Aetiology

Have a productive break Tara.

On moderation, I personally would like you to crack down on the trolls. There are threads that I would like to comment on, but am put off by the constant stream of loons.

Posted by: SteveF | May 1, 2008 11:47 AM

Well JSpreen likes me so that means I'm a troll to right??

Posted by: Adele | May 1, 2008 1:01 PM

Tara, I do understand your frustration with those who you now label as trolls, and I assume you are referring to the hiv dissident community. Certainly, many times, myself included, out of pure frustration we are indeed guilty as charged. Guilty of harassment, mud-slinging, contempt, name-calling, even pure hatred, and more at times.

However, it seems to me that I remember an email that was sent to you very early on in the discussions, that encouraged and advised you to take a neutral stand on the issue, and simply to be a real "moderator", instead of pitting one side against another.

You responded to that email with a "Hell no, I will NOT BE NEUTRAL on this issue".

Well, this IS your blog, and you ARE entitled to your own opinions and beliefs and to run this site any way you see fit.

However, as with ALL choices in life, every choice has its consequences.

You yourself set the tone for the discussions by choosing to label those who you disagreed with as "denialists". You chose to tell them how wrong they are and how right you are. You yourself have had a full hand in creating an atmosphere of animosity here.

There is an old saying that "As one sows, so shall they reap".

I must say that as long as you yourself continue to deride others whom you disagree with, or tolerate the rethinker community to be slandered and labeled and impugned by those who also happen to agree with your own beliefs, I would tend to think that such animosities will likely continue in the future.

There is much you could do to diffuse all of the hostility, but, as of yet, I have not seen you do so. But as I said, you are entitled to run this blog any way you see fit.

Though I for one, would greatly appreciate if you were to take the position of an actual "moderator" in discussions, and be fair, tolerant, accepting, and allowing of everyones contributions, as well as intolerant and unaccepting of all
ad-hominems, including your own.

I thank you in advance, and look forward to a new and improved Aetiology site in the future, where all, and not just those you agree with, are valued and treated respectfully and equally.

If you would but set the tone, I promise you the rest of us will do our best to follow. And please do discipline us fairly if we should not toe the line. That doesn't mean we will all always agree with each other. It means that we will treat each other with the dignity, respect, and freedom, that all of us are entitled to, especially when we do simply disagree.

Thank you.

Posted by: Ahemmmm | May 1, 2008 2:30 PM

Enjoy your break. As to the troll problem, I would suggest a forum like the Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb.

Posted by: wright | May 1, 2008 2:38 PM

I'm tired of the resident trolls shitting all over every discussion thread

Here, here! I suggest avoiding disemvoweling and other such half-squelches. Most people still read disemvoweled posts, anyway, it just takes them six times as long to do so. If you're uneasy going the People's Republic of Cara route*, you could just move the comments to an alternative "spewings from raving nuts" type area... Or if you want to be less polemical (can't imagine why you would), you could name the alternative area something a little more neutral like "People Who Disagree With Me".

* I should note that there's no reason for you to be uneasy about the People's Republic of Cara strategy of simply promptly deleting HIV-deniers and other anti-germ-theory trolls. Blogspot and Wordpress both have lovely free blogging services, if these people have something to say. There is no onus on you to provide them with a platform.

Posted by: Claire | May 1, 2008 5:42 PM

I'm sure she'll forgive you, Tlaire.

Posted by: Algerine | May 1, 2008 6:14 PM

Tara

Good luck with the grants and all. Yes, please do do something about the trolls. One iteration of HIV denialism was interesting, and I learned something about Koch's postulates and all that good stuff.

Wading through 70+ length comment threads with crazed conspiracy theories, is irritating.

Posted by: William the Coroner | May 1, 2008 6:53 PM

"I should note that there's no reason for you to be uneasy about the People's Republic of Cara strategy of simply promptly deleting HIV-deniers and other anti-germ-theory trolls." -- Claire

Yes, Claire, nothing at all wrong with censorship, is there?

As our hyper-consuming populace becomes increasingly destitute and desperate, I suspect that it will be easy for our government to convince people like Claire to embrace the fascism that is already beginning to bubble, as our recent loss of civil liberties affirms. Citizens like Claire will, no doubt, accept the chimera of security that is promised without qualms, but it's a good thing that not all of us are so easily compromised. Some of us actually care enough to see ugly truths for what they are, and we will perhaps continue to fight for openness in public discourse. Since I know that you'd rather not talk about important issues with a conspiracy theorist, Claire, I'll make one final point to you: questioning whether or not HIV is the cause of AIDS is not equivalent to germ-theory denial, and anyone worth listening to would undoubtedly take more care with their diction.

_________________________________________

From an the alternate perspective, Tara and her "debate-phobic" minions, are the real trolls, here, since they are only interested in discussing specious science with select narrow-minded cohorts. I've said it before but this country is failing because of people like Tara and Claire -- an educated "elite" that really isn't all that elite.

Whether or not Tara resorts to blatant censorship in the near future is of very little consequence for the proverbial cat is out the bag, and the numbers of those who question the validity of HIV=AIDS and the feasibility of the Corporate State will only grow as our economy tanks at an unprecedented rate. Even the mainstream media is beginning to report the truth, but the damage is long-since done. The MSM should certainly shoulder far more of the blame than one inadequate blog host; nevertheless, I suspect it will take quite a long while for the privileged sheeple, (perhaps those like "Claire"), to realize their own culpability in the matter, even with the MSM telling them exactly what went wrong. Even so, they'll realize it sooner or later, and we'll all pay for the longevity of their complicit stupidity.

Isn't that right, Adele?
Still think this economic situation is gonna work out okay? I'd really like to get your updated thoughts since you once promised to educate me on the matter. I've tried to make sense of all the bad economic news that's flowing nonstop, but I keep coming back to the whole housing bubble=ponzi scheme explanation, and you were quick to correct me on that one.

Or maybe, you were just flat-out wrong, Adele?

Oh well, I'm sure you, like all the other experts here only know about the killing ways of HIV and not the killing ways of interest-only ARMS?

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | May 1, 2008 7:52 PM

Oh! Thanks Kevin I forgot to mention how unctuous your comments are.

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | May 1, 2008 7:58 PM

i like...Enjoy your break. As to the troll problem, I would suggest a forum like the Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb.ahh

Posted by: Michaeli | May 1, 2008 8:33 PM

If you meet the Buddha on the Intenets, put him in your killfile! (Hint, hint!) Good luck with the hiatus, the travel, the grants, the travel (I carry snacks and a small water bottle that can be filled once I'm in the secure area, earplugs, anti-nausea pills, and something to read).

Posted by: Monado, FCD | May 1, 2008 11:19 PM

If your looking for a knife then this is definately the place to get it, lots of techy style outdoor equipment. heres the link http://www.apeqs.com

Posted by: Entity | May 2, 2008 12:56 AM

Tara, I can imagine it must be tiring to lose every single debate, even though I haven't had the pleasure of that experience around here. Get some rest and come back with a few more scientific winners, like a smug expose about some housewife who can't spell 'innoculation', or a pie-chart identifying those 'segments of the population' that have their children eat out the dog bowl because it's more natural.

The censorship part is even easier. Just change your headline from 'AETIOLOGY: Discussing auses, origin, Evolution and implications of disease and other
phenomena'.

Pharma-Girl Scout: devoted to petty propaganda and ad hominems against those 'segments of the population' Daddy doesn't like.'

Nobody will bother you after that, since only hypocrites make good targets.

Finally, I think you should put Adele in charge of the blog for awhile. Not only does she accurately reflect your philosophy and intellectual pretensions, she also has the thick skin you apparently lack. She'll cheerfully suck up any amount of punishment like a dry sponge.

Posted by: MEC | May 2, 2008 1:22 AM

TaraCara - "trolls shitting all over every discussion" - leave a veritable litter tray or post something balanced and worthwhile - your choice. And while you are at it why not admit you are already practising censorship?

SteveF - "On moderation, I personally would like you to crack down on the trolls. There are threads that I would like to comment on, but am put off by the constant stream of loons." Oh pshaw Steve, what a sensitive soul - obviously your education didn't prepare you for anything other that "What a lovely picture Steffy - it's going on the fridge honey" - harden up mate.

Isles "Have a productive time off and don't let the sham piety of the trolls woo you into letting them stay!" So you admit "genuine" piety in your reverential, sycophantic genuflection to the "real God" - the HIV-AIDS establishment? Neo-Creationism thrives among its accolytes.

CTlaire - I'm sorry you have difficulty reading. I hear programs like DragonDictate can relieve you of that particular burden. I think you can even get them to do an American accent for easy listening.

Idlemind - if you find the tired old pap posing as science here fascinating I suggest you find another discipline to follow other than epididymology - trainspotting perhaps? I can sell you and old greasy anorak and a used notebook.

Ananencephadele - I don't even understand 10% of what you write due to some sort of communication difficulty - i.e. you don't make sense. I have asked you politely previously to try and achieve some modicum of rational thought but I guess the problem is irreversible. I hear AZT can improve cognitive function - take 10 and don't call me in the morning.

Posted by: nazibleatiology | May 2, 2008 4:49 AM

questioning whether or not HIV is the cause of AIDS is not equivalent to germ-theory denial

Objection. It is. Equivalent. Apart from the fact that you shouldn't have written "germ-theory denial" but "germ-theory questioning".
(Remember: It's not because a theory has outwitted humanity for more than a century that it is less questionable than a theory that has done so for only 25 years.)

Posted by: jspreen | May 2, 2008 5:27 AM

Tara -

Jeezus H Funloving Christ!

I'm a longtime lurker here who enjoys the science, but gets turned off by the fuckwit trolls. Don't know how you've put up with them for so long. If they want a real dose of censorship they should head on over to Uncommonly Dense and try any kind of contra argument with the geniuses there.

My apologies for the frank language, but the continued vitriol expressed is disgusting.

Good luck, enjoy the break. Clear you head and come back recharged.

Posted by: Pineyman | May 2, 2008 8:11 AM

Nazibleater,

You managed a whole twenty lines or so containing naught (or nowt, as you prefer) but insults for commenters with whom you've exchanged nary a word (although I do commend you for owning up to your ideology, which as you know is shared by many "dissidents").

A more productive use of your time would involve decamping to a more appropriate thread and explaining your position on the issues. For example, why you reject PPAR-gamma inhibitors (all pharmaceuticals?) that have been tested extensively in trials involving thousands, yet are quite willing to ingest massive quantities of untested substances in an attempt to increase your already normal-range Vitamin B levels. Or why you published an attack on HPV vaccines containing a mendacious use of statistics.

The choice is yours: insult or explain; be a troll or be a dissident. You could blaze a new trail here (along with MEC, perhaps, who does occasionally rear his head from the muck of trolldom). Unfortunately most "rethinkers" either run away from debate entirely or become trolls.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | May 2, 2008 8:36 AM

jspreen -

Exactly my point. If you don't toe the fundamentalist party line there your comments are not posted. Here Tara allows all discussion, even those that are less than civil.

Posted by: Pineyman | May 2, 2008 10:10 AM

Screw you, Ahemmmm, for blaming the victim. Saying, "Oh, if only you'd behave differently (stupid woman) assholes wouldn't take advantage of you," is rapist's logic. Are you a rape apologist, too? Screw you for that, preemptively, too.

And of course, this isn't going to do any good for the resident gallery of nuts, but it might for the lurkers: How many times do we have to go into this? Banning someone from your blog for being disruptive, rude, contrary to the principles of good debate, and, dammit, especially sexist, is NOT censorship. This is Tara's blog. It's hers. What the trolls are doing is akin to coming into her living room, taking a shit on the carpet, and then whining about censorship and fascism when she (rightly) hoicks them up by the collar and escorts them out with a foot in the ass.

If you don't like this blog, or have other things to say that aren't being covered on this blog, or disagree with the blog owner's point of view to the extent where you feel compelled to be an ass about it, start your own blog. You could go here, or , for instance. It's a big internet out there; there's no excuse for cluttering up the blog(s) of people who don't want you around.

Posted by: Interrobang | May 2, 2008 10:30 AM

I agree with Interrobang -- there does seem to be an undercurrent of sexism in the trolls' treatment of you, and it's not censorship to drop the banhammer on someone who is engaging in persistent harrassment.

Best of luck to you, Tara, and hopefully you'll at least have some time to drop in with an update every week or two.

Posted by: Brian X | May 2, 2008 4:26 PM

Great MEC,

Henry Bauer is already deleting Chris Noble's comments. Why don't you go whine to him about censorship?

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | May 2, 2008 6:45 PM

Tara,
your blog, your rules.

Censorship? I think there is a difference between allowing people who disagree with you to have their say (even the crazies, ranters and kooks) and finally just putting a stop to the incessant blathering that they spew out.

My two cents, I hope you come up with a reasonable policy to allow a certain amount of rational disagreement (this should cut out about 95% of what they say) but also exercise your right as the blogee to enforce a certain amount of control. This is basically your house, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume quite a bit of these jackasses behavior wouldn't be acceptable there and shouldn't be here either.

Have an enjoyable and productive five weeks!

Posted by: Chris | May 2, 2008 8:39 PM

Elk, you say: "I will not willingly associate with "gentlemen" of Bauer's sort: the type who consider (or considered) homosexuality an illness".

I don't understand Elk!

This may or may not surprise you, but in my own youth, and even as a gay man myself, I too was quite convinced that even my own homosexuality was an illness (a belief that was unwittingly given me by growing up in a homophobic society), and I was quite emotionally tormented by seeing my own homosexuality as an illness. Matter of fact, most gay men in America today have all gone through this very experience at some point in their life.

As a now fully self accepting and self loving gay man, I greatly applaud Dr. Bauer in having reconsidered such a societally programmed prior belief, and in having fully embraced the gay community, even to the point of having devoted the last few years of his life to attempting to save them from their own societally inspired inner self-homophobia and tendencies toward self destruction which become self-evident in the very HIV/AIDS paradigm of beliefs.

I myself truly believe that Dr. Bauer, Dr. Bially, Dr. Mulles, Dr. Maniotis, and Dr. Duesberg, as well as others will ALL eventually go down in history as absolute heros to the gay community, and as a gay community leader myself, I intend to do all I can to see that their place in gay history will be recognized.

I can't say that I believe that Gallo, Fauci, JP Moore, or even yourself will fair as well, or be seen as such a hero, though there is still time for such a transition to occur.

Posted by: Ahemmmm | May 3, 2008 1:28 AM

GL with the grants Tara, I have one, hopefully two, in the pipeline for the same deadlines, Im assuming NIH. Doubtful we are competing in the same study sections though, which is why I can almost say good luck. ;)

Posted by: Lorax | May 3, 2008 9:51 AM

Old Russian saying: "The highest blade of grass will be cut first".

Posted by: Lightning has struck | May 3, 2008 3:01 PM

- Altough Tara's ears, hardly standing above the rest, cannot be expected to hear aught but the din of poppy-induced consensus.

Posted by: MEC | May 3, 2008 5:07 PM

MEC and Michael,

I am pleased that your social studies professor has renounced his published views on human sexuality. Do you think this has anything to do with his need, as an unknown latecomer to the dissident movement, for recognition and support from gay dissidents? I don't, but I'm interested in your opinions.

Perhaps you could answer another question, too, since I don't know much about the man beyond his own writings and what I read about him on AIDS Truth. According to AIDS Truth, the paranormal specialist's change of heart was heralded "in a sentence buried in the endnotes to a book review" in a non-peer-reviewed journal ( www dot aidstruth dot org/GL-times-article.pdf ), and he waited to address the issue on his website until:

June 14, 2007, within a day of the AIDS Truth posting that exposed Bauer's homophobia to a wide audience (ibid).

Is this true or false?

And if Michael is correct, and the former administrator has devoted the last years of his life to "saving gay people from themselves" or however Michael worded the offensive suggestion that gay men are responsible for AIDS, why did he not see fit to name his new life goal on his own website?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | May 3, 2008 11:46 PM

Old Russian saying:

"Turds float for a time but soon will sink, Cream rises from below and stays on top.

Posted by: Lightning has struck | May 4, 2008 3:38 AM

Sir Elkie,

Ahemmm is right, we're not official spokespeople for the Bauer campaign. I don't know what prompted Prof. Bauer to address the issue on his website, or when that happened. But he is, after all, not a important public figure seeking office or some such thing, so I don't know why he would seek to proclaim his change of mind - which indeed occurred long before he became part of any 'movement', and via the normal process of acquainting himself better with the issues and with some of the people in question - by releasing some kind of official statement. In any event, arranging for press conferences is a little easier for people like Gallo and Heckler than for prof. Bauer.

If, as AIDSPravdadotorg suggests, Prof Bauer did put something up on his website in response to questions being raised, I would think there's nothing peculiar about that either: Something which had hitherto been of no interest or consequence to anybody was apparently becoming an issue, so he attempted to address it (if that's how it happened).

Bauer's changing views nthe gay issue were part of a philosophical realization that what we call the 'purpose' of Nature is not such a straight forward matter, and so it is not a straight forward matter what constitues an
'aberration' either. F. ex., from the point of view of HIV, as well as procreation it is difficult to escape the notion, that Nature didn't 'intent' anal intercourse. That is, until we look elsewhere and find out that Nature apparently didn't intent penile foreskin or breastfeeding either - notions which your pals are eagerly promoting at present.

To tell the truth, I don't think Prof. Bauer has any particular interest in gays one way or the other: his
'mission' as can easily be discovered, is to explore and expose what he and many others believe to be the racial disparities, the inherent racism, of the HIV tests.

Posted by: MEC | May 4, 2008 4:57 AM

I'm tired of the resident trolls shitting all over every discussion thread,

I'm kinda tired of academic light-weights shitting all over important scientific issues -- such as whether the AIDS establishment is complicit in promoting bogus tests and toxic AZT.

Posted by: Mountain Man | May 4, 2008 3:41 PM

Oh, and good luck with the grants, manuscripts and safe travels.

Posted by: Jim | May 4, 2008 4:15 PM

In what way? Not enough funding? Too much funding? Appropriation of funding?

There are issues with funding in science. They just differ depending on who you ask.

Posted by: Jim | May 4, 2008 4:43 PM

Delete me once, shame on Tara. Delete me twice, shame on me.

Well Tara is away now, dazzle us Cathy!!

Posted by: Adele | May 5, 2008 11:12 AM

"Now, the reason science in America is rotten, is not because of crazy, right-wing, Bible-thumping zealots. That's a separate issue. Those people don't run our major Universities. The reason science is rotten is because the quest for funding has trumped the quest for truth. More so, the quest for funding has turned otherwise smart, independent-minded folks who understood the concept of "falsifying the hypothesis" into mindless, herd-like data generators-- probably like you, Jim."

Very well said, Mountain Man.

(From one troll to another, of course...)

It's not hard to imagine why all the "lurkers" here would want such commentary to disappear.

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | May 5, 2008 12:30 PM

Wow...I'm amazed at the sheer volume of "science blog lurkers" coming out of the closet extolling Tara to censor all of us trolls. If that's the only topic, up until this point, that you have found worthy of comment then perhaps this blog will be even more boring after the exit of the "trolls". Nevertheless, perhaps some of the lurkers are new readers. If so, it is possible that they don't know Tara's significant history with broaching the subject of HIV dissidence.

As such, asking questions like...why do they waste their effort on mucking up other people's comment sections when they can have free reign in their own? will only make sense if you acknowledge that history. Given that, there are many reason that HIV rethinkers participate in high numbers here but even a cursory review of Tara's past post history will suffice to demonstrate that she started that trend by levying personal attacks against many of those rethinkers including, Michael Geiger, Rebecca Culshaw, and Hank Barnes. So, in the very least, those people should have the right to defend themselves and the scientific position they hold against Tara's juvenile and slanderous attacks.

But even beyond the personal attacks, one only has to review the titles of Tara's numerous top posts on the subject to see just how juvenile and thoroughly unscientific she has been in discussing what is a very serious matter. Furthermore, her tactics are in the very least inflammatory and worthy of reprise. For example, as someone who values real Science, I am offended that Tara compares Creationism to HIV rethinking, without providing sufficient evidence to make such a claim, as usual. Once again, she was just being "Tara", the unscientific jerk that we've all come to love.

_________________________________________

Tara's many Top Posts on HIV include....

AIDS denial and creationism--common thread of bad statistics

Interview with HIV "rethinker" Rebecca Culshaw

Loneliness causes AIDS, claims HIV "dissident" Michael Geiger

HIV denial update #2: "alternative" treatments

Why deny only one part of science? IDists branch out into AIDS denial

While all the HIV "dissidents" are milling around....

Another gaffe from Hank Barnes

and my personal favorite:

Do "rethinkers" ever have a point?

Posted by: Kevin | May 5, 2008 1:01 PM

Kevin,

People shouting conspiracy theories and qoute mining papers to fit their own agendas gets to be rather boring reading. If I wanted to read that kind of crap I would be reading AIG or Uncommonly Dense.

Posted by: BGT | May 5, 2008 5:29 PM

"I'm tired of the resident trolls shitting all over every discussion thread, but I've not decided what to do about that just yet"

Why do you blog then? Btw, it is not over every discussion; just the ones you piss on.

"Kevin,
People shouting conspiracy theories and qoute mining papers to fit their own agendas gets to be rather boring reading"

If you are bored, then act bored and stop boring us with your boredom.

"If I wanted to read that kind of crap I would be reading AIG or Uncommonly Dense."

then why don't you?

Posted by: pat | May 5, 2008 7:15 PM

I wuz lurking foe a long time not wunting to posst but thiss blogg meks me wont to vommitt. Dese trollz needs to bee delt wiv bye byoling in hot polly-unsatturatted oylz and den feed to da kroews - doen't u now dat we is intalectectally sooperior. Leeve ma heroin Tara alown - she iz da biz rite? I'z hoppin dat us reel intalectuwals iz gonna tryoomph ova dese domb dinyalists - git yusselves a byologee book u ignoranus deeneeailisists.
I iz nott a makak BTW.

Posted by: JPMMakak | May 6, 2008 4:51 AM

Wll, lrght nw, bys nd grls! n tht plsnt nt, prhps t s tm w mv n wth th sbjct f ths blg.



ftr ll, t s blg bt th &qt;Scnc f tlgy&qt;.



Snc Tr s smngly nt wll ngh t crt n ntrstng pst, prhps w cld hlp hr t.



thrfr sggst nw tpc f dscssn, sch s, lts sy,



<b>&qt;Th Lkly Vrl rgn nd tlgy f Trlls r Trllts ncgnts nwrns Dss&qt; r TD<b/>



T bgn sch dscssn, w mst frst f ll ncvr th fll dfntn f &qt;Trllts&qt;. s th dfntn f ny dss s slly dpndnt pn ts symptms, w wll frst f ll nlyz ths symptms:



Sm, f nt vn th mjrty f th stly mr jvnl sffrrs f trllts, sm t shr mny cmmn symptms nd w wll nlyz ths n dpth.



Th ldng symptm f trllts s tht sffrrs nwttngly prjct th mg f trlls pn nyn wh jst s hppns t dsgr wth thm n prtclr sbjct.



s sch, th dss sms t bgn n th mnd, nd thn xtnds t ffctng ysght, s th ptnts bgn t s trlls vrywhr bt n th mrrr. vrythng thy rd sms t b fltrd thrgh vsns f trlls nd thy bcm ncpbl f ndrstndng wht thy r rdng.



Frm th mnd nd ys, t sms t xtnd dwn nt th gt, whch xhbts ntns flngs f twstng, knttng, nd dscmfrt t th sffrrs. Rlf s ftn fnd by lshng t t ths thy prcv t b trlls, wtht bng wr tht thy thmslvs r trnng nt n.



t prgrssvly trvls thrght th bdy nd xhbts tslf n th thrt nd mth f th sffrrs wh tnd t bbbl nchrntly t thr lvd ns nd sscts bt qt ndlssly bt trlls.



Frm thr, t xtnds nt th xtrmts. Th mth bgns t ngrly ttr nnsns nd d hmnms t tms t th pnt f fmng. Th ft slm pn th flr, nd th fngrs bt rlntlssly n th kybrd r tp n th dsk. nd ll th whl, th hrt s rcng, brthng bcms rstrctd, whch thn ffcts xygn lvls n th brn, ftn rsltng fr tm n ntcbl dmnt nd brn wstng.



Sm mght sk &qt;s &qt;trllts&qt; ctlly nt mr mtnl n ntr