« Comment on Orphan Drugs and Intellectual Property-BECKER | Main | Orphan Drugs--Posner's Response to Comments »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sylvain Galineau

This is a lie. I do not even mention the AARP by name in my first post, let alone in bold.Except this is not the claim I was referring to. Which would be obvious if you only bothered to read your own bolded assertion in your first post and compared it to the last statement in your previous answer. But I guess reading others is too tiresome and would stand in the way of the grandstanding. Better keep on keepin' on about the AARP - as if anyone cared - and now even the Nazis, in the same line of argument.

It's official : you are completely off your rocker. It's all right, help is on the way. This is exactly what we invented the Orphan Drug Act for. And goes to show that it might not always be the most effective use of our resources, I guess.

Sally J

could it be because the latter are a wee bigger, more extensive, cost slightly more and touch a few more Americans than the Open Drug Act ?

It's the Orphan Drug Act!

Sylvain Galineau

(Hey, he knows about LOL....and in italics too...he must be kewl)

Seriously. Apologies to Mr Posner for slapping a troll around in this otherwise excellent space. He shall be ignored from now on. Sorry for all the noise, they're rather loud and messy pets.

Out and over.


Sylvain: Except this is not the claim I was referring to. Which would be obvious if

Except it is not obvious because of the way you inarticulately worded your post. It appears that you are still talking about the AARP. Try writing with clarity:


Side note : you brought up the AARP. Not me. I asked what its relevance to this argument was. Still no intelligible or relevant answer except to invent more absurd accusations and conflating more unrelated issues to drown your (dead) fish. Read before you answer. Listen before you speak, you might come across as less of a troll.

By the way, you did make that claim. In bold, in your very first post. That you are now so keen to deny it will be sufficient for now. Thank you.

Who is to know what "that" claim is? The last claim you referred to was me bringing up the AARP.

Sylvain Galineau

Sally, oops. Must be that figurative speech thing again. Contagious, I guess.

Sally J

Frankly, Sylvain, I think you're the troll, and I hope Posner bans you. I don't even think you read any of the relevant materials before opening your mouth!

Sylvain Galineau

Well, if you took the time to read before blowing off steam, a lot of things would clear up.

Someone please tell the guy(gal?) what he(she?) wrote in bold in his first post. The scrollbar must have broken, with all this heat. Ta ta.

Sally J

I am not W, or ben, or Ta, or anyone else here. I come here all the time!

Sylvain Galineau

Aaaw, Sally. That so hurts my feelings. Really. Tell you what : next time you can be the teacher and discipline the naughty kids yourself instead of begging the prof to do it for you OK ?

Bye now.

Sally J

Sylvain: Well, if you took the time to read before blowing off steam, a lot of things would clear up. ... The scrollbar must have broken, with all this heat.

Sylvain: If Posner's title and entire post are about the Open Drug Act but, as an example,...

But they are not. It's called the Orphan Drug Act.

Sylvain Galineau

Yes, sweetie. I heard you the last time. Replace Open with Orphan and make a real point.

What's with all the bolding these days anyway ? I got to try that. It seems to prove things or make them important. Neat.

Seriously, kids. It was fun. I really, really got to go now. (He says for the 12th time...children...sigh...)


W: ...[Posner's] claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

W, where does Posner actually write this, or words to this effect?

Sally J


You're a posturing hypocrite. You didn't even read Posner's post carefully. You do a tremendous disservice to everyone who comes here to be intellectually stimulated with your cheap misquotations and snarky comments. And now you are sexist! Sweetie? Sweetie? Where the hell do you get off?

You didn't just make a casual error. You typed Open instead of Orphan because you are too intellectually lazy to pay careful attention! You are the one who was upset and angry. You're the one who didn't bother to scroll up. You're the one who is full of bull. You're a classic case of projection.

Instead of comparing your penis-size with Internet foes, you might try contributing something of worth. I suppose my 3-year old son would have insecurities like yours at your age if I had named him Sylvain! However many times were you pounded during recess, this blog is no place to take out your aggression.

Sylvain Galineau

ben, my dear friend, this was in bold. Do not dare question the bold sentences ! They are not open to inquiry and are not subject to the burden of proof. Figurative speech ! It's the new Science ! We must always prove to W. he said what he did, not the other way around. Where have you been ?

OK I'll stop. Again.



W: ...[Posner's] claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

W, where does Posner actually write this, or words to this effect?

This is an example of distorting what I wrote by selectively quoting it. What I wrote was this:

As always, Posner has clearly presented an economic analysis with disastrous, provocative results, and expected us to swallow the poison pill. His analysis is lucid, illuminating, and cautious and there is little with which to disagree. And yet the rigorous analysis obfuscates his claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die.

When I later state that Posner is "saying" XYZ, it's just a shorthand way of referring to the earlier post, quoted above. I did not mean to revise the original post, which refers to a claim obsfuscated, and replace it with the assertion that such a claim was explicit and express.

But to someone who cares about deconstructing the text of your post, rather than dealing with its substance, that doesn't matter.


ob∑fus∑cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bf-skt, b-fskt)
tr.v. ob∑fus∑cat∑ed, ob∑fus∑cat∑ing, ob∑fus∑cates
To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: ìA great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truthî (Robert Conquest).
To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

Sylvain Galineau

Well, speaking of lazy posturing and aggression, I am glad you could let me know why I typed one instead of the other. The depth of your psycho-analysis does indeed leave me in awe. As for the soft kindness of your overreacted put-down, it is indeed humbling.

As far as sexism, I must admit I have erred. I mean, look at you bringing penis size in the melee. Now *this* is nuanced female sophistication at work. Only guys have to go below the belt.

As for your ability to keep the debate on its tracks, it is clearly unmatched.

OK, guys. Time out : so far we've had Gaucher type 1 and 2, the AARP, the Nazis and now penis size.

Anyone have anything related to Mr Posner's post ? Once.... ? Twice... ?

Sally J

You mean his post about the Open Drug Act?

Sylvain Galineau

OK so Posner's analysis obfuscates - look Ma ! Bold ! - "his" (Posner's right ?) "claim that society as a collective is better off if its weakest members are left slowly to die."

In other words, he didn't say anything of the sort, it's just obfuscated but visible to those....who are more interested in deconstructing the text of a post, rather than dealing with its substance.

We finally agree on something. Joy.

Sylvain Galineau

Ask your three-year old son. He knows.


Uh, not really, Sylvain.

Actually, if you go back to first post, you'll recognize that we've come full circle. Any questions you want answered? Go back there and simply read it more carefully.


Yes, it is mere "deconstruction of text" to say that:

I take Posner's point that a dollar spent to earn two dollars is a waste when one has the costless opportunity to make three.

You're a fool.

Sylvain Galineau

I am glad you do not need to call me names.

And your point is ?


Just stating a fact. I know you have problems with that. Perhaps it explains why you don't read the newspaper.

Sylvain Galineau

Stating a fact ? A fact like the one according to which I don't read 'the newspaper' - there is only one apparently - or a real fact, one you can actually back up ?

Now, can you really answer ben's question and explain when and how Posner said what you claimed he did ? Or are we just going to get more tiresome evasion and long-winded tirades about everything and nothing ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31