Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I think there would be more respect given for foot typing had there never been a patent on it and an end goal to profit from it as that crystallizes the bias attached to it.
This is an academic forum where selfless individuals are striving to bring to light the latest knowledge in biomechanics. Their motivation is not money but curiosity and greater understanding with the goal of teaching others and providing the best patient care.
Truth be told, I am certain that many Podiatrists who lack understanding in biomechanics would be well served by using orthotics made by Dennis. There are so many Podiatrists that have no curiosity in biomechanics let alone wish to take the time to learn. Those same Podiatrists also do not even know this site exists which is why Dennis gets backlash from those here that possess knowledge and understanding of foot mechanics.
Steven
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Lab Guy For This Useful Post:
I think there would be more respect given for foot typing had there never been a patent on it and an end goal to profit from it as that crystallizes the bias attached to it.
This is an academic forum where selfless individuals are striving to bring to light the latest knowledge in biomechanics. Their motivation is not money but curiosity and greater understanding with the goal of teaching others and providing the best patient care.
Truth be told, I am certain that many Podiatrists who lack understanding in biomechanics would be well served by using orthotics made by Dennis. There are so many Podiatrists that have no curiosity in biomechanics let alone wish to take the time to learn. Those same Podiatrists also do not even know this site exists which is why Dennis gets backlash from those here that possess knowledge and understanding of foot mechanics.
Steven
Steven:
You pretty much hit the nail squarely on the head with your above comment.
Had there been no profit motive for Neoteric Biomechanics, Functional Foot Typing, Foot Centering, etc, then I would have considered these ideas much differently.
Please consider a few well known inventors in podiatry. Look at Mert Root and his invention of the Root Functional Orthosis. Did he ever try to patent or trademark his invention? No. Look at Rich Blake and his invention of the Blake Inverted Orthosis. Did he ever try to patent or trademark his invention?
Now, how are Mert Root and Rich Blake respected relative to the inventor of Neoteric Biomechanics, etc? There is really no contest.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Had there been no profit motive for Neoteric Biomechanics, Functional Foot Typing, Foot Centering, etc, then I would have considered these ideas much differently.
So when reviewing new work related to Biomechanics, you admit that if that work is profit motivated, patented or trademarked, you review it differently than if it is not?
BIAS: noun
1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
Kevin: Do you deny that you are biased?
Quote:
Please consider a few well known inventors in podiatry. Look at Mert Root and his invention of the Root Functional Orthosis. Did he ever try to patent or trademark his invention? No. Look at Rich Blake and his invention of the Blake Inverted Orthosis. Did he ever try to patent or trademark his invention?
Now, how are Mert Root and Rich Blake respected relative to the inventor of Neoteric Biomechanics, etc?
.
1. I googled “Merton Root DPM Peer Reviewed Articles” and did not come up with one.
As a matter of fact, the first response was an article entitled “Are Root Biomechanics Dying? by Kevin Kirby DPM.
If evidence is so important to you and yours, what makes Dr. Root's unproven work so respected?
Furthermore, not that I don’t value Dr. Blake for his additions to biomechanics and respect him for his accomplishments, but is he on many top 25-50 respected biomechanists lists around the world?
2. I next googled “podiatrists with patents” and came up with:
Marvin Steinberg DPM
William Scholl, DPM
Bill Reece DPM
Howard Dananberg DPM
Joseph Slavin DPM
Doug Richie DPM
William Montross DPM
Greg Anderson DPM
Martin Weldenkin DPM
Stanley Kalish DPM
Richard Koenig DPM
Michael Grumbine DPM
Todd O'Brien DPM
Dennis Shavelson DPM
Harry Hlavac DPM
Daryl Darby DPM
Michael Graham DPM
Thomas Scarloto DPM
Steven Barrett DPM
Lowell Weil DPM
Robert Weiss DPM
Gary Lepow DPM
Douglas Capaccio DPM
Neal Blitz DPM
Jeffrey Brooks, DPM
This group has among it inventors with expansive recognition in the scientific, medical and biomechanical community, internationally.
In addition, we have commonality in that we have all profited from and many have trademarked our works.
Are you trying to say that because of our patents, economic success and trademarking, you feel validated to prejudge or automatically review our (or future) inventions with bias?
Even worse, can we assume that if Functional Foot Typing and Foot Centering were invented by Dr's Root or Blake, it would hold a different place for you in Biomechanics?
The irony of your inquiry into Dennis' system is that he has stated publicly that only podiatrists possess the training and biomechanical skill requisite to apply his patented approach. I guess Dennis left that part out while entertaining your query, possibly because discussion of FFT is very slow these days. You are a C. Ped Colin, correct?
Dennis did share DVD's of his work with me a couple years ago Colin, despite my not being a podiatrist. I have never approached the subject of how similar FFT is to existing work I have read in the past and that has been pointed out in this (and other) threads. It is surprising to me that the original authors have apparently not caught on and commented.
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright
I have never approached the subject of how similar FFT is to existing work I have read in the past and that has been pointed out in this (and other) threads. It is surprising to me that the original authors have apparently not caught on and commented.
The original foot typing system was proposed in 1996 by Paul Scherer and Jack Morris (both biomechanics professors of mine from CCPM) in Valmassy's book in a chapter titled "The Classification of Human Foot Types, Abnormal Foot Function and Pathology" (Scherer PR, Morris JL: The classification of human foot types, abnormal foot function, and pathology. In Valmassy RL (ed) Clinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremities. Mosby, St. Louis, 1996, pp. 85-93.) Scherer and Morris used a 3 x 3 grid to come up with 9 foot types (see illustration on left from their chapter).
Dennis Shavelson's trademarked Functional Foot Typing that was patented in May 2011 uses a 4 x 4 grid to come up with 16 foot types. In the link here, https://podiatry.com/etalk/US-Patent...-t3932.html#-1, you may want to scroll down and read the questions that Daryl Phillips, DPM, asks of Dennis about the validity of his patent. I have also provided the 4 x 4 grid that Dennis Shavelson patented 15 years after the original foot typing proposal of Scherer and Morris (see illustration on right).
You can all decide for yourselves how original, similar or different these two "foot typing systems" are relative to each other.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
So when reviewing new work related to Biomechanics, you admit that if that work is profit motivated, patented or trademarked, you review it differently than if it is not?
BIAS: noun
1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
Kevin: Do you deny that you are biased?
I'm Certainly have Bias!
Mind you, there are only two types of people in the world, those who know they have bias, and those who are deluded.
If I heard that the aliens had landed and were going to kill us all from a wino on the street, I'd not worry too much. If I heard it on radio 4 (not sure there is a corollary for radio 4 in America) I'd take it much more seriously. Thats bias.
Or, if you prefer, one might say that impartial judgement takes account of the source of the information as well as the information itself when judging its veracity...
You can all decide for yourselves how original, similar or different these two "foot typing systems" are relative to each other.
Oooo, ooo I know this one...
No, they're nothing alike.
Actually, in fairness to Dennis, he's never denied that his foot typeing system was very heavily influenced by Dr Scherers work. But then, there is a chapter on Moments and lever arms in Roots book which no doubt informed some of your seminal paper Kevin. There's no shame in standing on the shoulders of giants... provided you don't claim the extra height it gives you as your own intellectual property of course .
But then, there is a chapter on Moments and lever arms in Roots book which no doubt informed some of your seminal paper Kevin.
Actually, it was my high school and UC Davis physics courses and my reading of Benno Nigg's original papers, rather than Root's book, that informed my theories on the importance of subtalar joint axis location. However, that is not the point. The point is that, like nearly all other scientists, the theories, techniques and tests I have proposed and invented were not trademarked or patented in order so that they could be freely used by others for the benefit of their patients.
Therefore, Robert, I really don't see your point in making such a comment.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Actually, it was my high school and UC Davis physics courses and my reading of Benno Nigg's original papers, rather than Root's book, that informed my theories on the importance of subtalar joint axis location. However, that is not the point. The point is that, like nearly all other scientists, the theories, techniques and tests I have proposed and invented were not trademarked or patented in order so that they could be freely used by others for the benefit of their patients.
Therefore, Robert, I really don't see your point in making such a comment.
My point was merely that its not unusual nor bad form to take somebody elses work and expand on and add to it. Which, as I see it, is what Dennis did. I don't think much was added in terms of the grid, but there was plenty of new stuff in terms of the foot centering, vault etc (I don't like much of it, but its not in Scherers work and thus is new to that foot typing model). Thus I feel its a little unfair to offer the two grids as a means for readers to decide how similar Dr Shavelsons foot typing is to Dr Scherers because they don't really represent the totality of either model. A yacht and a clipper both carry a sail, but one cannot merely compare sails to decide how alike the boats are.
And I agree with you on the patents... to a point. I think the differences is that the academic work you cited was just that, academic work. For the good of mankind. Dennis' model is more akin to the intellectual property of a certain marketable orthotic device and those CAN be protected, and often are. If I were to scan a vasyli device and send the 3d image to china to be injection moulded and start knocking them out at a third the price I imagine I'd soon have an expensive letter to answer. That, I think, is what Dennis was trying to protect. The dissonance, for me, is caused when Dennis offers his product as if its an academic breakthrough, which it isn't.
My point was merely that its not unusual nor bad form to take somebody elses work and expand on and add to it.
Only if you do not acknowledge the original author. Dennis may mention the original work but has never made a point of acknowledging that his grid is nearly identical, the work expanded upon etc. Only here on PA does Dennis acknowledge the link and only when called on it, lending the impression that it is indeed original work. Colin is absolutely correct; it is repackaged (and without crediting its origins).
Quote:
A yacht and a clipper both carry a sail, but one cannot merely compare sails to decide how alike the boats are.
Robert I find this a poor example, the foundations of the original work and Dennis’ are more akin to the actual boats themselves. Whereas a boat maker can describe the boat, displacement, and speed etc, Dennis cannot describe his boats function or how he would alter the boat under differing usage or purpose. His sails are the only difference and he cannot quantify how those sails differ from others.
Quote:
The dissonance, for me, is caused when Dennis offers his product as if its an academic breakthrough, which it isn't.
My previous comments support your assertions, I agree. Dennis’ intransigence in revealing how he alters prescriptions based on foot typing, explaining how FT is “new” etc are obfuscation for an incomplete idea.
I’ve said many times Dennis has shape shifted and updated his work based on his interaction with all of you and he cannot field simple questions because he has no answers.
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright
David G. Wedemeyer, D.C., C.Ped.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to David Wedemeyer For This Useful Post:
Only if you do not acknowledge the original author. Dennis may mention the original work but has never made a point of acknowledging that his grid is nearly identical, the work expanded upon etc. Only here on PA does Dennis acknowledge the link and only when called on it, lending the impression that it is indeed original work. Colin is absolutely correct; it is repackaged (and without crediting its origins)
.
Among my original patent references that I supplied to the US Patent Office in 2006 were:
Palmer. “Fundamentals of Musculoskeletal techniques” Ch 14 Ankle and Foot. pp. 365-372. Paul Scherer and Jack Morris, “The Classification of human foot types, abnormal foot function, and pathology” in Clinical Biomechanics of the Lower Extremities, Chapter 3, pp. 85-93, (Valmassey, Ronald L. ed., 1996).
To state that I have never given credit, informed Dr. Scherer of my upgrade to his 9 grid system and even offered him to edit my first publications (which he rejected), like many of your claims is quite simply a lie and fabrication.
The rest of your angry, self serving claims, IMHO, are based on the fact that I oppose accepting some of your fundamentals and called upon your work to be judged in the same manner as you were judging those resistant to convert completely to becoming an Arena faithful.
How can LabGuy print:
Quote:
Truth be told, I am certain that many Podiatrists who lack understanding in biomechanics would be well served by using orthotics made by Dennis. There are so many Podiatrists that have no curiosity in biomechanics let alone wish to take the time to learn.
and then blindly accept Dr Wedemeyer's angry, libelous post?
The fact is, my work IS in progress and not completed, it continues to grow in strength and importance. I hope it will never be fully defined to anyone's satisfaction, especially mine.
As I make a comparison for the readers to appreciate with Dr Scherer's classification, my interest in foot typing preceded his nine page chapter by many, many years.
The 9 grid served as a model for me to expand, modify and adapt into a more clinically applicable one.
Scherer Foot Typing did not type all feet accurately.
It does not have many (any) clinical applications.
There are reasons why Paul abandoned his system 18 years ago as Kevin suggests and made room for my upgrades.
Positively, Dr Scherer exposed to us all the importance of having a foot typing system in biomechanics.
My FFT Testing involves two open chain exams of the rearfoot and forefoot as opposed to Scherers one (closed for rearfoot, open for forefoot).
My tests apply moments and forces into the foot, delivered by the examiners hands, that offer insight as to what forces and moments he/she wishes to apply to each patients orthotic shell in the form of ORF's and MERF's totally absent in any other foot typing method including Dr Roots.
FFTing totally revamps forefoot biomechanics as being sighted from the rearfoot as a relationship into a free standing, independent test with huge clinical and research applicability.
Foot Centering reduces the importance of frontal plane hyperpronation as a pathological entity that needs treatment biomechanically.
Foot Centering openly states that Subtalar Joint Neutral is not the optimal functional position (except in rare cases) that feet should be cast in and opines that there is an Optimal Functional Position, for each foot, foot type-specific that we should aspire to capture in our casts.
Currently, I am suggesting that biomechanists should try to approach "the day that bone growth ends" as in Munson's classical work as the Optimal Functional Position (OFP).
Summarily, the Foot Centering Theory of Structure and Function upgrades the importance of structure in our work and how we can impact structure biomechanically.
Wellness Biomechanics adds architecture into the mix before applying engineering or physics into the picture. as well as
It incorporates architectural language to the standard engineering and physics languages making biomechanics more universally practical, teachable, researchable and understandable by the masses (foot and postural sufferers,DPM's and physicians) who "lack understanding in biomechanics" as LabGuy and others reference.
I continue to field questions from all comers who find something of value in my 40 years of clinical, professional and practical success and refuse to answer yours.
if you want to know why I patented my work, you don't have to go any further than to realize that if I had not, those of you who should be spending more time doing your own valuable work are still, quite unsuccessfully, wasting time on what you assert is the worthless work of an egomaniac.
If being an egomaniac means I believe in what I do and in my art or music, then in that respect you can call me that... I believe in what I do, and I'll say it.
John Lennon
Dennis your provisional patent contains a reference to Dr. Scherer (without specific discussion of the work in question) that was obviated in the final patent filing.
Merely referencing his work is a cover your a** technique; no other mention is made of Dr. Scherer’s original work in the provisional patent. This is omitted from the final patent filing:
This is the most complete filing that I can find online, other searches revealed the same. Download the .pdf and read it for yourselves if you wish, No Paul Scherer mentioned. If I am incorrect please, show us the final patent application where you credit and discuss Dr. Scherer’s original work and how yours differs? It is too similar to just slough off Dennis and since you have opened the door, an explanation is warranted.
Then there’s Daryl Phillips comments on Podiatry.com in which he very delicately points out that some of the elements of your work contain a very similar theme to lectures that he had given:
Also of interest when you reference those before you on “whose shoulders you stand”, such as Dr. Scherer in your provisional patent, why would you drop Dr. Scherer’s name from that list. Why would you exclude Dr. Scherer’s work if it was important enough to reference in the provisional patent when the others were not?
My Foot Typing method is based primarily on the work of Dr’s Root, Orien, Weed, Dananberg and to a lesser extent Kirby but stands on the shoulders of many.
And you then reprimand Dr. Scherer:
Quote:
Dr. Root , as Dr. Philips suggests of me, published his science openly and then when it was catching on, asked by the doctors and labs to teach it to them, visited labs, offered courses in addition toproviding other ways of putting his science in open domain. He assumed his work would be respected, repeated and advanced but instead it has become perrverted and diluted so as to be "indisinguable from OTC orthotics for things like plantar fasciitis and FHL" by even our own (Paul Scherer, DPM, 2011).
.
The inconsistencies and omissions mount and we have covered them numerous times prior. Yours is not a work in progress, you’re making it all up as you go along. You have borrowed here, added there, renamed standard lexicon and all to make your regurgitated “work” appear just different enough to patent but it is still not “neoteric”, original or useful and you cannot explain it to the satisfaction of anyone of discernment.
You mention libel when I am merely stating an opinion (and based on facts freely available on the internet and in the DVD’s that you sent me (no mention of Dr. Scherer there either btw?). Dennis, quit with the naughty veiled threats, they’re old and tired. Keep in mind that a staff member listened in on our phone calls. Threaten all that you want but it just confirms that you’re an internet bully without teeth and I am merely stating opinion and supported fact, neither of which is actionable in court.
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright
David G. Wedemeyer, D.C., C.Ped.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to David Wedemeyer For This Useful Post:
Good post. Well said. I think Dennis is working on the premise that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. If I am not mistaken, a favourite quote of one Adolph Hitler.
Dennis your provisional patent contains a reference to Dr. Scherer.
So you admit that I referenced it once proving you a liar.
Are you saying now that I didn't reference it often enough?
Quote:
It is too similar to just slough off
The facts are that Paul wrote nine pages in a chapter of Valmassey's book on foot typing and nothing more before or after.
Paul's nine and my 16 grid systems are night and day and Paul's work on foot typing should be sloughed off.
Quote:
Then there’s Daryl Phillips comments on Podiatry.com in which he very delicately points out that some of the elements of your work contain a very similar theme to lectures that he had given:
Darryl is a good guy with strong personal opinions about biomechanics. I believe that he has more than once called Dr. Kirby and others to task about pieces of their biomechanics that he felt needed to be opposed.
Why don't you let Dr. Phillips voice his own opinions as to me and my work overall?
Quote:
Also of interest when you reference those before you on “whose shoulders you stand”, why would you drop Dr. Scherer’s name from that list.
Paul is a great educator, lab director, entrepreneur, marketeer, professor of biomechanics, etc. and deserves a place in biomechanics history.
I excluded Dr. Scherer from the list of whose shoulders I stand upon when it comes to Wellness Biomechanics appropriately, because he had very little to do with my work.
Perhaps, to satisfy your need to know where Dr. Scherer lives on my list of influential colleagues, I could form a secondary list using a different postural location and state that I am standing on Dr. Scherer's 5th toe nail when it comes to foot typing. [wink/]
Quote:
Yours is not a work in progress, you’re making it all up as you go along. You have borrowed here, added there, renamed standard lexicon and all to make your regurgitated “work” appear just different enough to patent but it is still not “neoteric”, original or useful and you cannot explain it to the satisfaction of anyone of discernment.
This is a very biased, opinionated and personally offensive paragraph which has no place on this thread IMHO.
[quote]
Quote:
You mention libel when I am merely stating an opinion
I will let the court of public opinion decide whose opinion to value, yours or mine.
So you admit that I referenced it once proving you a liar.
Are you saying now that I didn't reference it often enough?
Dennis you are misquoting me (as you did with Colin). What I asked was:
Quote:
Dennis your provisional patent contains a reference to Dr. Scherer (without specific discussion of the work in question) that was obviated in the final patent filing. ?
You reference Dr. Scherer in your provisional patent and then exclude the reference in the final patent, do we have that correct? You can’t answer a simple question (without getting personal) can you?
Again, did you credit Dr. Scherer in the final patent, Yes or no? Why not?
It shows a pattern of yours, specifically that you shape shift, borrow, add, delete. If the reference was important enough (or convenient enough to lend weight to your application), why is it removed from the final patent? The irony is that it was important enough to mention initially when it served you, now its blah, blah, blah…
Quote:
The facts are that Paul wrote nine pages in a chapter of Valmassey's book on foot typing and nothing more before or after.
Paul's nine and my 16 grid systems are night and day and Paul's work on foot typing should be sloughed off.
Apparently Dr. Scherer knows when to abandon certain ideas and move on. Take note.
Lies can also be formed by omission, so thank you for acknowledging Dr. Scherer’s work.
Quote:
Darryl is a good guy with strong personal opinions about biomechanics. I believe that he has more than once called Dr. Kirby and others to task about pieces of their biomechanics that he felt needed to be opposed.
Why don't you let Dr. Phillips voice his own opinions as to me and my work overall?
He has and they’re not glowing endorsements. Dr. Phillips is held in very high esteem by your colleagues, you’re not in his league.
Quote:
Paul is a great educator, lab director, entrepreneur, marketeer, professor of biomechanics, etc. and deserves a place in biomechanics history.
I excluded Dr. Scherer from the list of whose shoulders I stand upon when it comes to Wellness Biomechanics appropriately, because he had very little to do with my work.
Perhaps, to satisfy your need to know where Dr. Scherer lives on my list of influential colleagues, I could form a secondary list using a different postural location and state that I am standing on Dr. Scherer's 5th toe nail when it comes to foot typing.
Yet you reference his work in your provisional patent and once you get the patent you poo poo him? Nice.
Quote:
This is a very biased, opinionated and personally offensive paragraph which has no place on this thread IMHO.
I’m here anytime you’d like another taste of humble pie.
Quote:
I will let the court of public opinion decide whose opinion to value, yours or mine.
Dennis
I'm good with that
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright
David G. Wedemeyer, D.C., C.Ped.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to David Wedemeyer For This Useful Post:
Good post. Well said. I think Dennis is working on the premise that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. If I am not mistaken, a favourite quote of one Adolph Hitler.
Mark Russell, your posting and David's Thanks of it reflect an unjustified level of anger, bias and, dare I say it hate that you have for me personally as you tautologically opine me to ADOLPH HITLER!
The Arena is an academic and educational site that should not tolerate this posting and I am calling for it to be edited out.
I assume, that if you had a strong objective, academic and evidence based case against my work, you would present it.
Instead, you continue to make a subjective, irrelevant and now hateful case against me personally that has gone beyond patenting, trademarking, profiting and not answering questions to your satisfaction.
My work, its possible value and my reputation and place in biomechanics should not be discussed in the same breath as ADOLPH HITLER!
Shame on you both.
Dennis
The Following User Says Thank You to drsha For This Useful Post:
Dennis I don't hate you, I would have to care about you personally and I do not.
Mine is not an angry and biased post; I know full well what you are about already. What it is about is your 4 year long, tireless rant that you're right & we're all wrong. That you deserve a current place on the pedestal of pedal biomechanics luminaries , which you do not. That you have something new, which you do not etc., etc.
Quote:
I assume, that if you had a strong objective, academic and evidence based case against my work, you would present it.
We have Dennis, ad nauseum. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
I urge Admin not edit this post because it illustrates succinctly what many of us have been saying about you for years and it is relevant.
You won't answer the question because the truth is an inconvenience.
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright
And I don't hate you either, Dennis - far from it. I occassionally still smile at your posts - but just like most other people, I suspect you're all out of answers to the questions you have posed for yourself. The Foot Typing is your idea after all!
As I read this thread - just like many before - I was struck by the repetitiveness of your argument - hence the suggestion that if you tell a big lie often enough, the hope is that others may believe it. The only difference between you and Hitler is that the latter was move to exterminate anyone who didn't believe. That is where the similarity ends.
Mark Russell:
The only difference between you and Hitler is that the latter was move to exterminate anyone who didn't believe. That is where the similarity ends.
Mark:
Please refer to Godwin"s Law of Hitler and Nazi's to begin to understand the level of your unapologetic anger and my reaction to try my best not to respond directly to your posts again.
Good post. Well said. I think Dennis is working on the premise that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. If I am not mistaken, a favourite quote of one Adolph Hitler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis
Please refer to Godwin"s Law of Hitler and Nazi's to begin to understand the level of your unapologetic anger and my reaction to try my best not to respond directly to your posts again.
Quote:
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
I believe a post littered with poor grammar is by far more professional than a post that compares an individual to Hitler. It is bad form for respected professionals to take the low road.
My wish is for this thread to be terminated as bashing Dennis only serves to bring the Podiatry Arena down. I also wish that Dennis will find the wisdom to stop posting and expend his energy elsewhere as he will never find nor deserve the validation that he is seeking.
I contribute little to the arena but wish to remain an avid reader of the innumerable and informative posts on biomechanics.
Re: What is Neoteric Biomechanics!?
.
Linear Mode
