Rndlph, as an Observer, I'll make the following comments. Take them or leave them, as you wish.
1. I read your 4 Dec 04 8:12PM post and did not find anything useful in it relative to the goals of this Forum (the goal being dissemination and discussion of information about MS and treatments for it - I think). It was more of a rebuttal of OddDuck's comments about your previous post (Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:48 pm). You started the 4 Dec 04 post as follows:
I am utterly amazed that someone who has posted over 10% of the content in this public discussion forum could have such thin skin. Moreover, you really should read more carefully.
How does that advance the goal of this forum? Cmon.
2. In the 29 Nov 04 post, you said
Uh, there is no claim that the treatment is perfect. Moreover, this refers to ALL ARMS OF THE TWO STUDIES. This includes people who received placebo. A placebo is an inert substance with no treatment value. You do indeed seem to be confused. Or are you just being obtuse for snide effect?
Now, I ask what benefit was provided to ANYONE by final two sentences of that quote? The first part of it is useful and allows discourse, but the last two sentences just turn everyone off, me included.
Later in that same post you ask of OddDuck "Are you actually reading this?" What benefit does that comment provide?
Cmon, focus on the reasons for this forum and how best to get your point across.
3. One can say the same thing without making it personal, thus eliciting a response to the facts/comment as opposed to the personalisation:
This would equally apply to earlier comments by raven and OddDuck about the "subjective" nature of relapse evaluation during trials.
can just as easily be said as
"This would equally apply to other comments about the 'subjective' nature of relapse evaluation during trials."
See the difference? In the first, folks tend to focus on personalities, while in the second that is impossible and we must focus on the 'meat' of the statement - the subjective nature of relapse evaluation during trials.
4. Rndlph, I've personalised this post simply to ensure it meets the target audience. I think that you are favorably impressed by Tysabri, as am I. OddDuck and Harryz are more sceptical of it. That can and does make a healthy balance for give/take and discussion.
Stick to the facts, and realise that all here have the right to make a point; you may not agree with how they've made it, but focus on the point, not the method of delivery. We'll all be better off for it.
That's my bit. Hope you take the suggestion.