http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61071

He is causing trouble, not moderating.

Really? It looks like he was just presenting an argument contrary to your own.

Why? Has he been censoring you? All I see is an argument.

i dont even think he was censored, he's just a bit sore because he had his argument blown apart

No, it was a rhetorical question... SM would not censor a moron.

He accused me of getting a free ride on propaganda when I pointed to a place where a large body of evidence could be found. In a reasonable discussion both sides have the right to point to places where evidence can be found. They also may or may not have the right to call something propaganda, but even that's a little much. It isn't right to use that label to excuse a demand that the person refrain from directing people to that site.

He also called me irresponsible for presenting the dissident side.

Even a moderator should confine his demands to reasonable ones. The demand that Monkey made was not reasonable and was supported by reasons that were much more like insults than reasons. It looked a lot like a deliberate attempt to humiliate my side. No moderator who should be taken seriously would do this.

Yes but we like spuriousmonkey, whereas we're not that overly keen on your good self. Just do a PhD on why AIDS doesn't exist (or whatever it is that you've been blathering on about in there), then come back.
It looked a lot like a deliberate attempt to humiliate my side.
Your side consists of you - doesn't it? It does, doesn't it. Your side consists of you. Why not just have a big cry, then put it behind you?

Really? It looks like he was just presenting an argument contrary to your own.

Why? Has he been censoring you? All I see is an argument.
yes but he used his moderator status to present his side of the argument in post 45 on page 3.

frankly i find the entire topic ridiculous and an arument about semantics.

i feel metakron owes me for making me read the worthless thread, i just thank god it was just 3 pages.

and just to give my opinion about the topic: it sucks and metakron loses

No moderators should post regularly.

They shouldn't even be allowed access to the forum except to - well, moderate. To take official actions.
They are supposed to be overseers, not participants.

If such were the case, everybody & their brother wouldn't be clamoring Make MEEEEE a moderator.

They are supposed to be overseers, not participants.

I think slave driver might be a better term.
A slave driver was himself a slave who made the other slaves work harder by working harder himself.

In today's parlance, he would fuck the curve up for the rest of us...

In all due respects, a Moderator is like a Captain of a ship. In this instance a Moderator of their forums. Although they might be commanded by the Administrators like some vast Armada, when it comes to Rules, Regulations, Disciplining and keeping everything "Ship shape" it's entirely down to the moderator.

If Spurious is trialling an approach where people attempt to use Scientific methods and approaches to discussion then thats fair enough. I'd rather have an educated discussion on a subject rather than someones "pet theory" which lacks any corresponding evidence to the contrary since such lack of discipline in regards to evidence collection and formating is why so many people in the world still think the Sun is the centre of the universe.

[p.s. Thats why Pirates Rule over Ninjas]

Actually Spurious and James R, both as moderators, should have also reprimanded Oh!phiolite. Instead, Spurious patted Oh!Lite on the bum for a job well done in defining latterly—obviously as a studiously fabricated afterthought, which is typical of Ophiolite—what he did not intend to define in the first place. From that point on, the thread had acquired a "legitimate" punchbag—Metakron.

Killjoy: absolutely. Moderators seem to want to have their cake and eat it too—in full view of the rest of us. Such huge pieces of cake. And crumbs too.

Or better yet, they might try Stryder's method of sabotaging a thread by deleting what came to embarrass them—latterly. Ha.

oh man...

when I read the title of this thread, Remove Spuriousmonkey as moderator, I honestly thought you wanted to remove me as moderator so the administration team could make me a supermoderator.

Anyway. I explained my actions as a moderator already thoroughly in the threads that were moderated by me.

Have a nice day.

:)

You expalined yourself not as moderator but as Spurious donning the robes of officialdom when it suited you: you even had to illustrate it. Either you're Spurious, or moderator. Pick and choose, I guess.

Actually Spurious and James R, both as moderators, should have also reprimanded Oh!phiolite.

I haven't seen any reports complaining about Ophiolite's posts. If you find something objectionable, and think it needs moderator action, that is what the "report" button is for.

You can't expect me to read every post on sciforums. Also, I am not here 24 hours a day.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61071

He is causing trouble, not moderating.

There was a time when I would have simply said you're being a crybaby, but I'll abstain from that accusation.

But it looks to me like SpuriousMonkey had you by the pseudoscientific balls. If you have a specific but legitimate criticism to make about the research in HIV/AIDS, do as he suggested. Cite the research and properly deconstruct it. Otherwise, you're coming off as nothing more than a crank and the internet is full of them. Sciforums certainly needs no more of them.

I think it's only common sense that moderators should not be allowed to participate in a discussion which they are moderating. Would you make the accused the judge of his own trial? Would you make a player of one of the two soccer teams an umpire of that match?

I think you are confused. A moderator is not a judge.

A moderator is a person who presides over a forum. That is the person who possesses or exercises authority or control.

A judge is a person who is qualified to pass a critical judgment.

The task of the moderator is to steer discussion in the proper direction. Not to be an objective and impartial judge of a debate. If moderators were judges they should not allowed to post at all.

spurious:

The task of the moderator is to steer discussion in the proper direction.


Cease the semantics. Coming to a decision on whether a thread is veering off the intended topic is a judgement in itself. How can a moderator carry out his duty objectively when he's in the middle of the discussion?

I'm also a little confused as to why people can't see why Metakron is complaining. Sure, MetaKron is talking a load of crock in the AIDS threads. But it's downright intimidating for you to throw on your moderator robes when you're having a one on one debate with him. It's not fair, because he doesn't share the same luxury.

Quite simply, if you want to argue with Metakron, get another moderator (James R?) to moderate the thread.

what makes you think a moderator should do his job objectively?

The task of the moderator is to steer discussion in the proper direction.
man i gotta disagree with this.
a mod should never "steer" a discussion.

i see it didn't take you long to run into the "no win" situation.

spurious:

what makes you think a moderator should do his job objectively?


I'd like to think that a moderator does his job with as little bias as possible. It's rather hard for a moderator to remain unbiased when he is participating in the discussion.

An old saying comes to mind.

Never Wrestle With A Pig ... ... you'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it.

I don't see why moderators should not be allowed to take part in discussions. It seems to me that the only reason you have for this is that spurious is an excellent debater who beats your arguments all the time. Removing him would remove a large part of the opposition to your ideas.

A judge is a person who is qualified to pass a critical judgment.

Spuriously qualified.

Moderators here are anonymous, incognito.

spuriousmonkey is the ONLY member that i can think of that is even close to qualified to moderate that particular subforum.

the moderator's job is to keep the peace and be a sort of "cleanup man" when somebody is disrupting their forum.

spuriousmonkey did this. the thread belonged in pseudoscience.
case closed.

the thread belonged in pseudoscience.
case closed.

Yup. My opinion exactly.

Fool with forked tongue, disrupts with one hat and expects to be respected with the other.

At least I'm completely immune from being banned(no matter what) now that my buddy spurious is a moderator.
Right spurious?

I don't see why moderators should not be allowed to take part in discussions. It seems to me that the only reason you have for this is that spurious is an excellent debater who beats your arguments all the time. Removing him would remove a large part of the opposition to your ideas.
i think we need to make a distinction between spurious the poster and spurious the mod, this applies to all mods.

i agree that spurious can, and should, participate in any and all discussions.
i disagree that he should force his point of view with the mod hat.

as far as the thread topic goes it was so damned ridiculous to not even warrent this.
the question was basicly "why do we call the moon the moon?
"why do we call the earth the earth"
"why is the sky blue"

Why do monkeys live in trees? No wait, I don't believe monkeys exist, so why are they supposed to be hairy?

Sciforums' premier primate just gets very angry with pseudoscientists. Has been for a while. He wants peer-reviewed papers, not internet gossip. Still, the mod-hat thing was possibly a touch too far - an amusing abuse of power. Speaking of which: more of it to his elbow. :)

Re. moderators and neutrality. I present as exhibit A: James R. To the best of my knowledge he hasn't invoked his moderator veto in a discussion yet, but a passive observer he ain't. His views on the ethical treatment of animals in particular are well-known.

i think we need to make a distinction between spurious the poster and spurious the mod, this applies to all mods.

i agree that spurious can, and should, participate in any and all discussions.
i disagree that he should force his point of view with the mod hat.

as far as the thread topic goes it was so damned ridiculous to not even warrent this.
the question was basicly "why do we call the moon the moon?
"why do we call the earth the earth"
"why is the sky blue"

i dont think he forced his point with his mod hat, just reinforced the rules of the subforum

with the mod hat, you wont get his opinion, you will get subforum rules.

it is very simple.

...furthered by ophiolite did nothing to explain his ideas to himself, however they did give other sciforumers insight into the thinking behind his short and sweet comment.


What was "sweet", if not a gratuitous endorsement of the abuse?

That is not what I would call impartial or moderate.

moderation doesnt require moderation.

mull it over.

moderation doesnt require moderation.
mull it over.

Which is beside the point.

"with the mod hat, you wont get his opinion..." is obviously not the case.

Which is beside the point.

"with the mod hat, you wont get his opinion..." is obviously not the case.

Its important to recognise the difference between his rebuttal of a post and his moderation to achieve a standard he wishes to set for this forum.

Both are subjective, but are entirely at his discretion. Obviously he is less concerned with fuck/moron and more concerned with the evidence behind an assertion.

Obviously he is less concerned with fuck/moron and more concerned with the evidence behind an assertion.

Which goes to show the sheer hypocrisy of it.

Whatever is behind an ad hominem assertion is by definition beside the point.

Which goes to show the sheer hypocrisy of it.

Whatever is behind an ad hominem assertion is by definition beside the point.

Frankly in a biology/genetics forum, I am less concerned with moral dilemmas and more concerned with evidence.

I usually ignore abusiveness as a sign of frustration.

Morality is better addressed in the Ethics forum.

Frankly in a biology/genetics forum, I am less concerned with moral dilemmas and more concerned with evidence.

I usually ignore abusiveness as a sign of frustration.

Morality is better addressed in the Ethics forum.

:bugeye:

Tell the monkey that then, the monkey who would seem to see fit to appoint himself to "confront them with their deepest inner thoughts and morality", (his words, not mine).

:bugeye:

Tell the monkey that then, the monkey who would seem to see fit to appoint himself to "confront them with their deepest inner thoughts and morality", (his words, not mine).

If it is evidence that he wants to confront them with, I see no contradiction.

(btw, that was my opinion I expressed back there.)

If it is evidence that he wants to confront them with, I see no contradiction.


Evidence of deepest inner thoughts and morality?

As with the Spanish Inquisition?

What next, trials by fire, burning at the stake?

Evidence of deepest inner thoughts and morality?

As with the Spanish Inquisition?

What next, trials by fire, burning at the stake?


Either you have a comprehension problem or you deliberately misunderstand to be provocative (<----frustration).

He wants people to debate with evidence and this requires confronting the basis of a conspiracy theory, most of which are based on deep inner thoughts and misplaced morality. And after reading that thread, I find he was right in his judgment.

Frankly I would have just dumped the thread into Pseudoscience.

What next, trials by fire, burning at the stake?

What, you're going to burn Spurious at the stake now? :eek:

Finally, some action. Two men enter thread, one man leaves.

Frankly I would have just dumped the thread into Pseudoscience.

I didn't really want to shove this particular thread down Stryder's throat to be honest.

No posts were edited. No threads were closed. The discussion is as free as a bird. Individual sciforums members are free to ask a supermoderator or administrator to move a particular thread that has landed in the cesspool to a more appropriate subforum. Only the smallest effort is required for this. A PM to the appropriate person.

Obviously I considered these particular threads not suitable for the biology subforum. That is my subjective opinion.

On objectivity


I don't really think the proponents of objectivity have thought their position through.

Should I really consider the post:
'Your mother is a fat cunt'
with the same objectivity as
'Koch's test has been found inadequate for HIV and needs to be adapted.'

I'd rather not if you don't mind.

Should I consider a thread on 'Playstation vs Xbox' with the same objectivity as one on 'HIV'.

Obviously not.

It is my job to be subjective. That's why we have different subforums. That's why we have moderators.

And you need to be out of the job as moderator.

You are not just being subjective. You are pretending to moderate a discussion area on a forum that is about science. You are abusing the position to lock out an area of inquiry that is scientifically valid and is on topic for the forum. Irrational moderation is not the kind of moderation that is suitable for this site. If you don't want to do your job, resign.

If you don't want to do your job, resign.

where has he even mentioned the fact that he wants to resign, stop putting words in his mouth

I suggest MetaKron takes up this case with the site administrators since I have no intention of resigning.

perhaps he would have done well to keep this a private matter in the first place :rolleyes:

I shouldn't have posted in this thread either because it is pointless. Hence this is my last post in this thread.

He is causing trouble, not moderating.


so?

Hold on a minute. It was not Metakron who who made so much of a display, replete with look at me red type about the deal with the moderation or whatever else to swing on.

Nor did anybody in that thread say anything about a conspiracy before the monkey came along to make a red-straw-man-herring of that, a typical troll tactic except for the brand new hat.

To show the value of the need to deal with evidence, deal with it.

perhaps he would have done well to keep this a private matter in the first place :rolleyes:

Hold on a minute. It was not Metakron who who made so much of a display, replete with look at me red type about the deal with the moderation or whatever else to swing on.

Nor did anybody in that thread say anything about a conspiracy before the monkey came along to make a red-straw-man-herring of that, a typical troll tactic except for the brand new hat.

To show the value of the need to deal with evidence, deal with it.

Actually, Sauna, Metakron's thread was a direct carryover from another thread about AIDS conspiracies which was also cesspooled.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61002

Put bluntly, if you don't like threads on science topics being held to a high standard and pseudoscience being discouraged, there is no shortage of woo-woo and crank sites to visit and post your "theories."

Bitching and moaning about how the big bad moderator is keeping you down is nothing more than the typical complaint put forth by pseudoscience proponents everywhere in their attempt to blame "the establishment" for not taking them seriously.

With regard to moderators not being able to take part in discussion: poppycock. In any discussion forum, internet or otherwise, moderators direct the quality of discussion and ensure that the topic at hand is managed. If you don't like moderated discussion, go start a blog. Say what you want, how you want.

Spurious is doing a bang up job and the fact that a few nutbars are pissed is the evidence. If the cranks, woo-woos, and nutters end up leaving sciforums because of the improved moderation, so much the better. Perhaps now it can live up to its moniker of an 'intelligent community.'

Actually, Sauna, Metakron's thread was a direct carryover from another thread about AIDS conspiracies which was also cesspooled.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61002

I don't see that it was. I don't see that anything was originally carried over apart from the issue of evidence, ergo a fresh start to attempt to deal with what could be dealt with because conspiracy discussions never get anywhere because of their speculative nature.

In that respect then the regurgitation of the bile seems rather to fit the subesequent description, a making of trouble, and I think it a shame, not yet convinced either way with regard to AIDS and HIV.

I don't see that it was. I don't see that anything was originally carried over apart from the issue of evidence, ergo a fresh start to attempt to deal with what could be dealt with because conspiracy discussions never get anywhere because of their speculative nature.

In that respect then the regurgitation of the bile seems rather to fit the subesequent description, a making of trouble, and I think it a shame, not yet convinced either way with regard to AIDS and HIV.

he created this thread as a spiteful way of attacking spurious for handing his ass to him in a previous thread. the fact he chose to make this public confirms that...he could have chose to deal with this by private means with spurious or one of the admins

...the fact that a few nutbars are pissed is the evidence. If the cranks, woo-woos, and nutters end up leaving sciforums because of the improved moderation, so much the better. Perhaps now it can live up to its moniker of an 'intelligent community.'

This may come as a terrible shock to some here, but according to my education such a style, the pissed off talk of nutbars, woo woos and nutters is not so commendably typical of an intellignet community, much more the style of the school yard bully, and not so likely in my experience to attract the sympathy of an intelligent onlooker.

he created this thread as a spiteful way of attacking spurious for handing his ass to him in a previous thread. the fact he chose to make this public confirms that...he could have chose to deal with this by private means with spurious or one of the admins

Really?

Metakron attacked the spurious monkey?

Where was that?

Please refer to the specific offence.

Did he call him a dangerous moron, and tell him to piss off?

This may come as a terrible shock to some here, but according to my education such a style, the pissed off talk of nutbars, woo woos and nutters is not so commendably typical of an intellignet community, much more the style of the school yard bully, and not so likely in my experience to attract the sympathy of an intelligent onlooker.


Lets just say that not all schooling is dependent upon education, shall we?



Such a manner betrays the mind of an impudent slut, not an education.


Carry on with that attitude and sooner or later somebody's going to recondition you with a good hard smack in the face.

:eek:

Such a manner betrays the mind of an impudent slut, not an education.

Carry on with that attitude and sooner or later somebody's going to recondition you with a good hard smack in the face.

those fall under the banner violent or abusive content dont they?

I just searched his post for those quotes. Couldn't find them. Have they been deleted?

Sam?

me too :D

Such a manner betrays the mind of an impudent slut, not an education.

Carry on with that attitude and sooner or later somebody's going to recondition you with a good hard smack in the face.

those fall under the banner violent or abusive content dont they?

Apparently they are designed to attract the attention and sympathy of the intelligent onlooker.

Fortunately we are an intelligent community, so we are totally sympathetically attracted.:p

were they aimed at another member or just general comments made?

I just searched his post for those quotes. Couldn't find them. Have they been deleted?

Sam?

I don't know. I searched for my posts since I had quoted his.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1237273&highlight=maturity#post1237273

Though I admit I did provoke him.:o

holy shit on a stick :eek:

Such forthrightness for such a new user. Such overfamiliarity.

Almost as if he's been here before. :cool: :confused:

Such forthrightness for such a new user. Such overfamiliarity.

Almost as if he's been here before. :cool: :confused:

tis most perplexing :D

Such forthrightness for such a new user. Such overfamiliarity.

Almost as if he's been here before. :cool: :confused:

Guess you never read my first posts, huh?:o

tis most perplexing :D

Nah, Ron likes me.

Hey where did verties post go?

tis most perplexing :D
It's not Ron. Sauna has Ron's pomposity but not his talent for obfuscation.

So who is it, sam? Which first posts are you referring to?

And yes: where did invert's post go?

Hey where did verties post go?

The mists of time have claimed it.
Sadness.
Great sadness.
Cry for me, Argentina.

It's not Ron. Sauna has Ron's pomposity but not his talent for obfuscation.

So who is it, sam? Which first posts are you referring to?

And yes: where did invert's post go?

ai, is true, plus sauna is more crude i guess

The mists of time have claimed it.
Sadness.
Great sadness.
Cry for me, Argentina.
It's ok, we read it.

We were up to 'sick of it all' (Sauna's subtitle). Continue.

"And all of the businessers in their unlimited hells where they buy and they sell and they sell all their trash to each other and they're sick of it all and they're bankrupt on selling."

Hmm.

Doesn't like sam. Doesn't like spurious..

I'm thinking..

do enlighten

This may come as a terrible shock to some here, but according to my education such a style, the pissed off talk of nutbars, woo woos and nutters is not so commendably typical of an intellignet community, much more the style of the school yard bully, and not so likely in my experience to attract the sympathy of an intelligent onlooker.

So are you saying that woo-woos, nutters, and nutbars don't exist or that they don't come to SciForums? Or are you admitting that they come here but should be encouraged to continue with their pseudoscientific and crank ideas?

Or is there another scenario I haven't considered regarding woo-woo's, cranks, and nutters?

And he's a Modest Mouse fan..

Curiouser and curiouser..

So who is it, sam? Which first posts are you referring to?



My very first sciforums post:o
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1064385#post1064385

My very first sciforums post
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....85#post1064385

Sam, you ignorant slut!

wow..you sure were a bitch back then :p

Her first post and she's already bragging about her ignore list...
Of course, she was lying. Hell, she even started cybering Muslim after that didn't she?

Reminds me of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1151868#post1151868

wow..you sure were a bitch back then :p

I had so much fun with Muslim then. :D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52567&page=23

Her first post and she's already bragging about her ignore list...
Of course, she was lying. Hell, she even started cybering Muslim after that didn't she?

Reminds me of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1151868#post1151868

No I wasn't if you scroll down the link I gave earlier you'll see this (it was quoted by supe):

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1065763&postcount=450

Thats when I decided he was too much fun to put on ignore.:D

Especially when he responded with:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1066280&postcount=459

Such forthrightness for such a new user. Such overfamiliarity.
Guess you never read my first posts, huh?:o
My very first sciforums post:o
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1064385#post1064385
Ah right.. Now I see. I was looking for clues where there are none. I've become obsessed..

PS Welcome to Sciforums. :)

Her first post and she's already bragging about her ignore list...
Of course, she was lying. Hell, she even started cybering Muslim after that didn't she?

Reminds me of:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1151868#post1151868

hmm...i remember that...useless whore

"outrageously blabbering wretch and a disgusting, enema-addicted lamentable mistake by your parents an unconscionably gluttonous barbarian and a myopic, coma-inducing dreg of the Internet a precociously narcissistic loafer and a repugnant, sheep-molesting cause of nightmares in small childerin unutterably blighted miscreant and a dastardly, sock-sucking personification of vulgarity petty, air-polluting depraved orgy of subhuman indecency wickedly reprehensible trollop and a dastardly, acidly acrimonious failure to endure the scrutiny of those with distinction"
Ah, insult generators.. they're great, aren't they? Surely in the top 10 of humanity's most useful inventions. http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

That post is written by something so confused, it doesn't know whether to scratch its watch or wind its ass. I suggest you hone your writing skills before applying borrowed glories as a mere typist.

couldnt agree more :D

And Bettina. I remember her too. How could I have forgotten? I wonder what she's doing now..

Ah, insult generators.. they're great, aren't they? Surely in the top 10 of humanity's most useful inventions. http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

I hadn't even heard of insult generators before I joined this forum. Although I must say, there is a lot of original work being produced here.

And Bettina. I remember her too. How could I have forgotten? I wonder what she's doing now..

Ranting against the Fword.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/FWORDS-4741t.php


So.
Anyway.
Did Sam tacitly admit to cybering Muslim then?
Interesting...

bettina looks pretty hot!

So.
Anyway.
Did Sam tacitly admit to cybering Muslim then?
Interesting...

Pardon my french but wtf is cybering?

Sam, you ignorant slut!

LOL - I like sidelong SNL references. What was Curtin's response to that classic, anyway? Can never remember.

Playing coy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybering

Ranting against the Fword.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/FWORDS-4741t.php
Ha ha. That's class. The lady's on a mission, isn't she? I think she's going to be visibly upset at a lot more low lifes before she's done.
Did Sam tacitly admit to cybering Muslim then?
And what was that I read further down about a 'female view neutralising testosterone'? :p

Playing coy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybering

Just the fatal attraction one feels towards bugs and microbes that is perpetuated by their antics following poking or prodding them.:p

Rawr.
Kinky.

What was Curtin's response to that classic, anyway? Can never remember.

I can't either. Tried looking it up and didn't find anything stable.
I think there was no stereotyped response. She just let loose with wild invective at her heart's content.

I don't see how any of this is getting us any closer to removing Spurious as moderator. The power has clearly gone to his head! Sure it was only one thread, but even Adolf Hitler started off as a single cell. Soon all his comments will be in size 7 red font, he will be throwing threads into the cesspit for incorrect speling etc... there will be chaos.

Yes, he's a witch. Let's burn him. Let's burn the witch.

he created this thread as a spiteful way of attacking spurious for handing his ass to him in a previous thread. the fact he chose to make this public confirms that...he could have chose to deal with this by private means with spurious or one of the admins

Actually, I started that thread as a way to demonstrate the right way to challenge a scientific theory. Monkey locked it out of spite and demonstrated that he has no commitment to science or to fair and equitable moderation.

This is the "open government" area and this is the right place to request that a moderator be removed. Monkey intends only to abuse his position to protect the status quo. He also, not coincidentally, demonstrates that we have a status quo that can only be defended by shutting up the people who have valid differences of opinion.

I don't know what the owner of this site wants, but I do not think that challenges to established dogma in science belong in a ghetto called "Pseudoscience", which is an insulting name, and we don't need someone putting such challenges in an area with an even more insulting name. Nor do responsible and competent scientists or science students need to get rid of such discussions in such a manner. I haven't seen competent opposition to the AIDS dissident case, here or anyone else. All I have seen is people from the allegedly correct side being insulting, playing playground games, and otherwise conducting themselves as total asses, rather than assets.

Something's wrong here and out there. A forum committed to science battles ignorance, it doesn't assign people to work to increase ignorance.

Monkey locked it out of spite

Locked what? Your thread? It's quite open for discussion.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61071
See?

but I do not think that challenges to established dogma in science belong in a ghetto called "Pseudoscience", which is an insulting name,

Pseudoscience is a description for those types of science which don't follow the scientific method. There are many paths to pseudoscience.
One of these paths is by stating often and openly that science and scientists are all lying to you.

I haven't seen competent opposition to the AIDS dissident case, here or anyone else.

I have, but you and your ilk generally tend to just ignore such evidence. Or you, more accurately, rebut it with "they're lying."

All I have seen is people from the allegedly correct side being insulting, playing playground games, and otherwise conducting themselves as total asses, rather than assets.

This is a natural reaction that comes after people get tired of dealing with your ignorance. Your purposeful ignorance, I might add.

Yes, he's a witch. Let's burn him. Let's burn the witch.

I'm certain he weighs more than a duck. That's all the evidence we need.

I think it's only common sense that moderators should not be allowed to participate in a discussion which they are moderating. Would you make the accused the judge of his own trial? Would you make a player of one of the two soccer teams an umpire of that match?

It's more like "Would you allow the captain of the football team to play the game?"

I will give it to you straight, James. Spuriousmonkey is knowingly and deliberately using his position here to prevent people from using the biology and genetics forum to reveal what is wrong with AIDS theory and how the pharmaceutical companies are abusing us. He isn't working for the team. He's working for people who have a financial stake in the team losing.

Get rid of him.

I will give it to you straight, James.
uh oh, i smell a rant or a big ol' hairy fart coming on.
Spuriousmonkey is knowingly and deliberately using his position here to prevent people from using the biology and genetics forum to reveal what is wrong with AIDS theory
last i heard AIDS was a set of symptoms, not a disease
and how the pharmaceutical companies are abusing us.
this takes some hard core evidence to prove.
so far you have provided, to my knowledge, one questionable weblink.
He isn't working for the team.
how long has spurious been a mod? less than a week? give 'em a break.
He's working for people who have a financial stake in the team losing.
while spurious is a researcher i doubt if he's part of some conspiracy to crash sciforums.
besides, the monkeyman has a Ph. D.
have any idea how long it took him to get it?
Get rid of him.
this almost sounds like a ban request.
you've been here long enough to know what happens to people that make ban requests.

stryder mentioned that a mod is captain of their respective forum, i suggest you read up on admiralty and maritime law

I despise you, leopold.

Heh heh heh heh.
Oh, man.

Ok. Time to lock this thread then?

stifle yourself, pervert

I despise you, leopold.
now why did you have to go and say that for?

you didn't see spurious saying stuff like that when i told him how i felt.

Because I do despise you, Leopold, that's why.

spuriousmonkey is the ONLY member that i can think of that is even close to qualified to moderate that particular subforum.

the moderator's job is to keep the peace and be a sort of "cleanup man" when somebody is disrupting their forum.

spuriousmonkey did this. the thread belonged in pseudoscience.
case closed.

What, he cleans lab equipment? Most likely he mops the floor at the biology lab. At a Bible college.

but i. . . i. . . love you. please don't wound me my sweetie pie, i can't take it.

I didn't really want to shove this particular thread down Stryder's throat to be honest.

No posts were edited. No threads were closed. The discussion is as free as a bird. Individual sciforums members are free to ask a supermoderator or administrator to move a particular thread that has landed in the cesspool to a more appropriate subforum. Only the smallest effort is required for this. A PM to the appropriate person.

Obviously I considered these particular threads not suitable for the biology subforum. That is my subjective opinion.



It was suitable for the biology subforum and not for the cesspool, you twit.

All that really happens here is that people like Skinwalker, Spuriousmonkey, and Invert get away with anything they want and when they complain about me I get points taken off. There is something seriously wrong with you people.

I don't see how any of this is getting us any closer to removing Spurious as moderator. The power has clearly gone to his head! Sure it was only one thread, but even Adolf Hitler started off as a single cell. Soon all his comments will be in size 7 red font, he will be throwing threads into the cesspit for incorrect speling etc... there will be chaos.

There has to be something wrong here. I'm getting hit with points for insulting people when the people who I have been insulting have been insulting me for over two years now. Skinwalker is putting those points on my account and he's one of the people who insults me.

I don't care. I'm sick of the way they mollycoddle people who disrupt anything that I try to do.

There is something seriously wrong with you people.

:rolleyes:

Mind your own.

There is something wrong if it takes two years and 2500 posts to see that.

how long has spurious been a mod? less than a week? give 'em a break.

But that's why we must destroy him now, before he gets too powerful. Never mind that MetaKron is talking out off his ass.

There is something seriously wrong with you people.

you cant help yourself can you?

I for one am glad to see the monkey remaining true to his pre-elected promise which was to rule (paraphrasing with artistic licence) with an iron rod (sexual reference not intended) and do what the hell he likes. Which to be fair, is the way the rest of 'em mod. What's the point otherwise?

Anyway, happy hols.

Metakron, stop talking rubbish and - even more importantly - stop being such a whining crybaby and people won't despise you as much.

(Hi ToR!)

Hi ToR,

Long time no scene!!!:D

I for one am glad to see the monkey remaining true to his pre-elected promise which was to rule (paraphrasing with artistic licence) with an iron rod (sexual reference not intended) and do what the hell he likes. Which to be fair, is the way the rest of 'em mod. What's the point otherwise?

Anyway, happy hols.
where the hell have you been? i was starting to worry that you were kidnapped by aliens and anal probed.

where the hell have you been? i was starting to worry that you were kidnapped by aliens and anal probed.

I always knew you had 'remote viewing' abilities!

though twas not an alien ;)

Hello Sam and Red, I've been busy and discovered a new herbal remedy for stress, and it's not this :m:

You may know of it Sam, Ashwaghanda, it's fab. It seems to slow my brain down so that I can enjoy focusing on the task at hand and not needing to dart about doing a million different things. So technically I've been away because I've been less busy than usual and not more.....which is nice.

Making up the rules as you go along, huh, moderators? And setting such fine examples for those you preach—even if it means having to do so from retrospect. Slick. What's the trick called? Rehearsing the past? Or ad-libing it?

Here's another observation: Spurious is innocent: he conducted himself as he only would because of the social mores, or should I say, forum mores he inherited from the last great generation of Sciforums (notice the Freudian slip of putting on Tiassa's mod cap?) when most of us were just a tiny bit looser and so very much less complaisant towards each other's cliques.

I will give it to you straight, James. Spuriousmonkey is knowingly and deliberately using his position here to prevent people from using the biology and genetics forum to reveal what is wrong with AIDS theory and how the pharmaceutical companies are abusing us.

In all this time, you haven't said what is wrong with AIDS theory or how the pharmaceutical companies are abusing "us".

Maybe, instead of spending your time and effort criticising a moderator, you ought to post your evidence of the alleged abuse, and your explanation of what "theory" you think is wrong, and why.

So far, all I've seen from you in terms of content is your assertion that HIV and AIDS are unrelated, even though AIDS is defined to be the disease caused by the HIV virus.

Do you have anything else to offer, or do you prefer to just attack the moderators? Am I part of your conspiracy, too, now?

In all this time, you haven't said what is wrong with AIDS theory or how the pharmaceutical companies are abusing "us".

Maybe, instead of spending your time and effort criticising a moderator, you ought to post your evidence of the alleged abuse, and your explanation of what "theory" you think is wrong, and why.

So far, all I've seen from you in terms of content is your assertion that HIV and AIDS are unrelated, even though AIDS is defined to be the disease caused by the HIV virus.

Do you have anything else to offer, or do you prefer to just attack the moderators? Am I part of your conspiracy, too, now?


Presently the definition of Aids is this (unless you're looking at Wikipedia of course)

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

"Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide."

meanwhile, I believe this may alleviate some confusion. Metakron is not citing pseudoscience, he has a confusion regarding the single cause of Aids being HIV as do you.

see here

he says this:


"An infectious disease of the immune system caused by an human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)"

The beginning of the idea of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is of course the definition of same. I do not believe that a good definition of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome would include a single cause of that syndrome. The words behind the acronym "AIDS" are pretty much self-explanatory. "Acquired" means that the patient gets it from somewhere. Radiation was one of the big known causes of immune deficiency before 1981. So was syphilis. There are also simple physical exhaustion, starvation, dehydration, chemical exposures like immune suppressing drugs and various chemicals found in industrial settings, and diseases like malaria.

A scientific definition of AIDS is not valid if the definition says that it has to be caused by one particular thing. It's too obvious. It is not valid to claim that the virus can be infered by the symptoms when the symptoms can be caused by other causes of immune suppression, and when the symptoms can be caused by other known diseases.

If we are not working with a valid definition of AIDS, there is nowhere to go.

my reply

I think this is where your confusion lies, if this dude is anything to go by that is:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbdef.htm



"The existence of the full range of AIDS symptoms and opportunistic infections in both HIV*free and HIV*infected transplant and cancer patients warns us that this logical caveat is one that must be acknowledged in AIDS. HIV infection may be an epiphenomenon of immune suppression rather than a necessary cause. Immune suppression may predispose people to HIV infection (just as it predisposes them to other opportunistic infections) rather than resulting from such an infection. I argue in my book Rethinking AIDS, in fact, that HIV may be just such an epiphenomenon. Every AIDS patient has multiple causes of immune suppression other than HIV, many of which precede HIV infection and some of which occur in the total absence of HIV. The existence of these largely unrecognized immunosuppressive agents in AIDS not only requires a rethinking of the definition of the syndrome as occurring mainly in people without previously identified causes of immune suppression but also necessitates a critical look at the role of HIV as a causative agent in AIDS."

Robert S. Root-Bernstein, an associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, is the author of Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (New York, Free Press, 1993) and Diversity (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1989). He is a former MacArthur Fellow (1981-1986).

and from first link:http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/

just for info:

AIDS-indicating conditions
(laboratory evidence of HIV infection not required)2,3,4
Definite diagnosis of
Candidiasis, of oesophagus, trachea, bronchi or lungs
Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
Cryptosporidiosis with diarrhoea >1 month
Cytomegalovirus of any organ other than liver, spleen, or lymph nodes
Herpes simplex with mucocutaneous ulceration lasting more than 1 month, or involvement of the lung or oesophagitis
Kaposi's Sarcoma if aged <60 years (or over 60 years if HIV+)
Primary cerebral lymphoma if aged <60 years (or over 60 years if HIV+)
Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia in a child < 13 years of age
Mycobacterium avium complex or Mycobacterium kansasii, disseminated
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Toxoplasmosis of internal organ (eg cerebral)

AIDS-indicating conditions (needs serological confirmation of HIV)
HIV+ and definite diagnosis of
Recurrent or multiple bacterial infections in a child aged <13
Cervical cancer, invasive
Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated
Histoplasmosis, disseminated
HIV encephalopathy
HIV wasting syndrome: involuntary weight loss >10% of baseline plus chronic diarrhea (2 loose stools/day for 30 days) or chronic weakness and documented enigmatic fever 30 days
Isosporiasis with diarrhoea greater than 1 month
Recurrent pneumonia -bacterial (2 episodes in 12 months)
Primary cerebral lymphoma at any age
Non Hodgkins Lymphoma (diffuse, undifferentiated B cell, or unknown phenotype)
Salmonella septicemia (non-typhoid), recurrent
Mycobacterial tuberculosis any site, or any disseminated other myocbacterial infection
HIV+ and presumptive diagnosis of:
Candidiasis of the oesophagus
CMV Retinitis with visual loss
Kaposi's Sarcoma any age
Mycobacterial disease - disseminated (ie AFB +ve but no culture available)
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP)
Cerebral toxoplasmosis

Here's another observation: Spurious is innocent: he conducted himself as he only would because of the social mores, or should I say, forum mores he inherited from the last great generation of Sciforums (notice the Freudian slip of putting on Tiassa's mod cap?) when most of us were just a tiny bit looser and so very much less complaisant towards each other's cliques.

what exactly was the cutoff date for this "golden age"?

I believe this may alleviate some confusion. Metakron is not citing pseudoscience, he has a confusion regarding the single cause of Aids being HIV as do you.

see here

he says this:




my reply

I think this is where your confusion lies, if this dude is anything to go by that is:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbdef.htm



"The existence of the full range of AIDS symptoms and opportunistic infections in both HIV*free and HIV*infected transplant and cancer patients warns us that this logical caveat is one that must be acknowledged in AIDS. HIV infection may be an epiphenomenon of immune suppression rather than a necessary cause. Immune suppression may predispose people to HIV infection (just as it predisposes them to other opportunistic infections) rather than resulting from such an infection. I argue in my book Rethinking AIDS, in fact, that HIV may be just such an epiphenomenon. Every AIDS patient has multiple causes of immune suppression other than HIV, many of which precede HIV infection and some of which occur in the total absence of HIV. The existence of these largely unrecognized immunosuppressive agents in AIDS not only requires a rethinking of the definition of the syndrome as occurring mainly in people without previously identified causes of immune suppression but also necessitates a critical look at the role of HIV as a causative agent in AIDS."


Robert S. Root-Bernstein, an associate professor of physiology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, is the author of Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (New York, Free Press, 1993) and Diversity (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1989). He is a former MacArthur Fellow (1981-1986).


this is also VERY relevant- from same link (edited )

"The definition of AIDS has evolved along with the disease itself. Just how much it has evolved can be seen from the following example. In May 1991 a new and unexpected AIDS risk was broadcast to the world. "Organ recipients test positive for AIDS virus!" screamed headlines.

.......................

No one seems to have realized that just seven years earlier, the same three organ transplant recipients could have died of exactly the same opportunistic infections without raising an eyebrow and without being diagnosed as having AIDS. They would have been in a group specifically excluded from being considered for a diagnosis of AIDS: transplant recipients. Their causes of immune suppression were known: the drugs they were treated with in order to prevent their immune systems from rejecting their new organs. These drugs, along with the rigors of surgery itself and the possibility of an immune system disorder called graft*versus*host disease in which the lymphocytes in the donated organ attempt to kill the recipient's body, result in very high rates of morbidity and mortality in organ recipients compared with the general populace or even with other surgery patients. Morbidity is the physician's term for sickness; mortality for death. Two of the transplant patients who died of "AIDS" received kidneys. Their probability of dying within three years of their operation was 20 percent if they developed no complications and 40 percent if they did. This figure rises to nearly 60 percent at five years for patients with complications.(3) Since the two patients who died clearly developed complications manifested as opportunistic infections, they were in the high*risk group. Thus, from a purely statistical point of view, each of these people was more likely to have died than to have been alive in 1991, no matter what their HIV status. The same approximate statistics apply to the unfortunate individual who received a heart transplant."

Refer to the original thread for more scientific support for Metakrons concerns also from leading Phd research biologists in the field of Aids.

what exactly was the cutoff date for this "golden age"?
Like most transitions, there is no exact cutoff date but gradual shifts. We noticed them on and off: when certain prominent members started getting banned, like Wanderer and Spookz. Or when Fetus left. When Xev and Gendanken started fighting. When Tiassa disappeared. But the high point, in my view—and when symbolism reflected reality—was during the second or third but major server crash or whatever problem there was at Sciforums that obliged it to go off line for what? several months? and many of us congregated like huddled noncitizens at The Science Forum. And most recently, Porfiry handing over the keys to a brand new landlord.

ah, i was in the middle of moving to europe during the crashes....it cost me a wager with a certain member, unfortunately.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61071

He is causing trouble, not moderating.


Metakron, are you willfully ignorant, or stupid?

Metakron, are you willfully ignorant, or stupid?

according to the rather nasty PMs he set me (didnt take to kindly to me banning him) he is trying to earn himself permenant ban

did you peeps remember to hold Christmas or was the soap to compelling :)

did you peeps remember to hold Christmas or was the soap to compelling :)

far too compelling, plus christma wasnt too great anyway