PDA

View Full Version : The new forums at Questioning AIDS



Gos
February 16th, 2010, 08:27 AM
Guys,

In the recent schism between the former management of AME, and the resulting split into AME and QA, I have been asked how I might be enticed to be more active in this forum.

Answering for myself only, there is one technical issue and one philosophical issue which made me less active at the former aidsmythexposed.com than I might have been otherwise.

The techical issue is a matter of thread subscription. At the old MSN site, you could get a daily digest of all posts on any thread, but at AME, you had to be subscribed to a thread in order to receive updates. The daily digests have a way of keeping you in the loop on all new discussions. Without them, I had to actually drop by AME in order to find out what's going on and put my two cents in.

The philosophical issue is one I've pretty much been clear about with all concerned. I feel that after Ken died, AME became heavily censored for substantive content, while posts that were purely abusive and lacking in substantive contribution were allowed.

So whatever becomes of QA, my own participation will hinge at least in part on whether the new QA adopts a policy of non-censorship of substantive contributions to the discussion, regardless of whether the moderators agree with the contributor's views -- Even if John P. Moore himself wants to walk in here and join the discussion, he should be allowed to speak freely, provided his contributions are substantive and non-abusive.

On the flip side of the same coin, abusive posts which are devoid of substantive contribution should not be tolerated, even (or rather especially) when the poster is someone we agree with. I won't name names, but I can think of quite a few AME members whose vitriolic rants were tolerated if they were attacking someone Rod personally disagreed with, and it was one of the reasons that I no longer enjoyed participation in AME.

As dissidents, we should always welcome debaters from the other side into our forum, with courtesy and dignity.

I remember a couple of years ago, when a guy with the moniker of "Biolad" walked into AME, looking for a debate with a "denialist". When the dust eventually settled, Biolad had been censored if not banned altogether, several AME members (most notably Dan) had been allowed to brutally attack him, and I'd ended up resigning in protest.

I gave Biolad the debate he asked for, and not to toot my own horn or anything, but I whupped his ass like he stole something (http://www.nerosopeningact.com/aidsdebate).

But to me, the purpose of the debate was not to win it, but to further educate myself, and the debate with Biolad taught me so much that I'd never previously considered.

For example, did you know that according to Baye's Theorem, the lower the actual incidence of the condition you're testing for, the higher the overall accuracy of the test is?

Which, given that we know that lower incidence translates into lower accuracy for a positive test, the fact that overall accuracy rises with lower incidence (and thus, in tandem with the lowering of the accuracy of a positive test,) this gives us a whole new bombshell to drop when someone tries to tell us that HIV tests are 99.6% accurate. All we have to do is use Bayesian mathematics to show that the less accurate a positive test is, the higher the overall accuracy will be, and that in fact if 100% of all positives were false positives, the test would still be 99.6% accurate overall, because 99.6% of all test results would be true negatives, while the other 0.4% would be false positives.

Prior to the debate with Biolad, I'd always dismissed claims of "accuracy", because I knew that the proper terms to describe a tests accuracy are "sensitivity" and "specificity". But it took an uncensored debate to force me to examine the matter of overall accuracy a bit closer, and learn this useful tidbit of information.

Another thing that I learned is that there is at least one published study in which PCR was used to "detect" HIV particles in 60% of HIV negatives in the control group, while the researchers were only able to detect HIV particles in 13% of HIV-positives. The thing that's particularly special about this particular study is that a control group was used at all -- most such studies are conducted without controls, which leads one to wonder what we'd learn if all such studies were controlled.

So after it was all said and done, I had an extremely enlightening and productive debate with Biolad, and walked away not only with a victory under my belt, but further ammunition to use in future debates.

But I'm still pissed that this debate couldn't have taken place at AME. I think that Biolad should have been allowed to speak freely and that Dan and people like him who only wanted to attack him personally should have been censored, and that those of us who wanted to have a mature debate with him should have been allowed to do so without the intrusion of feces-throwers. It would have been nice to have had my dissident buddies by my side in that debate -- none attacking him, but each working his arguments over with a fine-tooth comb, and doing a much better job at debating him than I could possibly have done by myself. I think it would have been a much better and far more productive debate.

And I feel that, in part, it is this very tolerance of intolerance that eventually demolished the former AME. Let's face it -- given that each of us is a dissident, (and therefore inclined towards independent thinking,) more often than not, we can't even agree with each other. Look at what's happening with the Perth v Duesberg debate even now, and how that has affected AME. When intolerance of the views of people we disagree with is tolerated, what happens when we disagree with each other? Can you say "Kaboom", boys and girls? I knew you could.

A big part of what attracted me to AIDS dissidence in the first place was that the movement embraced (at least back then), a spirit of open and tolerant debate. Not only did the dissidents disagree with the mainstream, they couldn't even agree with each other half of the time, but they were always willing to duke it out honorably and above the belt. I loved reading the Continuum debate between the Perth Group and Duesberg, and I always admired Christine's ability to maintain a dignified and respectful debate, no matter how strongly she disagreed with her opponent. I really wish she had been the one to debate Biolad instead of me, because she would have done a much better job than I did of keeping it out of the gutter.

And so, when I saw AME descend into such gutter tactics as censoring legitimate posts from those who dissented from us, while tolerating the gross abuses of our allies, it was a major turn-off for me.

As such, one of my criteria for participation in this or any forum is the level of tolerance that a given forum has for all dissenting opinions, not just the opinions of those who agree with us on certain key points.

--- Gos
--- gos@nerosopeningact.com
"Nobody here but us heretics..."

brume
February 16th, 2010, 01:25 PM
Hi all,



Another thing that I learned is that there is at least one published study in which PCR was used to "detect" HIV particles in 60% of HIV negatives in the control group, while the researchers were only able to detect HIV particles in 13% of HIV-positives.

Would you have a link to that study, Gos? "HIV particles" in seronegatives is one of the things I'm hunting for.

No comment about the rest, the only thing I can say, like probably anyone else here, is that this "civil war" is really a pity.

jonathan barnett
February 16th, 2010, 02:02 PM
It is good to see you here again, Gos.

Your ability to examine and articulate the important issues are exactly why some of us would like to see you participating here more actively.

We can see if the forum software can be tweaked to provide a way to subscribe to the forums via email. There are options and features we haven't explored yet. I'll let you and other members know what I find out about that.

The issue of permitting apologists, let alone antagonists from the orthodoxy to participate may prove to be more controversial, but that shouldn't stop us from considering it.

Unlike the old structure, as a member of QA you have a larger target to make your case to: the QA Team. Hopefully we will be more responsive to the wishes of the membership than the old sole proprietor model was.

QA, and AME both state that they are places for the dissident community to comment and debate. Allowing some of the more notorious orthodox apologists unfettered access to the site could be disruptive and counter intuitive for another expressed goal of being a "safe" space, especially for those new to dissident thinking.

It is not easy to implement a fair system that insists on respect for difference of opinion, yet rejects all censorship. I'm sure you've seen how such unmoderated threads elsewhere online deteriorate until there is nothing useful or productive to be gained. Even the most well-intentioned people get side-tracked when the personal attacks and disparaging comments are allowed.

Still, I'd like to think that it can be done and that it will require the efforts of a team of people, not a single individual.

There is great potential for this site to grow and to change to meet a lot of different needs and expectations. Hopefully you and others have seen some of those changes already. Recent comments and observations like yours are a very important part of that process.

One suggestion that has been proposed is to create a new forum just for such debates. A separate forum that specifically addresses for the "Existential Question" (aka Perth vs. Duesberg) could also be created.

This would be one way to try to meet both the various goals by keeping some areas free from disruption and providing other areas for more vigorous debates.

There are some policy and technical issues that would probably need to be addressed were QA to do something like this. For example: would it be helpful to have stricter moderation of forums that are open to orthodox apologists to prevent abusive posts from appearing in the first place (not censorship of ideas or arguments, but editing name calling, for instance).

There are other members with other requests and concerns: Is there a role for QA to provide some forums that require additional membership status to participate in? A forum for women only, for example; or a closed forum exclusively for those dissidents with more expertise or intellectual credentials? (Don't ask me how those members would be vetted... that's a question that would need to be addressed.)

Hang around if you will. Participate as much as you wish. Hold our feet to the fire.

The question of what constitutes censorship, versus moderation, has been the most heavily debated one among team members so far.

For the record, except for obviously commercial spam, there has only been one single post submitted that has not been published here because it contained a (now-dead) link to a website that was deemed libelous and slanderous by the Administrators and QA's web hosting provider.

All other moderation has been negligible to date (one post that I can think of). It has been done in full view of the membership, and the posting member agreed that the editing was appropriate.

I don't expect that you will find anyone on the QA Team supporting censorship of ideas. I do think we need to continue the conversation to better define what that word means.

Gos
February 16th, 2010, 03:38 PM
Brume,

Here's the link to the study in question:

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/6/1525



It is not easy to implement a fair system that insists on respect for difference of opinion, yet rejects all censorship. I'm sure you've seen how such unmoderated threads elsewhere online deteriorate until there is nothing useful or productive to be gained. Even the most well-intentioned people get side-tracked when the personal attacks and disparaging comments are allowed.

Still, I'd like to think that it can be done...


Jonathan,

I realize that what I'm suggesting is not easy, and that there is at least a subset of dissidents among whom it would be unpopular.

However, I think you hit at the crux of the matter with your comment that "even the most well-intentioned people get sidetracked when the personal attacks and disparaging comments are allowed."

The fact is that such comments, particularly when tolerated from our dissident membership, are exactly the problem. They add absolutely nothing of value to the conversation at hand, and serve only to distract and sidetrack any effort at legitimate debate.

And this doesn't even begin to address what an embarrassment such people are to those of us who actually care about legitimate debate. As someone who leans a bit more towards the Perthian camp myself, I am absolutely horrified that people like Rod Knoll and Anthony Brink are actually on the same side of this debate as I am. One needs only to browse Rod's new AME site once to realize how he is poisoning the debate for all.

My suggestion, therefore, would be that the line should be drawn at personal attacks, rather than censorship of ideas which are unpopular amongst the moderators or members of the forum (as was the case under Knoll's leadership.) Anyone -- and I do mean ANYONE -- who wants to make a legitimate contribution to a legitimate debate should be allowed to do so, and should enjoy the protection of the moderators from unfair attacks, particularly if those attacks come from within our own ranks. And at the same time, no one -- especially not one of our own -- should be allowed to publish posts which are devoid of substantive contribution, and which contain only ad hominem attacks.

--- Gos
--- gos@nerosopeningact.com
"Nobody here but us heretics..."

Brian Carter
February 16th, 2010, 04:17 PM
-- Even if John P. Moore himself wants to walk in here and join the discussion, he should be allowed to speak freely, provided his contributions are substantive and non-abusive.

Substantive is subjective.

My feeling is that mainstreamers, apologists and the AIDS Inc hierarchy, if they want to come here, have only one thing in mind (besides having a one track mind), which is to disrupt, cajole and persuade. Debates which seem to be somewhat interesting or functional, will quickly digress into ad hominem attacks.

In our endeavor that the main board remain as stated "an international supportive on-line community", allowing diversions by the orthodoxy isn't a show of support. Those and their ilk are not interested in that.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves why and would this type of engagement be better served outside of QuestioningAIDS.

Expansive Mind
February 17th, 2010, 03:48 AM
My feeling is that mainstreamers, apologists and the AIDS Inc hierarchy, if they want to come here, have only one thing in mind (besides having a one track mind), which is to disrupt, cajole and persuade. Debates which seem to be somewhat interesting or functional, will quickly digress into ad hominem attacks.I think there are dissidents who are the same way.

I am reluctant to forbid all sorts of chiding and mockery because at times just such absurdness can be fun and even a bit stress-relieving. However, I do think that moderators should never ask themselves, "is this person a real dissident?" but rather, "is this person really interested in learning from others at this board?" or something of that sort.

The fact is this message board is no longer AME exactly because repeated, ugly personal insults drove good people away and forced a change that really never needed to happen if people were civil. In my opinion, the entire episode against David Crowe demonstrates exactly why we should smack down people whose whole motive is to attack a person, their character, intelligence and careers rather than just accepting that offering reasoned critique is enough.

truth84
February 17th, 2010, 08:45 AM
Allowing orthodox views here could be a problem but could work if done properly. First, anyone posting if I recall was asked to read the main page so that they could be made familiar with the basics of dissident views. At least that is how it was on the old MSN board. So before anyone starts flapping their lips, they should already have a pretty good sense of what we believe in (or don't believe). If they come on here to disagree, it will likely turn to arguments because people will see it as trolling.

I think it could work under the following conditions: A separate forum category is set up titled "Opposing Views" or something similar, orthodox-promoting views would be restricted to that forum, and all posts entered ito that category would be required to be pre-approved by moderators. The old MSN board required moderator approval before the posts would appear. I don't think that should be the case here in general as it delays discussions but if orthodox views are to be allowed then such practice should be utilized with those posts and from those users. If such a category was set up it would avoid concerns over trolling and time-wasting because everyone would already know where everyone was coming from. Nobody would be required to go to the "Opposing Views" forum to argue in the first place, and anyone posting in there would already know what they were getting into.

As to censorship, sorry but I don't recall much of it. At least none of my posts were ever removed that I can remember.

Gos
April 22nd, 2010, 10:13 PM
At the old AME, I used to get into arguments with people like Rod and Dan over the way that Troofers were handled when they spoke up in our forum.

I used to argue that Troofers should not be censored (provided, of course, that they behaved themselves,) and that ad hominem attacks against them should not be permitted.

Of course, there were those who argued heatedly against me. The typical arguments were that AME should be a safe haven for dissidents, that debating them might hurt our cause, and/or that newbies who didn't know as much about the issues might be swayed by the Troofers' arguments.

I argued back that if anything, AME should be a "safe haven" for dissident warriors to hone their skills (unlike the blogs like Tara Smith's (http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/12/christine_maggiore_dies_from_p.php#more), where only the most masochistic dissident would choose to speak up, since debate there is the exception and ad hominem attacks the rule.)

I argued that ad hominem attacks and attempts to censor or silence detractors were the tools of the Troofers, and that we should let them KEEP 'em. Those who have the truth on their side should at all times welcome debate -- it is those who fear the truth who avoid debate and engage in ad hominem attack when confronted.

As for newbies, I argued that those of us with more experience would have a golden opportunity to show them by example that there's no argument that a Troofer can use against us that can't be defeated on a factual basis. This, I argued, could only serve to strengthen our newbies' confidence in their choice to explore AIDS dissidence further, rather than dismissing us as the asshats that our adversaries would love nothing more than to convince the world that we are. Rather than be turned from the cause, our newbies would get a chance to see just how hollow the Troofers' arguments are.

I am proud to say that in this thread (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?p=41044#post41044), my point is made. CBE has made an honest attempt to make a compelling case that the decline in AIDS statistics which began in 1993 was due to the rollout of HAART in 1996, and for his efforts, he got his ass whupped like he stole something.

But that's just Round One. At this point, if he allows us to have the last word, then we've won, but I'm really hoping that we don't win that way -- I'm hoping that he'll continue to argue his case, giving us that much more opportunity to expose the gaping holes in his arguments. We probably won't convince him (and then again we might,) but even if we don't convince him, I'm convinced that by continuing to debate above the belt as we've been doing, we will a) put our own AIDS hypotheses to much needed tests, and b) strengthen the convictions of every newbie in our forum that we're in hot pursuit of the truth, while the Troofers are the true denialists who simply don't want to see the facts made plain by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.

As someone else said recently in QA, we are like the blind men attempting to describe the elephant, and not one of us can claim that he knows the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We may be closer to the truth than the Troofers (and I'm convinced that we are,) but at this point all of us are in the dark and none of us sees the whole picture, and the only way we can even begin to illuminate the room is by putting our various hypotheses to the test of debate, and the measure of scientific observations in published studies. As such, it is only through debate that we will ourselves begin to comprehend AIDS in all its facets (disease, construct, meme, disease of definition, social/political phenomenon, etc.,) and increase our knowledge about it, so that we (unlike our adversaries) can take far less than 30 years to put AIDS to bed for good.

...And when you get right down to it, the final end of AIDS is what EVERYONE wants, isn't it? (And I'm sure that CBE would say that this is exactly what he wants, too).


--- Gos

T.rex
April 22nd, 2010, 10:50 PM
i agree. I welcome the views of everyone. I can do without the namecalling, but if someone is earnestly trying to make a point, backing it up with data and statistics, i will respect their effort regardless of whether or not i arrive at the same conclusion.

We should not be scared to address any issue. If we don't know the answer, lets at least hear the tough question which can prompt us to find out the answer.

jonathan barnett
April 22nd, 2010, 11:44 PM
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Gos, and thanks for responding to CBE. Hopefully some others will join in. It will be interesting to see what results your poll gets as well.

The challenge, of course, will be dealing with unruly personalities, which could exist on all sides.

The beauty of QuestioningAIDS is that we can experiment a bit to try to find the best ways to offer a place that is supportive of the AIDS dissident community as well as to argue and debate. I don't see that the two goals are mutually exclusive.

Unlike the mentality that ran AIDS Myth Exposed, we are not set on imposing a single philosophy or belief on these forums.

The forum software is incredibly flexible and allows up to implement all kinds of options. Your use of polls is just one example of that.

It is your last comment a that I want to emphasize, and I would love to hear you expound on that thought a bit more, if you can.





...And when you get right down to it, the final end of AIDS is what EVERYONE wants, isn't it? (And I'm sure that CBE would say that this is exactly what he wants, too).


--- Gos



Do you think it is possible for the two (or more) "sides" in this debate to ever find sufficient common ground to agree about anything?

BrewstersTheory
April 23rd, 2010, 01:22 AM
I voted absolutely not! i am not a dumbee.

Gos
April 23rd, 2010, 01:25 AM
Jon,

Well, I doubt that we'll ever agree about everything. Hell, look at the motley crew assembled on our side -- we can't even agree amongst ourselves -- how can we ever achieve consensus with our orthodox counterparts?

But I've also learned that no matter how diametrically opposed two people's views can be, there's always some common ground. I learned this in the Biolad debate (http://www.nerosopeningact.com/aidsdebate) a couple of years ago.

So yes, I do believe that there's common ground to be explored.

But at the same time, if there's anything I've learned about science it's that disagreement and debate should never end. It is consensus science (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/) that we should always hold with suspicion, since consensus implies that we already know everything and we don't need to explore the questions any further, while disagreement acknowledges that as fallible mortals we'll never know 100% of the truth about anything.

Ultimately, true science is not about having the right answer, it's about being a little less wrong than you were yesterday. We'll never know the full truth about anything, much less everything -- never in the history of science has this rule been broken, and there's no reason to believe we'll see an exception in our lifetimes. Even Galileo wasn't right where the Church was wrong, he was just a little less wrong than the Church, in his belief that the entire universe revolves around the Sun. Since then, astrophysicists from Einstein to Hawking and beyond have taken us incrementally towards the truths about our universe, but not one has managed to come up with a Unified Field Theory, much less have we learned more than a microscopic fraction of all there is to know about the mechanics of the universe, and it may be that we never will.

In the late 19th Century, scientists were of a consensus that Modern Science already knew everything that there was to know in the universe. We of the early 21st Century ought to be in a position to appreciate just how wrong they were, and yet our 21st Century scientists have not learned their lesson, and if the ship of science does not reverse its course to steer clear of consensus science, we stand on the very brink of a new Dark Age, when the consensus of scientists becomes every bit as tyrannical and every bit as wrong-headed and backwards as the Church consensus of Galileo's day. And unlike Pope Urban, we shall not be able to offer the excuse that we didn't know where our hubris would take us.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

--- Gos
--- gos@nerosopeningact.com
--- http://myspace.com/nerosopeningact
"Nobody here but us heretics..."

G Man
April 23rd, 2010, 01:29 AM
As long as they are civil and refrain from personal attacks or spam, I think anyone should be able to post. What I enjoy the most is someone coming in here posting orthodox B.S. that at first glance seems credible to readers, then seeing them OWNED by some of the more informed dissidents here. Love it, love it, love it!

John Bleau
April 23rd, 2010, 01:35 AM
Here's why I think they should be strictly moderated.

There are times they come here to sharpen their arguments. When they dodge our questions while we reply to theirs, we're basically filling their sophistic armoury. If ever any of them come here, and I put questions to them, I want to be able to insist that our moderators oblige them to reply.

Crushing a disciple of the orthodoxy on these boards might gratify some people here, but in the wider scheme of things, it's meaningless. Few sheeple would be any more willing to visit these boards than Jerry Falwell would attend a mosque. If any of the orthodoxy wish to come here, they will have to ante up with some pertinent information on request (or admit ignorance) - or they're gone. I went several posts asking "Snout" for prevalence figures and he didn't pony up. Had he been obliged to reply (ie, filter out posts and even sometimes parts of posts lacking the requested pertinent information), it would have saved me (and any readers) a good deal of time.

It's a power that we have that is fair and one we should use. In case anyone here hasn't noticed, the sheeple put a far greater burden of proof on us than on themselves. Here, let them try to carry the same burden.

Gos
April 23rd, 2010, 01:37 AM
John,

I disagree with your conclusion, but I'll be damned if I disagree with a single word of your argument.

Point taken.

--- Gos

John Bleau
April 23rd, 2010, 01:45 AM
Well, Gos, I imagine sheep wouldn't want to carry the burden we do, lest they be asses! :D

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 23rd, 2010, 02:45 AM
To follow up on what JB said, a common political tactic is to make all kinds of claims that get your "base" fired up and force opponents to waste time on refuting nonsensical statements. Thus, I suggest that claims be supported by evidence, so that we can then examine the data. Basically, the attitude of most of these people seems to be something like, "we have an overwhelming body of evidence on our side and just about all the experts agree with us, so we should get a pass on adhering to the scientific method." If the moderators here don't stand up to this, then it means a lot of time gets wasted that could be put towards more useful activities, such as research or "getting the word out."

BuffaloBoy
April 23rd, 2010, 03:40 AM
This should be a site for discussion and debate, not simply cheer-leading an 'approved' version of dissidence.

Brian Carter
April 23rd, 2010, 04:45 AM
Folks,

The question should be: why would an astute, proud AIDS Apologist, propagandist, or mainstream orthodox enthusiast want to be here?

For example, I just had this come into my mail box on my youtube channel earlier today:

"stupid bitch let her baby die because she didn't want to believe in AIDS, child services should have locked this bitch up and given treatment to her child. Sickening. Bitch deserved to die, murdered her own damn kid!"

What does this tell you?

whereistheproof
April 23rd, 2010, 07:54 AM
I am glad to be a member of this board.

looking at the how debates are conducted on this site compared to, say, the recent science blog about peter duesberg, then i can honestly state that this movement is a great deal more open to arguments than our opponents ever were.

any one who can construct a reasonable argument based on facts rather than insults is welcome on this board. this already goes way beyond anything gallo and his troopers can offer.

just for engaging those needing more information about hiv and aids and for debating passionately with those that are out to murder us (because it still is genocide) we deserve to pad ourselves on our shoulders once in a while.

knowing that there are people out there who follow the same principles of tolerance, ethics and free thinking is immensely comforting to me and for that i would like to thank all of you.

BrewstersTheory
April 23rd, 2010, 06:39 PM
Folks,

The question should be: why would an astute, proud AIDS Apologist, propagandist, or mainstream orthodox enthusiast want to be here?

For example, I just had this come into my mail box on my youtube channel earlier today:

"stupid bitch let her baby die because she didn't want to believe in AIDS, child services should have locked this bitch up and given treatment to her child. Sickening. Bitch deserved to die, murdered her own damn kid!"

What does this tell you?


It's unfortunate Brian but I had about 30 comments like that in my inbox over a period of time at youtube and I deleted them. Some of them were direct death threats and intent to harm me.

jonathan barnett
April 24th, 2010, 12:33 PM
Folks,

The question should be: why would an astute, proud AIDS Apologist, propagandist, or mainstream orthodox enthusiast want to be here?

Well, I'd hate to try to think like an apologist, but I'd guess there are a number of reasons to come here. To try to prove we are all wrong to question the mainstream view of HIV and AIDS; to goad us and pick a fight; to practice their own arguments (good point, John Bleau); or because they get their jollies knowing it bothers some of us.




For example, I just had this come into my mail box on my youtube channel earlier today:

"stupid bitch let her baby die because she didn't want to believe in AIDS, child services should have locked this bitch up and given treatment to her child. Sickening. Bitch deserved to die, murdered her own damn kid!"

What does this tell you?
It tells me there are some (anonymous) sick, crazy, loose cannons out there who disagree with you.

On the other hand, I've gotten emails from other (known) AIDS dissidents that are nearly as offensive. What does that tell us?

In an emotionally charged issue like this, you are going to find outrageous statements from people on all sides, and I don't think defamatory posts from crazy people should be allowed here, regardless of which side of the fence they are on, or even if they are straddling it.

Keeping the forums closed to only those who more or less "think like us", is akin to being a church. It makes me think of the saying "preaching to the choir". It also reminds me of dozing to sleep on a hard wooden pew.

I might have rephrased the poll question a bit differently, in that I don't think "troofers" should be allowed unfettered access to the forums, but at the same time, I do find value in reasoned debates, such as the recent one between CBE and Gos.

The important basic question is: Should QA be a closed support group for like-minded thinkers, or an open meeting ground for different perspectives, sponsored and moderated by questioners, rethinkers, skeptics and dissidents?

More importantly, why can't it be both?

Telemachos
April 24th, 2010, 02:40 PM
I might have rephrased the poll question a bit differently, in that I don't think "troofers" should be allowed unfettered access to the forums, but at the same time, I do find value in reasoned debates, such as the recent one between CBE and Gos.



One thing I liked about the poll question was that even the last option said "as long as they keep their tactics above the belt"--in other words, completely "unfettered" access isn't even an option, and presumably something crazy or defamatory would be considered "below the belt" and not be permitted.

Edited to add this: the one problem I could see would be numbers. It's one thing to have one CBE involved in a debate. It would be quite another to have twenty or more!

By the way, the debate between HSWC, Gos, and CBE is one of the most informative things I've read in a long time--speaking as a questioner this is what we need more of. And where else would we get it? The orthodoxy websites don't even allow dissidents to post, which speaks volumes about them.

BrewstersTheory
April 24th, 2010, 07:49 PM
open the gates.

BuffaloBoy
April 24th, 2010, 08:29 PM
It would be interesting to know the definition of a 'troofer', as I'm not exactly clear what one is. Also, and rightly, people's views change over time according to their experiences.

I can think of at least two members who have contributed an enormous amount to the forums here, but their health failed to the extent where, as a last resort, they took HAART. So if they were to return to these forums and say that they were in fact helped by HIV drugs, would they face being banned for now espousing the views of the orthodoxy?

John Bleau
April 24th, 2010, 08:58 PM
"So if they were to return to these forums and say that they were in fact helped by HIV drugs, would they face being banned for now espousing the views of the orthodoxy?" (Buffalo Boy)

Good lord... the answer is obvious to me and no doubt to others, but I guess it has to be spelled out for you.
The answer is NO

Linda (Moonchild) takes the drugs, says they help, but isn't banned.

jonathan barnett
April 24th, 2010, 09:02 PM
It would be interesting to know the definition of a 'troofer', as I'm not exactly clear what one is. Also, and rightly, people's views change over time according to their experiences.

Hopefully someone will offer one. It shouldn't be too hard to figure it out contextually, but still... coming up with a definition might be helpful.



I can think of at least two members who have contributed an enormous amount to the forums here, but their health failed to the extent where, as a last resort, they took HAART. So if they were to return to these forums and say that they were in fact helped by HIV drugs, would they face being banned for now espousing the views of the orthodoxy?

Of course not. Why would you even suggest such a thing?

Linda (moonchild) thinks the ARVs have helped her and she has not been banned. I'm not sure who the other member is you are referring to, but they haven't been banned either.

For the record: Not a single member has been banned from QuestioningAIDS since the forums were moved from AIDS Myth Exposed. None. Zero. Nada. Not a notoriously obnoxious troofer. Not the angry former Admin. No one other than known commercial spammers.

I hope that helps to put your mind at ease.

BuffaloBoy
April 24th, 2010, 09:54 PM
''Good lord... the answer is obvious to me and no doubt to others, but I guess it has to be spelled out for you''.


Your tone here comes over as patronising which there is absoloutely no reason for, other than being rude for the sake of it. I hope in future you will keep your posts civil if you wish to address mine.

John Bleau
April 24th, 2010, 10:33 PM
Your tone here comes over as patronising - BB

Good, that was the intent. Now if you'll start doing a little thinking and/or research before posting, it'll be mission accomplished.

Gos
April 25th, 2010, 12:56 AM
... the one problem I could see would be numbers. It's one thing to have one CBE involved in a debate. It would be quite another to have twenty or more!

I'll concede that it would make discussion most confusing in the format of this forum. Perhaps we'd have to break off into teams and go to separate threads or something.

But beyond that one complication, I say bring 'em on. I'm not afraid of a fair fight -- it's getting boring ganging up on ole CBE -- I'd pity him, but I can't because I've just gotta admire his composure in such a lopsided fight -- reminds me of the things I admired most about Christine. If only we and the orthodoxy each had an army of CBEs, AIDS would be a distant memory already, 'cause we'd have figured the whole thing out by now.




By the way, the debate between HSWC, Gos, and CBE is one of the most informative things I've read in a long time--speaking as a questioner this is what we need more of. And where else would we get it? The orthodoxy websites don't even allow dissidents to post, which speaks volumes about them.

Which is exactly why I'm glad that we've opened our doors to include all comers, and I hope that they show up!

More debate means that we learn more. Learning more means that we emerge better armed to fight AIDS (no matter what definition you assign to that term). Being better armed to fight AIDS means that sooner or later we'll put an end to it, no matter who ends up being "right" or "wrong".

And speaking for myself (though I'm sure everyone here would agree,) ending AIDS is a hell of a lot more important than being "right".

--- Gos

Gos
April 25th, 2010, 01:03 AM
It would be interesting to know the definition of a 'troofer', as I'm not exactly clear what one is.


The term "troofer" (a vulgarization of "truther") is a derogatory term used primarily in two contexts:

1) (context: 9-11) To designate one's alliance with the "9-11 Truth" movement.

2) (context: AIDS) To designate one's alliance with the AIDSTruth (http://aidstruth.org) movement.


I'll admit, since it's a derogatory term I should probably stop stooping to our adversaries' level and quit using it, (which I plan to do the minute they stop calling us "denialists".) Like Tomas, I have decided that we should co-opt their word in order to take away its power, but that doesn't mean I've got anything against fighting fire with fire.

--- Gos

Gos
April 25th, 2010, 01:08 AM
Your tone here comes over as patronising - BB

Good, that was the intent. Now if you'll start doing a little thinking and/or research before posting, it'll be mission accomplished.


John: Be nice.

BB: If you haven't met Linda, then you aren't paying attention. John has you dead to rights -- you deserved it.

--- G

Tony Lance
April 25th, 2010, 01:10 AM
BuffaloBoy,

I'd like to add my voice to those before me who've stated that we at QA would never ban someone because they began taking meds and came here claiming they benefitted from doing so. Sure, this might be troubling testimony for some to hear, but we suffer when we disregard challenging facts.

Personally, I'm interested in hearing the stories of people who have gone off the drugs as well as those who've gone on them. It's more information to learn from.

Brian Carter
April 25th, 2010, 07:24 PM
http://i41.tinypic.com/wu5eog.jpg
Lets all, each one of us active members here, go the thebody.com's (http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ubbthreads.php)
message board and invite at least a dozen of their members or so
to come here and tell their story.

Doesn't this just sound like a wonderful idea?

Gezz, just think of the new friends we'll make!

StarZ
April 25th, 2010, 08:46 PM
woe betide the day the dissenters agree with each other. The problems of this time will be solved by people like us (insert fav definition of us here)- mostly under schooled, educated in the school of hard knocks and all that. Once in a while a Troofer comes here and we get a good dialogue, but there is no need to allow them to pollute the airspace or abuse the citizens. They should try to be like us, open minded and kind.

PS BC: Bad idea. Let them come to us.

We need Troofer the word here, if only so the uninitiated know that we the dissenters are the truth tellers and those others just have the title of 'Truth'.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
April 25th, 2010, 09:53 PM
I have a guy on my site who keeps posting on the same thread about the "evidence" against evolutionary theory. I stated my position and just let him go on with his posts. He is better at discrediting his ideas that I could ever be !

moonchild493
April 26th, 2010, 12:12 AM
I personally think there is a great deal of difference between espousing the apologists' views and resorting to the drugs as a last-ditch effort while not believing in a viral cause. I know I'm not the only one, though I think some are afraid to speak up. Didn't SteelyDanny say he was on Atripla? And I know from AIDSsoc that Noreen Martin recently had to succumb to it, too, and is having similar results to mine, all the while searching for the "real" cause of her problems, which include CFS and fibromyalgia, which also seem to be greatly mitigated by the Atripla.

This reminds me that there is a faction out there that thinks CFS and AIDs are really the same thing but to different degrees. Noreen is testing for this "new" virus that is now implicated in CFS (XMRV?) in hope that it will provide a real answer, but I fear it's just more smoke and mirrors. I have no doubt that I would test positive for a great many more things were I moved to test for them. I have a feeling that an effective vaccine will not be found for CFS either.

I think Matt Irwin's onto something with his theory that the drugs help by suppressing something autoimmune in our systems, and likely not the same thing in everyone. Now if we could only find a really effective way to do this without resorting to drugs...

Linda

jonathan barnett
April 26th, 2010, 12:26 AM
That could be quite an educational, if not entertaining experiment, Brian. I think of Gos and picture a pig in shit.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__jFgOqdirRY/ReyT52NygOI/AAAAAAAAAQU/jKoiGElfI38/s400/Happy_as_a_pig_in_shit.jpg

(Pardon the graphic... I grew up on a pig farm, and I assure you that is one content, if not downright happy pig!)

Based on the feedback from the membership so far though, we might want to consider creating a separate forum category with stricter moderation for these conversations, so those who aren't interested in them can easily avoid them.

Or were you being facetious?

In which case, why would we not want an opportunity to address the very people who most need to hear about dissident alternatives? Do you think most of the people at thebody.com and poz.com really understand what we are all about?

Personally, I don't think we should go to orthodox sites and recruit visitors, but I do like the idea of providing a place for those who choose to visit.




Lets all, each one of us active members here, go the thebody.com's (http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ubbthreads.php)
message board and invite at least a dozen of their members or so
to come here and tell their story.

Doesn't this just sound like a wonderful idea?

Gezz, just think of the new friends we'll make!

jonathan barnett
April 26th, 2010, 12:27 AM
Good to see you Linda! I was wondering if you were lurking here, since we mentioned you.

How are you doing these days?

moonchild493
April 26th, 2010, 01:01 AM
Hi Jonathan.

I'm doing quite well. Haven't really been lurking much, just don't visit as much as I used to, and there haven't really been that many things I felt compelled to comment on. I'm happy that my Medicaid finally came through (yes, I know this is a sore point for some) and that I can finally start getting all the work done on my teeth that I need. I have suspected for some time that there may be some low-grade infection going on, and I know I have lots of amalgam fillings that may be degrading and releasing even more mercury than usual.

I was sorry to read that you're having some neurological problems. I hope they're not serious. The Wii has pointed out how bad my balance has become, and I tend to wonder if the mercury could be a culprit. If it's not one thing...!

Linda

Gos
April 28th, 2010, 12:13 PM
I think of Gos and picture a pig in shit.

You don't know the half of it, Jon. I'm happier than a gay tick on a dog's d*ck. ROFL

--- Gos

jonathan barnett
April 28th, 2010, 12:59 PM
Gos:

It's good to know you have the sense of humor I thought you have. Some folks might have taken offense. I'll try to behave myself better in the future.

Gos
April 28th, 2010, 01:40 PM
Gos:

It's good to know you have the sense of humor I thought you have. Some folks might have taken offense. I'll try to behave myself better in the future.

Jon,

Please don't try to behave yourself better in the future -- I like you just the way you are (cue Mr. Rogers theme music.)

--- Gos

Vega
May 13th, 2010, 06:33 PM
I always welcome all sides of a story. I think some people are so adamant and stubborn that they are unwilling to open their eyes and are unwilling to challenge their personal views but I still welcome a chance to talk with them. On a side note, I love listening to the far-right radio talk show hosts not because I agree with them (far from it) but because I want to hear and try to understand their thinking.

Gos
May 14th, 2010, 11:33 AM
I always welcome all sides of a story. I think some people are so adamant and stubborn that they are unwilling to open their eyes and are unwilling to challenge their personal views but I still welcome a chance to talk with them. On a side note, I love listening to the far-right radio talk show hosts not because I agree with them (far from it) but because I want to hear and try to understand their thinking.


Yeah, I've got to agree. I actually pay more attention to the arguments of those I disagree with, whether the issue is politics or health or whatever. You learn more from those you disagree with than from those you agree with.

--- Gos

jonathan barnett
July 15th, 2010, 01:52 PM
This thread contains posts related to member feedback about moderation policy at the Questioning AIDS forums.

Please be aware that some of these posts may have been moved here from other threads to keep those discussions from veering off-topic. Unfortunately, that may make the conversation in this thread seem a bit disjointed at times.

This is the best place for members to post feedback, opinions and suggestions to the Moderation Team. Off-topic posts regarding moderation in other threads will be removed.

jonathan barnett
July 15th, 2010, 04:21 PM
The issue of non-dissidents joining and posting in the QA forums has come up again, and there has been some discussion in this thread (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=6516), roughly posts #20-30 or so.

We moderators have also had some discussion about QA's policy regarding posts from known or suspected AIDS apologists, and it may or may not surprise anyone that we cannot agree on this matter.

When we started this site, those of us involved in creating QA pledged transparency and openness with the membership and in that spirit I am posting my thoughts here. I am hoping that ongoing dialogue with the membership will help guide us.

As I see it, some members and moderators do not think we should allow posts from people like CBE (http://forums.questioningaids.com/search.php?searchid=53058) (link to all posts by CBE), and others who are obviously not dissidents, but who have not required moderation due to violations of the QA guidelines either, in my opinion.

One member, Lighthouse, mentioned again the option of a separate forum space at QA where these kinds of debate between dissidents and orthodox posters can be held.

While that suggestion had a certain appeal to me when I first heard it a few months ago, there are some issues and problems with the idea that need to be addressed before it could happen.

First, some long-time and valuable members see the forums historically as a place for Dissident discussions. By definition, that means zero tolerance for orthodox intruders.

The closest thing QA has to a mission statement can be found on our home page, which states, in part:

Questioning AIDS was created by a group of former moderators and administrators from AIDS Myth Exposed (www.aidsmythexposed.com (http://www.aidsmythexposed.com)) to provide a neutral, inclusive and affirming site for all who profess to be AIDS dissidents, questioners and rethinkers to share information and to discuss and debate issues critical to our movement. Other members, also with a long history with the forums, suggest that including orthodox challengers is an important part of the debate.

The poll posted in this thread suggests that a majority of the QA membership seem to support the latter position, and I think the moderation team should be accountable to the membership, especially when there is such clear evidence on an issue.

There is another problem with setting up a new forum: Moderation. There is really no interest among the current batch of moderators to undertake such a task. Without some even-handed and assertive moderation, proactively offering such an arena is asking for a free-for-all, and I, for one, cannot support that.

For now, the current system seems to be working as well as can be expected. We moderators rarely have to intervene in the forums. When we have, it has been a fairly clear-cut instance of someone who is blatantly trying to disrupt the forums and after a couple of warnings for guidelines violations, they are booted out of here.

We have also resorted to placing some potentially abusive members on moderation when they become disruptive, which usually solves the problem. If CBE were to become disruptive, that is an option, but we moderators need to use a great deal of caution before taking that step, and I do not think CBE has met that threshold required for such an action.

I'm not proposing any changes, but would encourage members to continue to offer feedback and suggestions to help us make decisions regarding policy as we move forward.

mwatti
July 15th, 2010, 06:10 PM
I was not going to post anymore, but since you have shown the maturity to admit debate on this issue I will post one final comment. I am moderated so it might not even appear. Moderating or banning someone simply if they do not agree with your view point is childish. Moderating or banning someone if they provide a link to a site you don't like is childish. This forum has great potential for exciting debate - but if you continue to navel gaze amongst yourselves the forum will have a very short future. Seems to me very few people log into it as it is. Ultimately you censor out of fear and most censorship is seen as fragility and lack of confidence in your argument. Best of luck.
[Moderator note: You joined these forums, announced in your first post that you did not agree with any Dissident perspectives, then posted the unsubstantiated claim that "aids denialists convinced themselves they would not die", and then linked to AIDSTruth's list of "Dead Denialists" as a supportive document and then chose to lead a thread off-topic by trying to argue with a moderator about it.

All in your first ten posts here!

As a moderator, I stand by my decision to put your posts in moderation until you convince me or one of the other moderators that you are not here solely to act as a provocateur, which is unquestionably not allowed.

It should be obvious to anyone who follows these forums that we do not censor, ban or moderate members simply for disagreeing, or even for being disagreeable.

There is no reason not to approve this post. This is the right place to complain about moderators and board policy, not in the discussion threads.]

Tony Lance
July 16th, 2010, 12:34 AM
For the record, this moderator is in favor of allowing individuals such as CBE to post freely so long as they behave themselves. As far as I can see, CBE hasn't violated any rules and has conducted himself rather well. Sure, there have been disagreements with longstanding QA members, but they haven't gotten ugly nor have they gotten out of control.

(Mwatti, you, on the other hand, have a rather snarky, in-your-face style that can easily rub people the wrong way. I'm just saying.)

In any event, the poll starting this thread, unscientific though it is, indicates that the majority of the members here at QA are supportive of allowing people to post who may not share our points of view. I'm all for it.

Brian Carter
July 16th, 2010, 06:35 AM
Tony and others....

Look, I'm for too it in some fashion, but in a very limited manor.

What we're embarking on is experimental, which is to allow "mainstream viewpoints" to become integrated into our society, our community. It's a bit unprecedented.

What I said earlier HERE (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showpost.php?p=42373&postcount=29) is profoundly why new found growth in this area should be severely limited and a reminder set that these mainstream view points are not shared by the members here in anyway shape or form.

It should also be noted that this new openness to "mainstream views" is in fact, non-moderated except for those that break the rules of conduct. What this allows is that virtually any and all threads can have mainstream views and commentary written in and espoused by those that want to do so. I happen to think that this is a very ugly, reversed focused road to be on, which very well might lead to disaster. I've just simply been, as the say in the corporate board room; overruled .. :)

whereistheproof
July 16th, 2010, 07:21 AM
reading over this thread (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=6516): CBE expresses himself in terms that i find uncomfortably close to the orthodoxy.

So - I find CBE's posts not convincing at all. just more of the same old same old BS. should he be censored? no. in the past dissidents persevered because of their openness to debate. further - those among us who are able to think for themselves, who can distinguish between a decent argument and propaganda should be given the opportunity to learn from a thread like this.

[moderator note: A portion of this post was moved from another thread]

computergeek
July 16th, 2010, 11:14 AM
The risk of censorship simply because someone espouses an unpopular viewpoint is precisely the criticism levied against "mainstream" resources (e.g., Wikipedia and its blatantly obvious bias in numerous areas.)

While Brian's point that there is danger in allowing dissent is valid, it is a danger that must be accepted lest this community become just as inbred as other sites that refuse to allow dissent or discussion about alternatives to the current theory.

Tony Lance
July 16th, 2010, 12:37 PM
Brian,

My feeling is that we're worrying excessively about what MIGHT happen. Things could indeed get ugly, but they haven't. Let's cross that bridge when we get there, if ever. Look at this way: We set the rules; we have control of the board; and we have active, intelligent members who are ready and willing to respond (often in exhaustive detail) to those who hold views opposed to ours. Civil discourse, with all views welcome, should be our goal.

T.

mwatti
July 16th, 2010, 01:25 PM
Good point Tony. Now I can admit I came across as "snarky" and "upfront". This is not my nature however and have to apologise if I really upset some folks on here. I have some sympathy with the views expressed on this site. As an example, I was diagnosed many years ago as asthmatic and prescribed various steroid based inhalers which just didn't work, and gave me some uncomfortable side effects. I tried out a Chinese herbalist, and my problem improved greatly. Ofcourse being asthmatic is a gift in comparison to Aids I know. If I was diagnosed as hiv positive, would I jump for the medicines? I can't say - but I know I would like to examine all possibilites. This is where you fellows have a great role to play - to provide people with a context to the debate being fought, and allow folks to come to their own reasoned decisions.

[Moderator note: This post convinces me that you are not a provocateur. Your moderation status has been lifted and full membership rights restored. Thanks for being patient and helping us work this out. -JB]

Expansive Mind
July 16th, 2010, 01:41 PM
Interesting yet perplexing this is.

However, I see it as a digressing rather than a transcendence.

Why? Because it forces one to think in terms of and uses language that is developed mainly in support of popular, severely flawed HIV nonsence. One must talk in therms of HIV in order to address apologists and supporters of mainstream, revisiting over and over again what they have said and what have to say. The focus then becomes them, which is a terrible mindset focus to be in, in my opinion. It worsens, not heals.


Fundamentally I agree with Brian. We don't need the rhetoric of hiv/aids to explain the various linkages of health drugs and behaviors. In fact people outside the aids zone, both past and present do this all the time. We don't need hiv/aids rhetoric to refute pro-aids views.

However, within hiv/aids theory there are scientific and medical contradictions, falsifications, missing information and corruption. Some of our forum members prefer and are capable of using hiv/aids rhetoric to expose the pro-aids views. Those members who prefer and are able to spend the time and can endure the tedium of the nonsensical and misleading realm of studies and jargon, should be the first and primary members to engage and refute the orthodox posters. I guess I expect that those of you who do vote to keep posters like this be the ones who take special interest in demonstrating where and how they are making mistakes and ultimately preventing health for people in "risk groups."

Other considerations are that it is too easy for an orthodox poster to alter a thread from quality dissident dialog and make the threads about them. Take the thread "20 million dollar lawsuit" as an example. The case illustrates many dissident points, yet it has devolved into a discussion about whether we should let pro-aids people post.

On the whole, it may well add some spice to the boards to have such a poster roaming the boards, and that might be good. I think it is important to monitor progress and remember that this is "experimental." If need be, we can always change the policy.

One idea: create a profile with privileges to post in one room only, call it the Orthodoxy Speaks room or whatever. That way they can chit-chat, we can respond, but the integrity of other threads is more or less maintained. The Orthodox privileges would allow them to read and copy all other posts so that if they wanted, they can dialog about any other thread in any other topic, just without invading the original thread.

mwatti
July 16th, 2010, 02:48 PM
Thankyou Jonathan for lifting my moderation restrictions. I will be more observant and sensitive to the rules of the site from now on when I respond to posts.

Brian Carter
July 17th, 2010, 05:35 AM
I have some sympathy with the views expressed on this site.

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. So why in the beginning did you seem like you didn't? Actually, it doesn't matter. What matters is for some reason you'd like to contribute. If you happen to be new to dissent from HIV and AIDS, there is a massive amount of information out there. We're lucky that our site is the only one with news/views and commentary by a wide and varied constituency posted on a continual daily basis.

Tony Lance
July 18th, 2010, 03:48 PM
Mwatti,

I think you earned a bunch of bonus points with your last few posts ;-)

Well done.

truth84
July 20th, 2010, 07:58 AM
I'm not a big fan on the orthodoxy posting here. I think if the orthodoxy really wants to debate here then there should be a separate forum titled "Opposing Views" or something that they would be restricted to. The reason being is that if you simply open the gate, it will ruin this site. They will start littering every thread causing intelligent discussions to immediately turn into arguments and waste everyone's time. As long as it is the exception and not the rule, is heavily moderated, and restricted to a separate section I'm fine with it. Besides, the orthodoxy has plenty of forums of their own as it is.

Another point about new dissidents I want to make is that at least on the old MSN board it was made very clear that new users are to read the basic information before posting. The same should apply here. It is comparable to a polite dinner table conversation where you don't speak until you have listened to the others already talking. People should not just come here and start spouting off what they think they know when they haven't spent a minimum amount of time educating themselves first. It is simple courtesy. Regardless of forum, people should lurk before they post.

jonathan barnett
July 20th, 2010, 01:22 PM
if you simply open the gate, it will ruin this site. They will start littering every thread causing intelligent discussions to immediately turn into arguments and waste everyone's time.

That is one of my concerns too, but it needn't be allowed to happen. We have the ability to increase moderation controls and IF the forums start to be disrupted, we will probably be forced to implement new controls, including a segregated forum and restricted membership categories.

Having a separate forum might be problematic too. For one thing, redundant topics will be difficult to cross-reference. i.e. "in a forum I'm not allowed to post in, so-and-so said blah-blah, and that's not possible because...." Not an insurmountable problem by any means.

Another will be how do we define someone as "Orthodox" if they don't self-identify as one. I can even imagine a situation where an "orthodox" poster might want to post something supportive in another forum, but will be unable to do so. (OK, I have a vivid imagination, but I am trying to anticipate the various possible outcomes here.)

People are funny that way: defining them can be tricky.

It is helpful to hear all the concerns, ideas and suggestions here so we can be prepared for the worst. So far though, it seems that the gates of QA have not been overrun by avid AIDS apologists.

Frankly, I don't think there are many of them that actually enjoy coming here.

Aion
August 1st, 2010, 08:00 AM
Substantive is subjective.

My feeling is that mainstreamers, apologists and the AIDS Inc hierarchy, if they want to come here, have only one thing in mind (besides having a one track mind), which is to disrupt, cajole and persuade. Debates which seem to be somewhat interesting or functional, will quickly digress into ad hominem attacks.

In our endeavor that the main board remain as stated "an international supportive on-line community", allowing diversions by the orthodoxy isn't a show of support. Those and their ilk are not interested in that.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves why and would this type of engagement be better served outside of QuestioningAIDS.

You forgot give them ideas what the hell to do next.

It's just plain bad strategy to let the enemy know how and what you are thinking.

jonathan barnett
August 1st, 2010, 01:58 PM
These forums can be read by anyone. You don't even need to join up to read them, only to comment. Excluding Orthodox members would not change that.

Secrecy has always been part of the problem, imo.


You forgot give them ideas what the hell to do next.

It's just plain bad strategy to let the enemy know how and what you are thinking.