I'm having difficulty following the logic here:
This is Jayyy's post 6388:
"The article DEFINITELY applies to this scam product as it under the TYPES CR warns about
From Consumer Reports: If you see products on store shelves that claim to treat, cure, or prevent diabetes and its complications, the Food and Drug Administration wants to you to beware.
What can you do? Watch out for the following product types and their treatment claims:
“Natural” supplements. We’ve warned consumers in the past about the dangers of supplements. Some drugs labeled as “natural” were found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients that may actually harm rather than help.
Dietary supplements. These supplements claim to treat and even prevent diabetes. These products are not FDA approved and therefore cannot make such a claim.
Unapproved OTC medications. These drugs claim to relieve symptoms associated with diabetes, but are not approved by the FDA."
Post 6389 asked: If the article is applicable to Sucanon then why is it necessary to leave out a key sentence in the middle that identifies the 15 products that were the actual subject of the article?
(Note that just a few posts prior (6379), the missing sentence issue was identified, and is posted below for the benefit of all:
Again, you purposely left out a key sentence:
"it warned 15 companies last week about the illegal marketing of certain diabetes products, including Glucocil, Glytain, ProBeta’s Gynmena Sylvestre, and Zostrix Joint and Arthritis Pain Relief Cream".
Leaving out this sentence is "deceptive" in that some readers might get the false impression that this article applies to Sucanon, which it clearly does not!)
Jayyy's response to post 6389 asking why the key sentence was left out:
Post 6390: "Because this board is about this scam"
Logically, the stated thought process is that it is ok to purposefully remove a subject sentence from a quote, post it, and use that quote to claim a false conclusion and defend it "because this board is about this scam."
