Sorry, but that simple example supports that imaging can be useful prior to surgery. There's no way round that.
Indeed, just as I mentioned in my most recent post.
"Had the question on the table been about the use of MRI's for surgery rather than for diagnosis, then at least that comment would have been supporting..."
Once again you have taken a statement of mine, one with which you agree, and responded in the form of a rebuttal, as though challenging me. It's as if I had written "the sky is blue" and you responded with "sorry, but the sky is blue." What's that about? (rhetorical question, unless of course you have an explanation for it <g>)
That comment of yours supports MRI being useful for surgery, but it does not speak to its utility for diagnosis let alone its value added, which is what was challenged and what we have supposedly been discussing.
And both those studies and claims are irrelevant to the point I made ... that MRI's can be useful
You engaged this topic to rebut the claim in the piece that started this, which was that MRI's don't add value (are not useful) in diagnosis. I re-posted the claim and its supporting detail for clarity and context. Now, if the claim is irrelevant to the point you posted to rebut the claim, then your point must likewise be irrelevant to the claim. Which, of course, is the position I have taken all along--that you have provided no argument that remotely rebuts the claim you are supposedly attempting to rebut.
No need to continue to misrepresent the context of my comment. For the nth time.
Even if you were only trying to rebut the "really useful in diagnosis" independent of the rest of the piece and even if "really useful" somehow means something different in the first sentence than it does in the rest of the piece, which is unlikely, you still have yet to provide an explanation of how being useful surgery results in equivalent utility in diagnosis.
Then stop doing it.
I have not lashed out at you. I have stuck to argument. If you don't recognize my statements as arguments rather than outbursts, that's all the more evidence of your lack of familiarity with argumentation.
An irrelevant point if true.
It is, indeed, irrelevant to everything we have been discussing. Just like your knee MRI example is irrelevant to the claim made in the post that started this. I identified my comment as beside the point, It's clearly labeled as such, as just something I read that made me think of you, complete with "FWIW" and "<g>", conspicuously not making an argument. I can tell the difference between an argument and an irrelevant comment. |
