posted
You first. What is your interest in it, and what about the subject makes you want to make another thread about it?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I never made a thread about this subject before.
Yeah, I know. This is another thread that you have made. It is on a new subject. The question involves the fact that you've been regularly spitting out threads on new subjects. Now, do you want to answer my question?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I never made a thread about this subject before.
Yeah, I know. This is another thread that you have made. It is on a new subject. The question involves the fact that you've been regularly spitting out threads on new subjects. Now, do you want to answer my question?
Why are you so upset that I'm making threads?
Stop trying to be the thread police.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, it's generally considered bad form to just post a link without any intelligent commentary of one's own. And you have quite a history of just starting threads with a link or two without any intelligent commentary of your own.
If you don't want to be policed, then quit it.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
As for the matter of thread police the community is considered to a large extent to be self policing which contributes to a much higher standard and quality of posters.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I never made a thread about this subject before.
Yeah, I know. This is another thread that you have made. It is on a new subject. The question involves the fact that you've been regularly spitting out threads on new subjects. Now, do you want to answer my question?
Why are you so upset that I'm making threads?
Stop trying to be the thread police.
Because you are making very low quality threads. Unnecessarily inflammatory threads where you take an untenable position and attempt to shout down the entire rest of the community with straw men, misinformation and the occasional outright lie.
You stubbornly refuse to accept facts, even when clearly presented to you from reliable sources. And you refuse to even slightly budge from your positions or make remotely coherent arguments. If you are aware of what you are doing, then you are what is commonly called a troll. If you truly hold the positions you espouse then you are many things, not least of which is backwards beyond belief.
This flies in a long history of this forum aspiring to rational, reasonable discussion and debate. While they has not always succeeded, those here have always tried.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a nutshell, the man credited as the co-discoverer of HIV says that it can be prevented by good nutrition and clean water, and suggests that HIV-infected people might be cured with the application of those principles.
This has exploded across the nutjob press in the last few days as proof that the whole AIDS thing is just a) a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies to make money, b) liberals who want to siphon away government funds that would be better spent on defense, c) gay liberals who want the sympathy card, d) the Illuminati who wants to reduce the population, or e) all of the above plus socialists. It's the "shocking truth about AIDS that they won't tell you!"
Me, I am willing to look at anything that will reduce the number of fatalities, but this smacks too much of the current fad of "Why isn't anyone asking this questions?" mode of trying to add credibility to crank conspiracy theories.
Now if the good doctor can document any independently produced cases of HIV-positive people being cured by this suggestion, or of people with good immune systems withstanding the virus under controlled and observed conditions, I'll be delighted -- seriously, whooping out loud delighted -- to accept it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I never made a thread about this subject before.
Yeah, I know. This is another thread that you have made. It is on a new subject. The question involves the fact that you've been regularly spitting out threads on new subjects. Now, do you want to answer my question?
Why are you so upset that I'm making threads?
Stop trying to be the thread police.
Because you are making very low quality threads.
I disagree. Very low quality threads tend to get poor number of replies.
The fact that my threads tend to grow so quickly is evidence that they aren't poor, but are hitting the mark.
I never ignored a single cogent point anyone made (in reply to me.)
Stop trying to shout me down just because I'm making threads on topics you people find unpalatable.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't read the OP or any following posts yet. But seeing the title and the author, I'm nearly positive that this is going to be HILARIOUS.
---
OK, now I have.
Seriously, Clive, just try to say something interesting about it. You're posting something that's likely to be controversial - though probably not credible enough to be sustainedly so - so, why should we care about it? Give us a hint. I'm not going to watch the video unless you give me a good reason.
"The fact that my threads tend to grow so quickly is evidence that they aren't poor, but are hitting the mark."
See, this is an extremely troll-like sentiment. What mark are you trying to hit? Tempting people to score easy points against the things you post? You're hitting that mark quite well, but the best thing that can be said about it is that people aren't yet bored of telling you how wrong you are. (Myself included, I guess.)
Ah well. It'll get boring sooner or later.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
keyboard diarrhea, thy name is sarcasticmuppet!
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Very low quality threads tend to get poor number of replies.
The fact that my threads tend to grow so quickly is evidence that they aren't poor, but are hitting the mark.
If the mark is telling you that you're a moron, then, yeah, sure, I guess you have a point. [/QB]
Yes, there was much ad hominem from people who felt challenged by my views and should have known better, but there was also much passionate discussion which wouldn't have occurred if the threads were pointless/unnecessary.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
seriously, he even said "you people".
IP: Logged |
posted
Repeating my point from previously, since only the abuse gets noticed:
quote:Now if the good doctor can document any independently produced cases of HIV-positive people being cured by this suggestion, or of people with good immune systems withstanding the virus under controlled and observed conditions, I'll be delighted -- seriously, whooping out loud delighted -- to accept it.
Has there been any studies on this, or just conspiracy nuts passing it back and forth without proof?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Hatrack so dead lately that people feel the need to feed the trolls, or has everyone forgotten how the Internet works?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though it is kind of funny that they detect a disease by the presence of antibodies. Also, the huge numbers tossed around for the prevelance of AIDS in Africa... well, if you get pneumonia there, you're automatically entered in as a victim of AIDS. There aren't even any statistics on how many actual HIV+ people there are in Africa. Meanwhile, the so-called medications they give people who've been diagnosed with AIDS are incredibly toxic, and many so-called AIDS deaths are actually attributable to the medication itself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Is Hatrack so dead lately that people feel the need to feed the trolls, or has everyone forgotten how the Internet works?
But threads like these are so much fun to read!
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Though it is kind of funny that they detect a disease by the presence of antibodies.
Do you not understand what "retrovirus" means? How would you like to test for the virus?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Also, the huge numbers tossed around for the prevelance of AIDS in Africa... well, if you get pneumonia there, you're automatically entered in as a victim of AIDS.
There are certain varieties of pneumonia that people with uncompromised immune systems simply never get. That's what is being measured, not all pneumonia.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Srsly. Never has there ever been so much concentrated anti-science in one place. Clive Candy is a huge argument for my comprehensive and common sense science education.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I disagree. Very low quality threads tend to get poor number of replies.
The fact that my threads tend to grow so quickly is evidence that they aren't poor, but are hitting the mark.
That's stupid. You can get a lot of replies by being a terrible poster who makes offensive and ignorant threads.
I can get a lot of people to look at me by screaming obscenities in a schoolyard. Having gotten a lot of attention doesn't mean that my actions aren't poor.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I disagree. Very low quality threads tend to get poor number of replies.
The fact that my threads tend to grow so quickly is evidence that they aren't poor, but are hitting the mark.
\
ha, really?
Now that you've said this, I'm going to "help" "prove" that your threads aren't low quality by making sure that they get a lot of responses.
Of course, that's because I'm going to spam and derail every one however I choose. No need to thank me. I just want everyone to recognize the amazing quality of your threads via response-count.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Lisa, what is your opinion of the article you linked to?
I think Duesberg makes a lot of sense. I haven't done the research myself, obviously, but I'd love to see a refutation of the article that deals with all the issues raised. It seems well reasoned.
I think the reason why people get hysterical about anyone questioning things like global warming or AIDS is that they think the only way to get people motivated is to scare the bejeebus out of them. That if global warming turns out not to be the issue they claim it is, no one will bother reducing pollution. That if AIDS isn't the bugaboo death disease that it's claimed to be, we'll just watch people die. I disagree.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, if you really don't approve of a subject or the way it's posted, there's a very easy way to both show that disapproval and deal with the perceived problem.
Don't reply.
Either you feel the subject is worthy of discussion or it isn't. I know that the nature of these things is that it's difficult to restrain oneself, especially if you disagree with what you think is being implied by a post. Many of us have been taught that silence means assent. But whatever the intention, each post- even the snarky, the dismissive, the single emoticon- keeps that subject on the "recently updated" list and makes it that much more likely that someone else is going to give into that need to participate in something you really just wanted to announce was beneath your notice.
So if you want to discuss something, go for it. But if what you really want to do is show someone you think is "trolling" that you don't approve, stop patting the troll on the back for their trouble.
And now I'm going to dismount my high horse and withdraw.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duesberg is a man who disgusts me, whose improper science is responsible for the death of many people, whose arguments against HIV being the cause of AIDS are flimsy, shallow, and entirely unsuiting someone who had done such impressive research as he had.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If some of the things the article said were true, it would be persuasive. Of course, most of what the article says is false. Wikipedia has a good summary of studies disemboweling his claims.
quote:A large prospective study followed a group of 715 homosexual men in the Vancouver, Canada area; approximately half were HIV-seropositive or became so during the follow-up period, and the remainder were HIV-seronegative. After more than 8 years of follow-up, despite similar rates of drug use, sexual contact, and other supposed risk factors in both groups, only the HIV-positive group suffered from opportunistic infections.
quote:African AIDS cases, though, have increased in the last three decades as HIV's prevalence has increased[26] but as malnutrition percentages[27] and poor sanitation have declined in many African regions.[28] In addition, while HIV and AIDS are more prevalent in urban than in rural settings in Africa,[29] malnutrition and poor sanitation are found more commonly in rural than in urban settings.
quote:Duesberg also claims that Kaposi's Sarcoma is "exclusively diagnosed in male homosexual risk groups using nitrite inhalants and other psychoactive drugs as aphrodisiacs",[1] but the cancer is fairly common among heterosexuals in some parts of Africa,[36] and is found in heterosexuals in the United States as well.[37]
Feel free to read more.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Yes, there was much ad hominem from people who felt challenged by my views and should have known better, but there was also much passionate discussion which wouldn't have occurred if the threads were pointless/unnecessary.
Look at what is actually "discussed," and what is simply stated. When dealing with *your* "contributions" and those of Mal, we simply state the reasons you are wrong. Then *we*, note, not including *you* discuss something more interesting related to the subject while you toddle off and play with yourself in a new thread for a while. That is the pattern. Hatrack has an amazing way of turning a crappy OP into an interesting discussion, once the crappy OP has been dealt with and will finally shut his garbage hole and let the grown ups talk.
Nothing about your views is ever challenging. Often, your views are sad, misguided, weird, idiotic, and not to mention just plain wrong. I think the reason people respond to you at all is that they have a hard time believing a person so totally obtuse actually exists, and want to crack the troll persona so that you might start contributing something useful, or at least something that isn't disgusting. So far, no dice on that score.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Yes, there was much ad hominem from people who felt challenged by my views and should have known better, but there was also much passionate discussion which wouldn't have occurred if the threads were pointless/unnecessary.
Look at what is actually "discussed," and what is simply stated. When dealing with *your* "contributions" and those of Mal, we simply state the reasons you are wrong.
If only. You engage in endless ad hominem, like in this tirade of yours right now. Anyway, you're a big poopie face too.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Yes, there was much ad hominem from people who felt challenged by my views and should have known better, but there was also much passionate discussion which wouldn't have occurred if the threads were pointless/unnecessary.
Look at what is actually "discussed," and what is simply stated. When dealing with *your* "contributions" and those of Mal, we simply state the reasons you are wrong.
If only. You engage in endless ad hominem, like in this tirade of yours right now. Anyway, you're a big poopie face too.
I'm always fairly amused when a person like Clive decides to relentlessly bombard a forum with bad arguments and incredibly incorrect logic, refuse to quit or alter this bombardment, and then they chafe when the reputation they have and the response they get from that population is pretty much nothing they haven't earned.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Yes, there was much ad hominem from people who felt challenged by my views and should have known better, but there was also much passionate discussion which wouldn't have occurred if the threads were pointless/unnecessary.
Look at what is actually "discussed," and what is simply stated. When dealing with *your* "contributions" and those of Mal, we simply state the reasons you are wrong.
If only. You engage in endless ad hominem, like in this tirade of yours right now. Anyway, you're a big poopie face too.
I'm always fairly amused when a person like Clive decides to relentlessly bombard a forum with bad arguments and incredibly incorrect logic, refuse to quit or alter this bombardment, and then they chafe when the reputation they have and the response they get from that population is pretty much nothing they haven't earned.
Demonstrate that my logic and arguments were bad or gtfo.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be difficult to demonstrate that your logic and arguments were bad since, so far in this thread, you have made no arguments related to your original topic. As far as I can tell, you posted a couple links, asked everyone else what their opinion was, and then started whining about "thread police."
If you wish to join the actual discussion regarding HIV/AIDS, you could do so. You haven't up to this point.
Posts: 1612 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Yes, there was much ad hominem from people who felt challenged by my views and should have known better, but there was also much passionate discussion which wouldn't have occurred if the threads were pointless/unnecessary.
Look at what is actually "discussed," and what is simply stated. When dealing with *your* "contributions" and those of Mal, we simply state the reasons you are wrong.
If only. You engage in endless ad hominem, like in this tirade of yours right now. Anyway, you're a big poopie face too.
I'm always fairly amused when a person like Clive decides to relentlessly bombard a forum with bad arguments and incredibly incorrect logic, refuse to quit or alter this bombardment, and then they chafe when the reputation they have and the response they get from that population is pretty much nothing they haven't earned.
Demonstrate that my logic and arguments were bad or gtfo.
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: It would be difficult to demonstrate that your logic and arguments were bad since, so far in this thread, you have made no arguments related to your original topic. As far as I can tell, you posted a couple links, asked everyone else what their opinion was, and then started whining about "thread police."
The person I was addressing was making false generalizations about me based on what I wrote in other threads, and the comments of mine you're responding to were addressing that. Goodness, it's not as if I wrote "demonstrate that my logic and arguments were bad or gtfo" in defense of a mere link.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Demonstrate that my logic and arguments were bad or gtfo.
Despite having literally thousands of words and complete arguments and factual assertions and all kinds of very solid refutations handed to you patiently over the course of three days, you absolutely, absolutely could not figure out why your argument for homosexual discrimination from society and from law was fundamentally bogus because it relied on the notion that it was "unnatural" and "deviant," particularly as you presented it.
You demonstrated a pathological reliance on terrible argumentation through that entire thread, including the spurious re-definition of words at your own convenience in order to stabilize claims.
A copious quantity of points emerged where you exposed to the forum that you really had no idea what you were talking about and could be soundly refuted on more than a number of points (I, myself, contributed to the demonstration that you were blatantly misusing the concept of 'deviance' to fit into your moral schema, as well as your argument based on the concept of, quote, "perversion of biology"), but you showed no capacity nor willingness to correct yourself. You, in fact, showed no ability to recognize when you were wrong.
Literally the only reason why you continue to assert that you've "never ignored a single cogent point" is because you have no idea that you are.
Since that time, where you blundered about hopelessly in your gay marriage thread, you have pockmarked the forum with additional threads where you claim to be agitating the populace with 'controversial' subjects, when in reality the agitation was created and sustained with your ability to take positions which were juvenile, simplistic, and wrong, which maligned and cast false assertions against entire groups (particularly women, who you seem to be honestly neurotic about) based on bad science and shallow logic, and, in short, caused people to have great distaste for you because — guess what! — you argue these controversial subjects terribly and don't concede the failure of even your most amazingly poor reasoning.
And while you weren't as blinkered in every thread you've made, you basically give the vast majority of the forum little reason to give you the benefit of the doubt and expect that you'll suddenly become rational.
Now, while these threads provide a clear history of your abjectly terrible argumentation and your rigorous defense of failed logic, I'm fairly certain that you have no understanding of this and that you are positive that you only just got 'shouted at' by a 'mob' that never actually countered you on anything. I'm sure you'll say that I'm not actually showing anything. It's the magic of cognitive dissonance that keeps you from being too ashamed to post. It wouldn't possibly change now.
But hey, there you have it! I thank you for at least giving me a profoundly easy task.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Clive is clearly one of those guys who got fired from his job at the hardware store: "Because I did the work of 3 people, and my boss got jealous."
The world must seem very illogical and disorderly through that lens.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
