MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : "HIV/AIDS," "evolution debates," and the state of "science" today.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 5 of 6 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 4Sent: 8/29/2008 7:05 PM
On another site, someone wrote a post about asking an "AIDS expert" for an answer. The "expert" said he'd get back to the person in a week but did not (he's still waiting, several months later). He then asked if we should consider this a "lie."
Here was my post in response (with one "typo" error corrected):

QUOTE: They are politicians more than anything else, though not particularly good ones. There is just too much scientific evidence against their notions and claims (generated by the "HIV/AIDS" faithful) for them to risk looking like total fools, so they use these kinds of tactics.

I was thinking about Monica Goodling's actions in the Department of Justice, and why she acted as she did, and though I can't say for sure, of course (since I don't know her personally), I came to think of Tara Smith, Nicholas Bennett, and the rest of that group along the same lines. The "syndrome" these kinds of people seem to be afflicted with (or allow themselves to be, for whatever reason) is characterized by the following:

They are usually young (20s or 30s), ambitious, self-righteous, "know-it-all" types.

They don't question what their masters/mentors (or the reigning authority figures in a particular field) tell them.

Rather, they assume the role of "enforcer" of what is "right," or what I call "Ideology X."

The reasoning behind (though perhaps never articulated explicitly) Ideology X is simplistic:

1. We are good and right. There can be no Ideology Y or Z.

2. It is unacceptable to question us or ask us to explain our claims or actions.

3. Anyone who disagrees with us must be stopped.

4. Any means may be used to stop those who disagree with us.

5. It is never permissible to confront those who criticize us in a fair forum, such as a moderated, academic debate, because those who are wrong may appear to be right.

6. Instead, the kinds of "dirty tricks" played by the likes of people such as Karl Rove, are to be employed, because we can just "go on the offensive" with simplistic slogans that are successful with the ignorant masses.

7. If anyone questions us who appears to have just heard about "dissidents," and asks us a tough question, we can say, "oh that's a lot of nonsense - I'll write up a detailed explanation for you," and never get back to that person, hoping that he or she just forgets about it and moves on to something else. UNQUOTE.