To start with, we have a virulent supporter of the AIDS industry in this thread, which is now locked:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64349

I appreciate the way that this forum generally has a broad enough tolerance that anyone can have their say, and generally people here are allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes legitimate content. But, a person came to this forum and admitted to cyberstalking and made death threats in a manner that made the threats believable. He also made personal attacks and stated that this problem that he has with me comes from outside the forum.

The case that I want to make, from long personal experience and from reading of the experience of numerous other people, is that this is an example of the lack of ethics of the AIDS industry. They literally overcome legitimate scientific dissension by attacking the reputations of involved persons, by getting them kicked out of their jobs and by getting publishers to refuse to publish the works of qualified researchers. They also use harassment.

The Science and Society question is, how can their methods be in any way conducive to the search for scientific truths? The methods that I have witnessed and that are thoroughly documented are the methods used by people like the supporters of Lysenkoism. Anyone who disagrees with the consensus is out, maybe even dead, and his legitimate objections to bad science are ignored and dismissed as ravings or counterrevolutionary, even though those objections are based on known principles and facts that the Lysenkoists want to replace with party doctrine.

So now I've received a death threat. How is it that the threatener is legitimate and I am not?

The AIDS "industry" is a conspiracy theory. There is no such industry.

Then Boehringer and GlaxoSmithKline make billions selling tampons?

I believe those companies sell drugs.

That's the AIDS industry. There are also billions of dollars in grant money that the U.S. government hasn't been keeping a close watch on.

the following links are just a sample of the peer reviewed articles i found on HIV/AIDS.

http://www.aegis.com/news/bw/2003/BW030504.html
http://collections.plos.org/plosmedicine/hiv-aids-2006.php
http://www.mihivnews.com/research.htm
http://www.level1diet.com/research/s/200/q/AIDS

Metakron, are you opposed to industries? Are you opposed to industries making money? Do you have a job?

Then Boehringer and GlaxoSmithKline make billions selling tampons?

No.

Most probably asthma medications. GSK is one of the biggest drug manufacturers for all asthma medications, both in relievers and preventatives. And when you consider how many people suffer from asthma around the world, it is probably one of their most lucrative sectors.

Or are you now going to say that asthma does not exist either?:rolleyes:

But, a person came to this forum and admitted to cyberstalking and made death threats in a manner that made the threats believable.
who is this person metakron?

This thread did not question the existence of HIV disease. It questions the ethics of the people who promote it.

The last time I looked they were promoting possible solutions, not promoting the disease. Do you think there might be difference between the two?

I want to see them CURE something. What was the last thing they cured? Polio?

@%$% drugs that make you "cope" with it.

who is this person metakron?

He called himself "Read-Only." That is exactly what he should be, too. Didn't I put up a link to the thread?

But, a person came to this forum and admitted to cyberstalking and made death threats in a manner that made the threats believable.

Wow.

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?

Read-only has clearly made a death threat towards Metakron. He should be permanently banned.

Wow.

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?

No, because he has a valid concern that needs to be addressed.

Threats to a person should never be tolerated. Meta is allowed to believe as he believes and should not be threatened because of said beliefs.

No, because he has a valid concern that needs to be addressed.

Threats to a person should never be tolerated. Meta is allowed to believe as he believes and should not be threatened because of said beliefs.

MetaKron has selectively interpretted an offhand comment as a threat to his existence.

I appreciate the way that this forum generally has a broad enough tolerance that anyone can have their say, and generally people here are allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes legitimate content. But, a person came to this forum and admitted to cyberstalking and made death threats in a manner that made the threats believable.

was garnered from

Truly sad individual, this guy. I'm afraid that if he lived next door to me his paranoia would be true. Because I'd be trying to find a safe (meaning not getting caught) way to end his miserable existence.

If you'd bother to complete the required readings instead of just the Cliff's notes you would, of course, not need me to cut and paste it for you.

MetaKron has selectively interpretted an offhand comment as a threat to his existence.



was garnered from



If you'd bother to complete the required readings instead of just the Cliff's notes you would, of course, not need me to cut and paste it for you.

Your sarcasm is noted and dismissed.

I read the "required readings" and I too saw the threat and recognised it as such. I am not the only one. Read-Only specifically targetted Meta in his post. It appears he has taken a strange interest and obsession in Meta which is quite strange in itself. Is it a sock-puppet wanting to have some fun at the expense of another? Or is it some weirdo who does just sit there and fixates so much on a particular member.

The opening post was a direct attack at another member of these forums. Included in said post was a threat to that member. It has been noted as such by other moderators as well. Let me remind you, as well as others, that threats to members will never be tolerated on these forums.

The opening post was a direct attack at another member of these forums. Included in said post was a threat to that member. It has been noted as such by other moderators as well. Let me remind you, as well as others, that threats to members will never be tolerated on these forums.

I'm glad that you and the other moderators, in your infinite wisdom and tolerance, can protect one form of morally abhorent speech while condeming another.

Poor MetaKron, having found no sympathy for his scientifically vacuous and unsubstanciated claims, is now squealing like a stuck pig because he found a bunch of hypocrites who happen to agree with him.

I'm glad that you and the other moderators, in your infinite wisdom and tolerance, can protect one form of morally abhorent speech while condeming another.

Poor MetaKron, having found no sympathy for his scientifically vacuous and unsubstanciated claims, is now squealing like a stuck pig because he found a bunch of hypocrites who happen to agree with him.
Do I agree with Meta's stance on HIV? No.

However he does have a right to view his opinion and beliefs freely and without fear of threats from others. Or are you of the belief that Meta should not have a right to complain because his views are different?

Meta, like all other members, has a right to not face harrassment or threats because of their views or beliefs. That Read-Only was targetting and purely harrassing Meta goes without saying. For someone who is only meant to "read only", he is quite vocal in his obsession with Meta.

Meta, as a member, has a right to complain if he feels threatened or harrassed and in this instance I think his complaint is warranted. If you disagree, then you are free to do so. However this is not really about you.

I'm glad that you and the other moderators, in your infinite wisdom and tolerance, can protect one form of morally abhorent speech while condeming another.

Poor MetaKron, having found no sympathy for his scientifically vacuous and unsubstanciated claims, is now squealing like a stuck pig because he found a bunch of hypocrites who happen to agree with him.

A disagreement with the science of a proposition does not constitute morally abhorrent speech unless the very idea of morality is a twisted one. Perhaps I must also define the perimeters under which a proposition should be considered moral?

You pretty much started this week's "bag on Metakron" bandwagon, and I notice that a lot fewer people decided to hop on it because you and Read-Only were too crude for them to fail to take notice. My apologies to anyone who thinks that I might be treating them as if they are less than intelligent, but there is subtle abuse, unsubtle abuse, fairly blatant abuse, and then there is someone who thinks it's just fine to levy the threat of death. When we get to that last part, it may still be some kind of "morality", but that morality has definitely lost whatever justification it had. Also, this is a scientific question, not a moral question. Answers to the questions involved should have scientific backing, and since the proposition is that there is a virus that causes AIDS, the people who say that this is true are the claimants and are obligated to be able to provide proof. Promoters have been riding, because it works, the surfboard of "everyone knows what causes AIDS" and "it is immoral to ask the question."

The people of the audience should ask themselves why you would even say something like "is now squealing like a stuck pig because he found a bunch of hypocrites who happen to agree with him." The statement is wrong at least three ways. One is the assumption that everyone who agrees with me is a hypocrite. Also, the accusation of hypocrisy doesn't even make sense. Another is the idea that I would be squealing like a stuck pig because I found people who agreed with me. You also say that I have found a bunch of people who agree with me, and unfortunately I haven't. You presume that people who would let me speak agree with me.

The lowest ethics that I have seen on this board on the part of believers in AIDS include calling me crazy, calling me immoral, and playing games with moderator powers to disrupt any discussion in the forum where the discussion is on topic, or at least that is the lowest I have seen until this week, when a person claimed to be cyberstalking me and made a terroristic threat. Whether this was a serious threat is not as material as whether I was intended to believe that this was a serious, if empty threat. Read-only made it plain that the audience was to believe that the threat was empty only as long as he didn't know where I lived and I suppose if I lived too far away for it to be convenient for him to kill me. Since there actually are a few more or less underground groups in the U.S. that use homicide on a regular basis, if my real name comes out the threat is much less empty.

At the very least the question of the ethics of certain online supporters or believers in the AIDS hypothesis is settled. They don't have ethics or morals. They use the excuse of so many millions allegedly dead to make terroristic threats, to disrupt and even destroy online forums, to destroy personal and professional reputations, and all of their unethical and immoral activities are supposedly ethical and moral when they use the millions of dead as an excuse.

Even the material published by the supporters of the HIV disease theory supports the dissident side when people actually read it. Even their own research shows that the HIV disease theory is quite unproven and largely impossible. Their own material also shows how far they will go into lying about people who don't believe their story and how badly they will use the truth.

All of this is the reason why they will not allow a reasonable discussion to take place about HIV. Those who saw what Spuriousmonkey did saw that he would use standards as an excuse to get rid of the discussion, and would not allow a discussion to proceed as long as he could pick on a reason to get rid of it, even within the thread that was supposedly set aside for the topic.

People don't actually trust the science that comes out of things like this. They just surrender to it when they get tired of it.

Is it a sock-puppet wanting to have some fun at the expense of another?

I already checked. His ip address doesn't match any others. Of course, that means nothing.

I'm glad that you and the other moderators, in your infinite wisdom and tolerance, can protect one form of morally abhorent speech while condeming another.

Death threats and threats of violence are not allowed here.
Simple stuff really.

I already checked. His ip address doesn't match any others. Of course, that means nothing.


Yes I checked as well, but couldn't find a match. But as you say, that means nothing.

The dissident stance comes from research and trying to understand the science behind AIDS. There is a group that promotes HIV theory that calls dissidents stupid, that does what it can or what it takes to end discussions, and that goes as far as Read-Only did. I am surprised that Read-Only was as loose-lipped as he was, because he admitted to taking the trouble to research my personal little self on this board to see what he could do to me. This IS my world. Death threats are rare, and I do see them as more of an expression of attitude than as a real threat, but I've seen other death threats with a fair amount of detail, on a board that presented itself as a board dedicated to providing an information resource for AIDS patients, with the moderator's tacit approval.

Now, to relate the ethical questions more directly to the founding of the AIDS industry, the Aegis site is where I first learned of Robert Gallo's misconduct, and he's the one whose seminal work is supposed to have launched HIV theory. Numerous researchers have found, over and over again, that even Gallo has misrepresented his own findings. The most obvious case was when he was found by a Congressional investigative committee to have falsified results. When he was found to have lied about the existence of cultures that were supposed to be part of the evidence, his career should have been over and he should be lucky to be able to get a job driving a forklift truck, but I wouldn't trust him with that either. This information (http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO001.html) is on the Aegis site, and I have personal experience that the Aegis site is run by the person who is one of the most rabid supporters of the HIV theory on the planet.

The question of a person's scientific integrity is not separate from the question of that person's moral integrity. Science depends on truth and the person's moral integrity is what hopefully keeps him telling the truth. Theoretically even the most devoutly religious people of any given sect should also be devoted to telling the truth even if it contradicts their Bible, but most of us know how that worked out.

Dr. Gallo was not content to rely on his own papers to support his thinking about "HTLV" and AIDS; while serving as nominal "peer reviewer," he actually altered the contents of the seminal paper by the IP scientists (Barre-Sinoussi et al.; Science, 1983, 220, pp. 868 - 871), composing a misleading abstract, adding to and otherwise revising the text of the paper to strengthen the apparent relationships between the IP virus and "HTLV," defined by Dr. Gallo as "human T-cell leukemia viruses." Later, during the French/American dispute, Dr. Gallo, HHS officials, and DOJ attorneys compounded the damage to the IP scientists' work by blaming them for the very "errors" of understanding -- particularly the alleged close associations of the IP virus with the leukemia virus -- that Dr. Gallo introduced into their paper (see below ). (http://www.aegis.com/law/journals/1995/GALLO003.html)

This also comes from the site run by the most ardent supporter of HIV theory. Might want to snag it today, it could be gone tomorrow.

This may or may not be a good time to mention that whatever issues that people have that keep them believing, rather than reasoning it out and doing the research, I don't care. I've heard a bundle of them. The "immorality" argument wore out a long time ago. If it can be immoral to disbelieve a lot of tripe spread by someone who has essentially no moral compass and who aggressively promotes very bad science, then so be it. I don't know what morality is if it demands that I believe under such circumstances, or maybe I do and maybe immorality is better. Morality doesn't have a good history.

But it is right to stick with the science that is much more likely to be correct even if by some strange interpretation doing so may be immoral. With Galileo way back when it was immoral to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that the planets in the sky were worlds something like ours. At least some of us are painfully aware that it wasn't scientific fact that the church was concerned with but its form of social control. Some of us are also aware that this form of morality keeps trying to take back the territory that it lost, that never belonged to it, and that human freedom is about.

But it is right to stick with the science that is much more likely to be correct even if by some strange interpretation doing so may be immoral. With Galileo way back when it was immoral to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that the planets in the sky were worlds something like ours. At least some of us are painfully aware that it wasn't scientific fact that the church was concerned with but its form of social control. Some of us are also aware that this form of morality keeps trying to take back the territory that it lost, that never belonged to it, and that human freedom is about.

Thank you, SciForums, for giving us a place where such illuminaries as MetaKron can be given free reign. Clearly this man has an insight into the universe that rivals, nay outshines Galileo. I applaud the genius of the moderators for allowing this monologue to continue.

Do I agree with Meta's stance on HIV? No.

However he does have a right to view his opinion and beliefs freely and without fear of threats from others. Or are you of the belief that Meta should not have a right to complain because his views are different?

Meta, like all other members, has a right to not face harrassment or threats because of their views or beliefs. That Read-Only was targetting and purely harrassing Meta goes without saying. For someone who is only meant to "read only", he is quite vocal in his obsession with Meta.

Meta, as a member, has a right to complain if he feels threatened or harrassed and in this instance I think his complaint is warranted. If you disagree, then you are free to do so. However this is not really about you.

Hello, Bells and others,

I hope you will allow me the chance to clear up what has become some major misunderstanding among the troops. The so-called "death threat" was not that at all. Rather it was meant to imply the exasperation of what I would had to endure had that individual lived next door to me. And that was it - period.

As to his claims of "cyberstalking", that is totally and completely untrue! What is true, is that I came across many, MANY of his posts while reading through hundereds of threads and developed the opinion that he best served as an example of unintellighent thought at it's apex.

Want to know some others that I felt almost as strongly about? Since they haven't been active in a very long time perhaps it's reasonably safe to mention at least two names.

One was an English woman called Duendy. Many of her posts were so garbled and full of expletives that they were often very difficult to read. But I could generally understand most of what she was trying to say. I read one post where she said (paraphrasing, it's been along time since I read it) that EVERYTHING she knows she learned during some drugged-up trip. Does that sound like a rational human being? But still, for all her spitting, sputtering and gibberish, she didn't seem as bad as the one I chose to say more about. And there were several times when she struck me as absolutely entertaining.

The other that I'll actually name was a knucklehead that called himself Dwayne L. Rabon. He went on and on about how the Earth's magentic poles reversal was going to spell the end for life - most of it anyway. (Never mind the fact that there's recorded evidence in the Earth's crust that MANY reversals have happened in the past and all sorts of creatures are still here.) And he, like Duendy, wasn't open to any real discussion on any of his topics - no, both of them expected the people here to actually believe their crackpot ideas with NO questions asked or no refutations offered. And he came very close to being my # 1 pick. But he just wasn't as prolific in his writings and only dealt with a few areas, whereas my # 1 choice has rambled into practically every field known to humankind and insists on interjecting himself - and his highly distorted views - into pratically every thread someone else has started.

And that's the full extent of my "cyberstalking" - just reading what dozens and dozens of different people have presented and remembering the ones I considered the worst. And that truly IS the full story.

In closing, let me note that I noticed where you and one other had checked my IPA and I have no problem with that at all. Yes, it's real and valid and seldom changes because my DSL line - provided by windstream.net - stays active more than 99% of the time. It only seems to change on the rare ocassion when I turn my sysyem off. And it normally stays on 24/7. About the only time I reboot is following a Windows update that requires it.

Thank you, SciForums, for giving us a place where such illuminaries as MetaKron can be given free reign. Clearly this man has an insight into the universe that rivals, nay outshines Galileo. I applaud the genius of the moderators for allowing this monologue to continue.
This applies to Read-Only as well...

Would you have rather we be the type of forum that shut him down for daring to post something that we do not agree with? Does he question the status quo? Yes he does. One thing you cannot fault Meta for is his persistence. He does not back down, even in the face of adversity, including my own. Believe me, I more than once, wanted to scream in frustration at his stubborness and for what I perceive to be his blindness at believing in some of the sites that he has posted on here. He knows this and I am sure I am not alone. However, he is free to believe as he believes. Just as you and I are free to believe as we do.

Argue against him and debate him but do not threaten him or say he needs to be banned from voicing his views simply because he is in opposition to every one else.

I hope you will allow me the chance to clear up what has become some major misunderstanding among the troops. The so-called "death threat" was not that at all. Rather it was meant to imply the exasperation of what I would had to endure had that individual lived next door to me. And that was it - period.
OK: now say you're very, very sorry to MetaKron for any offence caused. Then concentrate on correcting bad science instead of attacking our more sensitive posters in future.

MetaKron, you will accept the apology in good grace when it comes, as the words, whilst understandably offensive to you, were not meant in earnest.

Judge Judy has spoken. That is all.

Thank you, SciForums, for giving us a place where such illuminaries as MetaKron can be given free reign.

You're welcome.

It should be noted that visionaries of repression such as yourself are also given free reign. But, that is quite common, I suppose.

Clearly this man has an insight into the universe that rivals, nay outshines Galileo.

I pity the mind that believes that if it is spoken then it must be true. The things you must believe in...


The so-called "death threat" was not that at all. Rather it was meant to imply the exasperation of what I would had to endure had that individual lived next door to me. And that was it - period.

There was no misunderstanding. A person as 'bright' as yourself (by your own admission) should be able to recognize this fact.

A death threat is a death threat and you made one.
Period.

Metakron,
how do these corporations that make drugs (your "AIDS Industry") make money from Third-world countries plagued by AIDS?

Technically these countries in question have difficulty enough to feed their own population during famines,aid victims of drought or war or deal with migration caused by any of these events (natural or man made), they are hardly the "Money earners" your "AIDS Industry" would require.

Metakron,
how do these corporations that make drugs (your "AIDS Industry") make money from Third-world countries plagued by AIDS?

Technically these countries in question have difficulty enough to feed their own population during famines,aid victims of drought or war or deal with migration caused by any of these events (natural or man made), they are hardly the "Money earners" your "AIDS Industry" would require.

They get paid by foundations like the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, so they don't actually lose money. The credibility that they have earned with the "programs" in Africa is a plus, also. Any drug treatment failures can be written off as "virulent strains" that simply "don't respond to the drugs."

A funny thing is that if they follow the classic conspiracy theory scenarios anyone who tattles on them gets written off because so many people are used to brushing off classic conspiracy theories. I don't have extensive documentation for all of the other conspiracy theory scenarios, but there are some like the Tuskegee experiment, the Nightbreaker experiments, the CIA's LSD experiments, the McCarthy era, and smallpox blankets from the 19th century, that could easily have been dismissed and are now mainstream history.

Conspiracy theorists don't make up things from whole cloth so much as they decide that it's the same old garbage with new labels and new spokespersons. The insane thing that is used to convince people that it's just another wild-eyed conspiracy theory is the idea that if they did something last week, the week before, and so on until the dawn of history, that doesn't mean that they are doing it this week. The root of disbelief in conspiracy theories is the idea that government, business, science, or religion has changed and it's the modern world now, thus they are doing things differently. In other words, just because they've always done things a certain way doesn't mean that they do them that way now.

People want it that way and it is wishful thinking, the tomorrow, tomorrow thinking that gets people to thinking that they will possess the winning lottery ticket tomorrow and everything will be all glory, and the present is contemptible because it isn't tomorrow's glory day. This leads to denial of what is going on. It's very confusing.

OK: now say you're very, very sorry to MetaKron for any offence caused. Then concentrate on correcting bad science instead of attacking our more sensitive posters in future.

MetaKron, you will accept the apology in good grace when it comes, as the words, whilst understandably offensive to you, were not meant in earnest.

Judge Judy has spoken. That is all.

More than 95 percent of the reason for this thread is to use the death threat as an introduction to a discussion of the ethics of the AIDS industry. The threat has its place in a larger scenario that has forced itself into my awareness. When I became aware of it I was just part of a discussion group that tried to work out what actually went on with HIV testing, the testing of drugs on humans, and the whole subject of HIV and AIDS. Then came a bunch of people like this Read-Only who were disruptive, threatening, and emotionally nasty. This isn't the first death threat I've read. These people have been pretty good at getting everyone but their targets to believe that their group doesn't exist and that they don't actually threaten people or cause damage to forums.

Once again, I'm surprised that Read-Only's message revealed as much as it did.

Anyway, his death threat was meant to be believed and disbelieved at the same time. It was also phrased just like the pretty standard rhetorical death threat that people sometimes still make even in writing and expect people to disbelieve even while they know that the desire is there.

Right now the only apology that I will accept is a full confession. He knows exactly what I want him to admit to, and when he does, he will lose his job. His words are monitored by others who work with him. Maybe this entire program of theirs is scheduled to shut down by now since it's probably past its sell-by date.

They get paid by foundations like the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, so they don't actually lose money.

By all means this link isn't the best source on the internet:
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

However what it will attempt to illustrate is the fact that HIV and AIDS in general was present from the 1970's onwards. You mention the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation however the inception of the foundation wasn't until 2000. [wikipedia.org source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation)]

What I'm trying to point out here is those corporations that you say are responsible for a charade were supposedly running things before gaining any foundation funding or credit.

Yes there are endless historical "Factoids?" that suggest different government ran a number of different disease tests at various points in time. For instance if you want a conspiracy how about Ex-Nazi doctors taking on Swiss papers and continuing their research in African countries under the guise of the Red Cross and Immunisation schemes.

Stryder, for God's sake, we have ex-Nazis helping us with our space program, so what exactly are you trying to say? Look up von Braun's bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun).

In November 1937 (other sources: December 1, 1932), von Braun joined the Nazi Party. An Office of Military Government, United States document dated April 23, 1947 states that von Braun joined the SS (Schutzstaffel) horseback riding school in 1933, then the Nazi Party on May 1, 1937 and became an officer in the SS from May 1940 to the end of the war.

This is a little bit more than someone being pressured into becoming a member of the Nazi party because everyone was doing it. It may also demonstrate that not every Nazi, not even SS people, was a monster. Together they do a lot of monstrous things then eventually the better people pull out when they finally can't ignore the facts anymore. Unfortunately this does leave the really nasty ones in charge.

Many drug companies and other foundations have been involved into pouring billions of dollars into African AIDS, and they've been making billions off the rest of us. There is a lot of stuff that goes on, there is money from the U.S. and other governments, there is unmonitored charity money. A recent Yahoo article talked about billions of dollars in U.S. government money that simply isn't accounted for that was allegedly spend on AIDS.

Would you have rather we be the type of forum that shut him down for daring to post something that we do not agree with?

You and the other moderators don't seem to have a problem selectively Cesspooling MattMarr's posts. Does MetaKron not deserve the same treatment? Are his views any less irresponsible?

Your policy of selectively picking which threads you allow to continue and which threads you relegate to the Cesspool provides a backhanded way of endorsing particular ideas over others, whether this is the intention or not. By choosing the name SciForums, you are implying that what is discussed here in these forums has some symbolance of science, when it is quite clear to a reader of average intelligence that this isn't the case.

This wouldn't be an issue if everyone surfing the internet was of average intelligence. The point I made, and the point Read-Only made, is that there are people who post in these forums who pretend to know what they're talking about.

However, he is free to believe as he believes. Just as you and I are free to believe as we do.

This, of course, is what destroys science. He makes absolutely no scientific arguments that don't appear on some web page. I have never seen an argument that he has made that hasn't been regurgitated from somewhere else. In this sense, he is just a puppet of Gepetto he hasn't met yet. MetaKron has every right to believe as he believes, and so do skin heads and rascists of every ilk. Yet if I started a thread that said "I think it is unethical for Chinese people to be admitted to the country" it would be quickly locked or shit piled. (If you think I am wrong, go leaf through the Cesspool and you will find exactly this thread.) I'm sure I can also find threads about 9/11 being faked there, as well. The hypocricy is, of course, you apply different logic to moral statements than you do to scientific statements.

If MetaKron is a scientist who has studied this fact, and has some peer reviewed article with his name on it, then I will never question his conclusions again. It is quite clear, though, that this isn't the case. All he can do is cut and past links in a seemingy endless cry for attention. Allowing him to believe what he wants is one thing. Giving him safe haven for irresponsible comments is another.

Argue against him and debate him but do not threaten him or say he needs to be banned from voicing his views simply because he is in opposition to every one else.

Hopefully it is painfully obvious to someone besides myslef that MetaKron has used this as a huge springboard. The contention of this thread has been lost, and now he is spreading his filfth by saying "Look they threatened me...there must be a consipiracy".

A few threads ago I said that MetaKron is squealing like a stuck pig, and that he has found a bunch of hypocrites who agree with him... Perhaps it was not clear that this comment was dierected at the "death threat" to him, instead of his nonsensical ramblings about HIV/AIDS. MetaKron has and continues to claim, with support from the moderators, that this comment made by Read-Only was something other than an offhand remark. By agreeing with him, it is quite clear that the moderators are providing refuge for him, which is morally inexcusable.

The moderators of this site do not have an easy job, and I do not envy it. Their job is nonetheless essential to a fair and rational discussion of the issues presented here, and they should take a more active role is seeing true garbage for what it is. (The Physics forum is rife with these thoughts.)

IF the moderators do not Cesspool this thread, then they have absoutely no right to ever Cesspool any other similar threads in the future, including those made by the poster MattMarr.

A death threat is a death threat and you made one.
Period.

You're delirious, he made no threat. Period.

You are clearly mistaken on this one. Period.

And you haven't a clue as to what constitutes making a threat. Period.

Period.

.

IF the moderators do not Cesspool this thread, then they have absoutely no right to ever Cesspool any other similar threads in the future, including those made by the poster MattMarr.


Mod note:
This is a Science and Society subforum.
The thread and posts are on topic.

Ben,

You act as if anyone agrees with Metakron.
Have you ever seen a thread where anyone at all agrees with Metakron?
Have you ever seen a thread where Metakron doesn't come across as a paranoid schizophrenic?
In fact, until the last couple of posts, nobody was even paying attention to Metakron in this thread. We've pretty much come to disregard him.
And, yes, most of his threads end up in the cesspool.

But, that aside, that doesn't mean that death threats should be allowed.
However, a precedent has been set. A 3 day ban for a death threat. Not too shabby.


Anyway.
How about posters like Read Only who prove their intelligence by proclamation rather than deed? His only contribution to the forum is to state that he's a scientist and that he would kill Metakron if he lived next door to him. (He also tried to do so in a way to avoid penalty, as per his original post. But, ironically considering his proclamation of intelligence, he did it in a not too intelligent manner.)



Now.
If you really want this thread cesspooled, then there are two people you can talk to.
SamCDKey and James R.
There is a report function on each post and you can report this thread and state your concerns.
Or you can private message them directly.

MetaKron has and continues to claim, with support from the moderators, that this comment made by Read-Only was something other than an offhand remark.

Stop being a ****** ***. It was clearly a death threat, and they hypothetical aspect of it doesn't mitigate that.

By agreeing with him, it is quite clear that the moderators are providing refuge for him, which is morally inexcusable.

We are providing a refuge where one can be reasonably safe from death threats and threats of violence. Yes.
Got a problem with that?

You seem to be mixing messages.

Sharpen up your thought processes a bit. You're heading down the road towards militant debunkery. You'll then become a laughing stock as you center your life around those you despise.