[zk]

I’ve seen a only a few foreclosures in CV in that range. And the only one I saw any discount on at all was in really bad condition.

The one I mentioned in an earlier post (Great Meadow Drive) sold for probably more than it was worth. I’m with everyone else here; I seriously doubt you’ll be able to pay anything less than full market value for that house.

As for whether it would drag down surrounding properties, well, obviously only if it sold at a discount. Which it most likely won’t. Foreclosures in this price range in CV are still quite rare. If there were a bunch of them, they could have an effect, I suppose. But the occasional one that sells at full market value won’t budge anything.

[zk]

I’ve seen a only a few foreclosures in CV in that range. And the only one I saw any discount on at all was in really bad condition.

The one I mentioned in an earlier post (Great Meadow Drive) sold for probably more than it was worth. I’m with everyone else here; I seriously doubt you’ll be able to pay anything less than full market value for that house.

As for whether it would drag down surrounding properties, well, obviously only if it sold at a discount. Which it most likely won’t. Foreclosures in this price range in CV are still quite rare. If there were a bunch of them, they could have an effect, I suppose. But the occasional one that sells at full market value won’t budge anything.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico] I disagreed with the “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers” and that is what I found interestingly in agreement with Mr.Peele,[/quote]

I don’t think the model is “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers.” I think it’s more, “alcoholics (which is different from problem drinkers) must abstain or continue to drink to excess. But I’m not convinced about that model, either.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico] I disagreed with the “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers” and that is what I found interestingly in agreement with Mr.Peele,[/quote]

I don’t think the model is “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers.” I think it’s more, “alcoholics (which is different from problem drinkers) must abstain or continue to drink to excess. But I’m not convinced about that model, either.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico] I disagreed with the “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers” and that is what I found interestingly in agreement with Mr.Peele,[/quote]

I don’t think the model is “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers.” I think it’s more, “alcoholics (which is different from problem drinkers) must abstain or continue to drink to excess. But I’m not convinced about that model, either.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico] I disagreed with the “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers” and that is what I found interestingly in agreement with Mr.Peele,[/quote]

I don’t think the model is “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers.” I think it’s more, “alcoholics (which is different from problem drinkers) must abstain or continue to drink to excess. But I’m not convinced about that model, either.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico] I disagreed with the “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers” and that is what I found interestingly in agreement with Mr.Peele,[/quote]

I don’t think the model is “stay abstinent or die model for problem drinkers.” I think it’s more, “alcoholics (which is different from problem drinkers) must abstain or continue to drink to excess. But I’m not convinced about that model, either.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]Zk, Admitting my bias is not for the sake of steering conclusions. I have avoided that.[/quote]

I’m not sure what that means.

[quote=Rustico]I am pretty sure you know that in this debate the burden of lasting proof is not on me? [/quote]

To me, it’s a debate. Each participant provides his point of view and his evidence. But, in my eyes, you haven’t provided any serious evidence, let alone proven anything.

[quote=Rustico]Yes Mr. Peele is a business man, but so are people who run research labs.[/quote]

Maybe people who own labs are. But scientists who conduct studies are not. And neither are the scientists who review studies for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]Zk, Admitting my bias is not for the sake of steering conclusions. I have avoided that.[/quote]

I’m not sure what that means.

[quote=Rustico]I am pretty sure you know that in this debate the burden of lasting proof is not on me? [/quote]

To me, it’s a debate. Each participant provides his point of view and his evidence. But, in my eyes, you haven’t provided any serious evidence, let alone proven anything.

[quote=Rustico]Yes Mr. Peele is a business man, but so are people who run research labs.[/quote]

Maybe people who own labs are. But scientists who conduct studies are not. And neither are the scientists who review studies for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]Zk, Admitting my bias is not for the sake of steering conclusions. I have avoided that.[/quote]

I’m not sure what that means.

[quote=Rustico]I am pretty sure you know that in this debate the burden of lasting proof is not on me? [/quote]

To me, it’s a debate. Each participant provides his point of view and his evidence. But, in my eyes, you haven’t provided any serious evidence, let alone proven anything.

[quote=Rustico]Yes Mr. Peele is a business man, but so are people who run research labs.[/quote]

Maybe people who own labs are. But scientists who conduct studies are not. And neither are the scientists who review studies for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]Zk, Admitting my bias is not for the sake of steering conclusions. I have avoided that.[/quote]

I’m not sure what that means.

[quote=Rustico]I am pretty sure you know that in this debate the burden of lasting proof is not on me? [/quote]

To me, it’s a debate. Each participant provides his point of view and his evidence. But, in my eyes, you haven’t provided any serious evidence, let alone proven anything.

[quote=Rustico]Yes Mr. Peele is a business man, but so are people who run research labs.[/quote]

Maybe people who own labs are. But scientists who conduct studies are not. And neither are the scientists who review studies for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]Zk, Admitting my bias is not for the sake of steering conclusions. I have avoided that.[/quote]

I’m not sure what that means.

[quote=Rustico]I am pretty sure you know that in this debate the burden of lasting proof is not on me? [/quote]

To me, it’s a debate. Each participant provides his point of view and his evidence. But, in my eyes, you haven’t provided any serious evidence, let alone proven anything.

[quote=Rustico]Yes Mr. Peele is a business man, but so are people who run research labs.[/quote]

Maybe people who own labs are. But scientists who conduct studies are not. And neither are the scientists who review studies for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]
I call your issue with him “disagreeing”,No need to call names or character assassinate.[/quote]

If Mr. Peele had anything but bookselling in mind, I’d probably be more inclined to counter his theories and statements. If he was being at all reasonable, I’d be more likely to point out his flaws rather than just calling him a nut. But it’s like countering an astrologist. What’s the point?

[quote=Rustico] His book, “The Truth about Addiction and Recovery” supported my “bias” after many years of reading, and considering my family, myself, and other people and experiences.[/quote]

Wait, earlier you said,

[quote=Rustico]Please no more anectdotal stories about your brother, or uncle of whatever. I can elaborate on stronger anectdotal stories defending the counter point on genetics, but until that dna hits a centifuge or whatever the technology is it isn’t the proper kind of data to make proclamations in the field of genetics. [/quote]

And now you admit that you were biased by that same type of anecdotal evidence? And that Peele’s book “supported” your bias?

[quote=Rustico] I read and look at his content as an extensive catalog of myth busters and some history on this topic.I am grateful someone, however “nutcase”, tries to keep the brakes on misconceptions of all kinds in the addiction field, which you well know are rampant. I think it is helpful to a lot of people and that could be part of why his books sells.[/quote]

Sure, it’s an extensive catalog of myth busters. But to exaggerate a myth, assign it incorrectly to a group, knock down the exaggerated myth and then claim victory is not science. It’s not even reason or logic. It’s bullshit. His book probably sells because a lot of people want to believe what he’s selling. And that’s probably the same reason people are unable to see how deceptive and misleading his “reasoning” is. They want to believe.

[quote=Rustico]Get back off the attacks and defend your point of view.[/quote]

Show me science, and I’ll defend my point of view. Show me Mr. Peele, and I don’t see the point of defending my point of view against his attempt to sell books.

[quote=Rustico]Will the genetic studies you hold dear stand the test of time or are they gaining strength, like so many false conclusion before them by being, in vogue? [/quote]

I don’t hold anything dear because it’s in vogue. I do have a lot of respect for controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Show me something that contradicts the studies I’ve linked to, and we’ll discuss it. Your comment about false conclusions speaks to the extent that you’re following Mr. Peele’s lead without regard to facts. See my earlier comment about myth busters (this time call them false conclusion busters).

[quote=Rustico]”Poly genetic multi- factorial” sounds great but it isn’t a done deal where problem drinking is concerned. Multi-factorial certainly.[/quote]

I don’t know if it sounds great or not. I’ve certainly never said or typed it. Whether it’s a done deal or not depends on your definition of “done deal.”

[quote=Rustico]
Look at your own bias. Or better yet, share the roots of it with us. Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

I’m always watching myself for bias. As I said, I have 3 siblings who are alcoholics. So it’s possible that I’m biased in some way or another. But, generally, I consider myself open to new evidence and data. I am a strong believer in controlled, scientific, peer-reviewed studies. Some people consider that strong belief a bias.

You haven’t shown me any evidence that has any basis in reason, facts, data, logic or science. Until you do, I’ll remain unconvinced by you.

[quote=Rustico]Your attacks and insults and your ability to read the links you posted, have lost you some credibility and raised some suspicions regarding your own biases.[/quote]

Calling Mr. Peele a nutjob probably does lose me some credibility. And I actually considered that before I wrote it. And I’ve changed my mind. He’s not a nutjob. He’s a snake oil salesman. That’s what I should’ve called him the first time. I think he probably actually believes in his snake oil, though. I think his bias is so strong that he thinks he’s right. He can’t see himself exaggerating and twisting and deceiving and misleading. In the same way that his followers can’t see it.

[Author]

Posts