ANY 
>arguments. Barrett, the head of quackwatch, has lost repeatedly in 
>court in recent years, and his claims are specious up and down the 
>line -- not only about Null, but about others as well.
>
>If you're going to argue against something Null says, at least get 
>it right and do your own homework. Warning: Don't rely on 
>Quackwatch, 'cause Barrett is shown to be the biggest quack in the pond.
>
>Mitchel
>
>
>
>
>At 12:40 AM 8/22/2008, you wrote:
>There is also an informative article about Null on the Quackwatch 
>site: 
><http://quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html>http://quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html
>
>
>----------
>
>
>--
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>Boston University
>
>Email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Website: <http://michaelbalter.com>michaelbalter.com
>Balter's Blog: <http://michael-balter.blogspot.com>michael-balter.blogspot.com
>******************************************