On Ros(s)ing

Trapped harpies

That homeopathy zealot Roslyn Ross is conforming to type in the comment thread below a recent article entitled, ‘Are homeopathic ‘remedies’ helpful or harmful?’, by Jennifer Gunter. I’ve observed and encountered much of the activity of this irritating snark a number of times in recent years and have previously commented on the fervid activity of this apologist and propagandist for homeopathy. Indeed, so predictable, so tedious is her fallacy-laden modus operandus that I figured it deserved its own fallacy name:

Ros(s)ing: A noisy, dishonest deflection device, characterised by mantric accusations of ‘ignorance’ and ‘prejudice’, employed to obfuscate copious logical fallacies and feigned oblivion to failure to address and correct untruths.

Roslyn Ross/rosross/rosetta has a stock set of apparently well-crafted, pre-scripted comments/responses, which, though repeatedly answered/called-out/debunked, she continues to recycle in predictable pattern. This is the classic thread-saturation tactic of the cult homeopathy propagandist: repeat-ignore; keep the ‘controversy’ bubbling. She badly needs some new material as, the homeopathy debating repertoire being limited, her responses to challenge have become very predictable. The opening bat is almost invariably accusations of ‘(egregious) ignorance’ and ‘(worse) prejudice’, which are constantly replayed. Indeed, when a new homeopathy-critical article appears online, one can predict with reasonable certainty that: (i) the harpy-like Ros Ross will soon descend, and (ii) will immediately proceed to label homeopathy critics/rejectors so. She is extremely disingenuous, adept at exasperating and drawing the insult, then crying ad hominem foul and victory. When questions get awkward, when you expose her and homeopathy’s inconsistencies, her resort is then to deflect and evade by lambasting the quality of the question(er), as though somehow beneath her contempt and not worthy of the attention of one with such a superior, homeopathy-savvy (Cough!) intellect. But if you keep trying such questions, she tends, despite apparently having plenty of time on her hands, to go noticeably quiet (I am still awaiting answers to a few questions I’ve posed) and divert her attention to elsewhere in the thread. And continue re-peppering her usual material, accompanied by the claim that her own incoherent and logically fallacious challenges have never been met. Which they have – repeatedly.

Ros Ross is again exposed and trapped, spiralling in fallacy and disingenuity.  Posturing as motivated by opportunity to reach ‘open minds’ rather than those who see through the PRATTing nonsense of her own closed one, which, with its continued recycling of irrelevant/erroneous/worthless/busted material, just comes across as insane.

She’s a Jane Austen fan (‘… Prejudice’). I speculate that her delusions are not limited to homeopathy and other hokum, and that she fantasises about either emulating a great writer, and/or models herself on her principled literary heroine.

Thing is, Elizabeth Bennet would eat her for breakfast.

7 responses to “On Ros(s)ing

  1. Thanks for the ping on this. Great stuff to report to WordPress. You really need to take stock if you think personal attacks amount to any sort of intelligent argument.

  2. Let me run you through it.

    You said: has a stock set of apparently well-crafted, pre-scripted comments/responses,

    No, I write responses individually, using of course the same facts.

    You said: which, though repeatedly answered/called-out/debunked,

    Not answered often, definietly not debunked.

    You said: she continues to recycle in predictable pattern.

    Ad hominem. She is the give away.

    You said: This is the classic thread-saturation tactic of the cult homeopathy propagandist: repeat-ignore; keep the ‘controversy’ bubbling.

    Name-calling, definitely attacking the individual not the argument.

    You said: She badly needs some new material as, the homeopathy debating repertoire being limited, her responses to challenge have become very predictable.

    Possibly given that the opposing claims never change and remain insubstantial.

    You said: The opening bat is almost invariably accusations of ‘(egregious) ignorance’ and ‘(worse) prejudice’, which are constantly replayed.

    Statements of fact, admitted by some. Not my fault if most opposers are proud of their ignorance and prejudice.

    You said: Indeed, when a new homeopathy-critical article appears online, one can predict with reasonable certainty that: (i) the harpy-like Ros Ross will soon descend,

    The use of the term ‘harpy’ is ad hominem.

    You said: and (ii) will immediately proceed to label homeopathy critics/rejectors so.

    Not until they demonstrate egregious ignorance and worse prejudice which does not take long.

    You said: She is extremely disingenuous, adept at exasperating and drawing the insult, then crying ad hominem foul and victory.

    Name-calling, more ad hominem.

    You said: When questions get awkward, when you expose her and homeopathy’s inconsistencies, her resort is then to deflect and evade by lambasting the quality of the question(er), as though somehow beneath her contempt and not worthy of the attention of one with such a superior, homeopathy-savvy (Cough!) intellect.

    Still attacking the individual not the argument and reflecting your own modus operandi.

    You said: But if you keep trying such questions, she tends, despite apparently having plenty of time on her hands, to go noticeably quiet (I am still awaiting answers to a few questions I’ve posed) and divert her attention to elsewhere in the thread.

    I have a life beyond the issue and the repetitive nature of the claims makes answering all of them pointless.

    You said: Ros Ross is again exposed and trapped, spiralling in fallacy and disingenuity. Posturing as motivated by opportunity to reach ‘open minds’ rather than those who see through the PRATTing nonsense of her own closed one, which, with its continued recycling of irrelevant/erroneous/worthless/busted material, just comes across as insane.

    Pure ad hominem. Attacking the individual.

    You said: She’s a Jane Austen fan (‘… Prejudice’). I speculate that her delusions are not limited to homeopathy and other hokum, and that she fantasises about either emulating a great writer, and/or models herself on her principled literary heroine.

    Even worse ad hominem and cringingly so for the writer. Sad, truly sad.

    • Yeah… Most of the article is factual, some of it is insulting. None of it looks to be Ad Hominem though. We realise that you don’t understand what an Ad Hominem is though, despite having had the nuances described to you dozens, if not hundreds of times.
      To be fair though, with the amazingly consistent dishonesty, misrepresentation of science, abuse of science, twisting of research, misquoting of scientific results and outright lying I’m surprised it’s taken this long for someone to get to the point of posting something about you that is this tame.

Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s