You copied post about zinc verbatim from an article. Then, you said, "By that reasoning practically any metallic element should work, even such everyday metals as iron, calcium, potassium, and sodium."
Well at least you got it right the second time.
Still, even if you had merely said at the outset that the reasoning as quoted involved a gross oversimplification of the facts as you understand them, that would have been satisfactory for my purposes and we could have avoided all this.
Geez, man, I was trying to be nice and you twisted it around like I was misquoting you when a verbatim quote was not even my intention.
If a verbatim quote was not your intent, then why in the world did you use quotation marks!? What exactly was I supposed to think?
And even then it would have rested except Mike here just had to portray the miscommunication as somehow intentional on my part. Some people.
Just to review, this is the quote that started this:
Some scientists question whether it is even biologically plausible that zinc could cure colds. Zinc backers propose that the element's positive charge
and my remark, as I intended it, was that the notion of the positive charge being the key to zinc's claimed efficacy was dubious at best, given that a sizeable majority of elements have ions which are positively charged.
That was all I had to say, and I regret only that certain people on this board decided to make a federal case out of it. |
