Transparent back-tracking and damage limitation now you realise there is substance to public concerns. It is interesting that your hostility and abusive language towards me is the exact opposite of your fawning praise of Dr. Gil. Yet he had simply cut and pasted word for word my report. If that doesn?t show hypocrisy then goodness knows what will.

As soon as my post was published you went into hostility mode backing a new poster heckler who preferred to remain anonymous. I don?t know many moderators who publish, let alone side with anonymous letter writers!

I am a respected international journalist. I get mail; mostly friendly. It is occasionally critical but rare for me to be on the receiving end of libellous language such as yours. (I quote: ?Spewing out some alarmist, unsourced accusations about another individual or organisation ?.. ?stirring shit up.? This really is gutter tabloid Sunday Sport language isn?t it? You then go on to write that such messengers should be shot.

Will you be shooting Dr. Gil for cutting and pasting those same word for word remarks on your forum and others? PUMA 22 often carry my reports; they value them. But the doctor has praise heaped upon him. Slaps and pats for saying the same thing. Neither I nor others know who you are but no moderator, let alone editor in my experience would write in such terms.

I split the thread for others to be able to read your original thread without getting bogged down in our little spat.

I’m seriously disturbed by your response. I’m not sure if you know what hypocrisy is. I’m also not sure if you’re actually reading my posts. Furthermore, I’m unclear as to whether you’re a journalist - the profession is founded on fact checking and investigation, neither of which were exemplified in your original post and fundamentally the point of my original response.

If you’re looking for a flame war and a fight then please go elsewhere. I have better things to do.

I am not at all surprised you jumped to it when splitting the post was the only option from where you are sitting. As for moving on, it’s a mutual sentiment. I can’t believe you heaped scorn on me for publishing a post and in one step heaped praise on Dr. Gil for cutting and pasting it word for word. Comment would be superfluous!

I’m at a loss to see where you published a post that was word for word the same as Dr. Gil’s. I’d appreciate if you’d show me some specifics (I’ve re-read the thread and still don’t see it).

It’s one thing to post your own opinion as serious as accusing doctors of being unqualified and entirely another to report on someone else’s accusations with no way of following up.

By the way, did Dr. Gil or PUMA22 hire you as a journalist, writer or in any other way compensate you? That would be important to point out if it’s indeed the case.

No, read it properly: I write that Dr. Gil afterwards posted my original post word for word and which you had poured scorn on. The doctor had also posted it on other forums without problems. You heaped praise upon him whilst flaming me for publishing a post that he repeated. How does that stack up?

I am in no way connected to Dr. Gil or to PUMA22 other than objectively as a writer. I receive no payment nor reward. As a matter of fact the doctor was a little cool towards me when I last met him; I presume because I am not PUMA22’s public address system. Happy? I doubt it!

I still don’t see his posting of your words. Please quote maybe?

You’re connected to them as a writer but receive no compensation?

The Expatriator - 29 April 2011 12:00 PM

I still don’t see his posting of your words. Please quote maybe?

You’re connected to them as a writer but receive no compensation?

See Tourist Post No. 2

Connected to them as a writer makes me complicit? I write about hundreds of people including Prime Minister Putin, ex-President Reagan, President Gaddafi, Tony Blair   ....  by your reckoning this puts me in their pockets? You criticise me for assisting the rest of the media in drawing attention to unqualified doctors whilst in the same breath you insultingly deny me my profession and integrity. I think it is best for your to walk back from this one.

I edited my original response in an effort to help us summarize the back and forth, to help us keep track of each other’s points and retorts.

You criticise me for assisting the rest of the media in drawing attention to unqualified doctors whilst in the same breath you insultingly deny me my profession and integrity.

I have not criticized you for assisting “the rest of the media.” I criticized the content of your original post as being unsourced. And your profession and integrity have nothing to do with it. You posted something about someone else without sourcing it (that in itself is certainly a questionable action for someone of your profession and integrity). That’s libellous if found to be defamatory. I’d have had to delete your post if left as it was.

If Dr. Gil wanted to post a note on our forum about his efforts then he should do so (as he has now done).

You?re connected to them as a writer but receive no compensation?

Connected to them as a writer makes me complicit?

Mike, you’re not answering my question. I’d merely like to know if you received compensation for your writings.

You say you were quoting Dr. Gil, and then you say that he’s writing as if they were your words. I know you’re a ghost writer and this is what ghost writers do, so it seems fair to question whether you were hired by them. If you were hired by someone else to write about the issue for, say, a newspaper, then please feel free to disclose that here too please. Journalists do this all the time when they talk about their work.

No, read it properly: I write that Dr. Gil afterwards posted my original post word for word and which you had poured scorn on. The doctor had also posted it on other forums without problems. You heaped praise upon him whilst flaming me for publishing a post that he repeated. How does that stack up?

It stacks up like this: I praised Roman’s (Dr. Gil no?) words in that post, not yours, even though he quoted your post. My praise did not entail praise for your words quoted in his post (that would be somewhat stupid which is apparently what you were reading into my praise).

I responded to your original post, have asked questions and tried to respond to those questions of yours that seemed rational and relevant. If you’re able to continue this conversation rationally then please do so. Otherwise, indeed, we shall close the thread and move on.

As you might expect I have had a bellyfull of both you and your forum and have already decided that it is not for me. Otherwise I wish posters well, including the newbie whose post originally ignited this farce. Good day to you, sir!

As I expected, you have withdrawn your points in the face of skilled thinking and articulate arguments.

Happy royal wedding day to you.