Filed under: Activism Definition
Question:
Thanks Annie for posting this. The whole Nicole trolling has made me all the more supportive of their quest for moderation. — claudia 565/370/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net
F.Y.I. Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,alt.support.big-folks,soc.support.fat-a c ceptance Followup-To: poster
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) moderated group soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated This CFV is to be distributed only by the votetaker. It is not to be posted to newsgroups, or mailed to mailing lists or individuals, except by the votetaker. Ballots or CFVs provided by anyone else will be invalid. Newsgroups line: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated Self-acceptance for fat people. (Moderated) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 23 Jul 1999. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent. RATIONALE: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated There are currently two unmoderated newsgroups, alt.support.big-folks and soc.support.fat-acceptance, that provide a forum for discussion of the fat acceptance movement and other issues in the lives of those of us who are larger than average. Unfortunately, those newsgroups are frequently hit by trollers and spammers posting abusive attacks against large people and endless advertisements for weight loss products. We wish to create a new, moderated group in order to provide an environment that is free of the above-mentioned attacks and advertisements. CHARTER: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated This group provides a supportive forum for the discussion of the personal and political goals of fat acceptance and other topics relevant to being fat. This is a support group. Abuse of individuals and groups based on their appearance is not tolerated. All self- defined fat people who are self-accepting, or are working towards self-acceptance are welcome, as are non-fat people who also favour aspects of size-acceptance. Please be aware that wherever people are building a community, controversy and conflict are inevitable. The important thing is that the controversy does not turn into personal attacks (see the policy statement for details on this issue). Moderation policy: Readers of soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated are encouraged to post messages on topics including, but not limited to, the following: - Fat-acceptance political activism - Events relating to fat-acceptance - Medical research and related research papers - Information on healthy living as a fat person (including nutrition and exercise for large people) - Resources for fat people (including clothes, mail order catalogs, etc.), either newly discovered or in response to requests for such information - Personal anecdotes about being fat - Sharing complaints and peeves or triumphs and achievements - Discussion of the dangers of weight loss surgery and drugs Soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated is moderated to block the following specific types of posts: 1. Trolls 2. Off-topic, promotional posts 3. Personal Attacks 4. Inappropriate posts 5. Binaries 6. Cross posts 1. Trolls are posts that the moderators believe were posted only to provoke members of the group into responding heatedly. 2. Off-topic, promotional post made for reasons of commercialism or zealotry are blocked (regardless of whether such posts meet the definition of spam by being posted multiple times). 3. Personal attacks are personal insults against members of the newsgroup. (Note: criticisms of ideas are not personal attacks. For example: "that’s an idiotic idea" is not a personal attack, but "you are an utter dimwit" is a personal attack.). Specific allegations that can’t be backed up with evidence (such as "that poster secretly works for Jenny Craig") may be construed as personal attacks. 4. Soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated is intended as a support group for people who want a break from the "weight control is good" and "anti-body-acceptance" messages ubiquitous in western society. It is not intended as a source for definitive medical information on weight or a forum for debate on whether weight control is a good idea. Therefore, there are some types of messages that are not appropriate to this forum. Messages about these topics are not approved: (1) Advocacy of weight (or fat) control (reduction, maintenance, or gain) Messages advocating weight control via surgery, diet, drugs, exercise, and other methods are not approved. (Advocating means "promoting as good or useful.") Messages that say "even though [weight control method] is not for everyone, it improved *my* life" are included under this restriction unless there is a surrounding context of fat- acceptance. A simple statement *that* a poster changed his/her weight is not advocacy, but going into any detail about a particular method for weight control that worked for the poster is considered advocacy unless the surrounding fat-acceptance context is clear. Discussions of the dangers of weight control and methods for same, and discussions of negative experiences with weight control attempts or methods, are allowed. Refutations of scientific evidence presented by such posts are allowed if the refutations are explicitly made in a fat-acceptance context. Discussions of surgery, diet, drugs, and exercise that do not advocate weight control are allowed. For example, a post about exercising to become stronger is allowed, but a post about exercising in order to lose weight is not allowed. (2) Personal Ads/Advertisements for products other than those of interest to fat or fat-accepting people. Vendors who sell a fat-accepting product for fat people (such as clothing in large sizes) may post something about their businesses no more than once per month. The preferred way to do this is to point people to a web site. Ads may be checked by a volunteer before being posted in order to confirm that the products are actually for fat people. Please use the tag word ADVERT: in the subject line of such posts. (If you do not, the moderators will prepend ADVERT: to the subject line.) If a vendor’s site does not represent what an ad leads people to believe, all future posts from that vendor may be rejected. The moderators’ goal is to allow companies to advertise fat-positive products, as a useful adjunct to the newsgroup’s primary purpose, which is discussion of fat-acceptance. If the moderators believe that the amount or type of advertising being posted is distracting from the quality of the discussion, the moderators reserve the right to put additional limits on the amount or type of advertising. This change will be accomplished via discussion on the moderation mailing list and will be put into place following a vote of the moderators. Personal ads are not allowed. Many web sites that accept personal ads for/from big people are listed in the Online Resources for Big Folks FAQ, or you can post them to soc.personals. 5. Binaries, with the exception of small binaries (e.g. PGP keys), are filtered out. 6. Cross-posting of FAQs is allowed, but any other cross-posted messages may be returned to the sender with a request that all other newsgroups be removed and the post resubmitted. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and web site presently used by the newsgroups soc.support.fat-acceptance and alt.support.big-folks are used by this newsgroup to avoid duplication of effort. The moderation style FAQ appended below is part of said web site and is posted twice a month to soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated. Amending This Charter This charter cannot be amended because there is no widely accepted way to do charter amendment in the Big 8. Should this change, the Charter will be amendable according to the new policy. The moderators reserve the right to change the moderation policy at any time to maintain the spirit of the charter. END CHARTER. MODERATOR INFO: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated Moderator: Stef Maruch
… read more »
Response:
shut up Roach. You are the biggest flame fanner this ng and a few others, have ever seen. You are stupid, you lie through your teeth, you get caught in your own stupidity, and your posts are dangerous to new dieters. Can’t you just for once practice what you preach? I repeat in case you missed it the first time: Shut up already. Adreeanna — "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it–and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." MARK TWAIN – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks Annie for posting this. The whole Nicole trolling has made me all the more supportive of their quest for moderation. — claudia all the crap that you, jac,adr,cow, and others are up to! can’t you please let this go? rosie
Response:
ROFLMAO! It took me a minute to get that one cowboy. I must be getting old. Adreeanna — "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it–and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." MARK TWAIN – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is the most truthful thing you ever posted, ROACH. Cowboy
Response:
Thanks Annie for posting this. The whole Nicole trolling has made me all the more supportive of their quest for moderation. …it would stop all the crap that you, jac,adr,cow, and others are up to! can’t you please let this go? rosie
I don’t see why they should "let it go". While your ethics might find it acceptable to be "buds" with someone who is abusive to others (uncalled for, continuing verbal abuse), there are others who won’t quietly allow Nichole/Marc to do so. Nichole says she is a Christian. She spends a great deal of time on the fat-acceptance newsgroup telling everyone that they are committing "one of the seven great sins" – that they are undisciplined gluttons (their words). This activity is against the newsgroup charter and Nichole and her fiance have been asked to comply with the charter or leave. They both evidently feel they are on some mission from God to turn fat people from their evil ways and have refused to do either. However, Nichole/Marc don’t mind personally indulging in their sin of fornication. Evidently, that one’s okay and does not indicate a lack of discipline. When her own religion has much more to say about fornication than it does on "gluttony", Nichole ignores that fornication log she has in her eye in order to concentrate on the splinter of gluttony she thinks she detects in others. She wants to play nice on this newsgroup, but she doesn’t want to play by the rules on another newsgroup. Frankly, it is a disgusting display of arrogant hypocrisy that several people who subscribe to both newsgroups won’t tolerate. So, to put it simply – Nichole is a bully on the playground. That she hasn’t bullied you or that you find such activities acceptable does not mean that the rest of the playground have to tolerate it. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
A moderator here would more likely exclude YOU Rosie, and you know it. You can’t deflect your own liability. Your history as a troll is available for all to see via deja news or some such similar public access newsgroup reader. Our history of support is similarly available. Our active discouragement of spam and trolls make us all poster children for this group. =) Not you Rosie, no not you at all. Jacqueline 180/158/140 It’s sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks Annie for posting this. The whole Nicole trolling has made me all the more supportive of their quest for moderation. — claudia all the crap that you, jac,adr,cow, and others are up to! can’t you please let this go? rosie
Response:
Thanks Annie for posting this. The whole Nicole trolling has made me all the more supportive of their quest for moderation. — claudia
all the crap that you, jac,adr,cow, and others are up to! can’t you please let this go? rosie
Response:
Question:
snip… This is scientific misconduct of the worst sort — the fraud and falsification of these biased studies is incontrovertible.
If what you say were true, it would be further true that this would be scientific misconduct of a very grave nature. What you have failed to do is provide any evidence that such intentionally fraudulent activities are being perpetrated. So you fantasize about stuff that’s going on and all the real problems, the real issues, get lost in the haze of your bulshit. Frod, why don’t you just fuck off? George M. Carter
Response:
snipped inchoate FrodSlop Raging… Fred reveals his drastic gap in knowledge. Endpoints are used for assessing all randomized patients. Anything else would be fraud.
That’s "frod." George Maria Von Cartier
Response:
Virtually all of our studies use a progression of disease endpoint (new infection or death). For whom, Carlton, those in your "studies" who are compliant? Fred reveals his drastic gap in knowledge.
Upon challenge, Carlton once again attempts to project his deficiencies upon the challenger. The true spirit of Carlton’s "treatment activism" lives on ! Endpoints are used for assessing all randomized patients.
No dispute, except for the "randomized" part. Since your "study" group is cherry-picked to give the treatment the best chance of success, then your claims of the group being "randomized" are false from the outset. In other words, you steal a label from the concept of scientific objectivity and apply that label to studies that are subjective, biased, and yes, fraudulent. In other words, all you are doing is taking a biased group and fraudulently attempting to validate that group as unbiased. This is scientific misconduct of the worst sort — the fraud and falsification of these biased studies is incontrovertible. Anything else would be fraud.
Thank you for conceding the fraud that has contaminated these drug trials — beginning with AZT in the mid/late 1980’s. After all, those in the 2-drug study arm are MORE compliant than those in the 3-drug arm — and we KNOW who gets sicker and dies, now don’t we, Carlton? Yep. The two drug arm folks.
Correct. As the research reports, those using two antivirals are MORE likely to comply with their "treatment" — this confirms the correlation between the "treatment" itself and the increase in illness and death. The potential benefit of antiretrovirals (i.e. their activity) are reduced by side effects, resulting in less perceived efficacy.
FALSE !!! The level of "side effects" has been used to validate the "therapeutic" dose of the cocktails. Thus "perceived efficacy" has been INCREASED in the presence of increased side effects. Amazing how Carlton tries to deny the basic formula that HE has advocated in support of the mainstream treatment theory: More Drugs — More Side Effects – More Viral Suppression – No Drug-Resistant Virus You rant and rave, and make ludicrous assertions
The only one ranting and raving here is Carlton. Carlton’s lies are easily disproven. about "intent to treat", acting like it is just some AIDS conspiracy
Cite any of my "assertions" about this highly biased policy that is based on the false premise that the HIV antivirals "save lives". In the meantime, I would suggest that you review the definition of "conspiracy" — a good place to start would be Black’s Law Dictionary. rather than the widely accepted
Cite the published evidence for this ! most dependable
Cite the published evidence for this too ! and CONSERVATIVE analysis for ANY CONDITION OR DRUG,
Again — cite the published evidence for this bizarre and false claim !!!! but you can’t back it up.
You are the advocate for this policy — the burden of proof is ALL YOURS, Carlton. I’m simply challenging your superstitions. You really are predictable and pathetic Fred. Actually, I would say my adherence was probably better than average
Now that’s rather slippery of you, Carlton — you certainly remain true to your character. Carlton has claimed that the "standard" is one on NONCOMPLIANCE !!! Thus Carlton’s statement that "my adherence was probably better than average" is meaningless and fraudulent in the absence of what HE has confessed to be the "average" : noncompliance. Another Carlton lie through omission. I attribute my continued survival to antiretroviral treatment
This becomes a lie when one examines Carlton’s previous statements about his NONcompliance with these purported "life saving treatments". Carlton concludes his spam with: "Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation." Who funds the clinical drug studies and other perqs that are key incentives in Carlton’s employment: A. Drug companies. B. The Pharmaceutical Industry. C. Pharmaceutical industry slush funds that are distributed through various industry "shell organizations", such as Marty Delaney’s Project Inform, New York’s TAG, GMHC,
Carlton snipped answer "D. All of the Above", which is the correct answer. Fred, do you think that if you repeat your hysterical denunciations over and over again, even when they have been refuted, somehow you will manage to make everyone adopt your "newspeak"?
Not at all. I’m merely responding to Carlton’s insinuation that he is unbiased in this newsgroup, despite the fact that his employment reveals financial conflicts of interest that assign clear and indisputable motive to his incessant lies and misrepresentations. I have posted many times the fact that neither my salary, nor the cost of running CPCRA trials comes from industry.
Carlton is employed in HIV drug trials that are sponsored by the university that employs him. These trials are funded by: A. The Tooth Fairy. B. The Easter Bunny. C. Santa Claus. D. Pharmaceutical companies. [Correct Answer: D] Really entertaining loonies weave an intricate and complex web of lies that have their own lunatic logic.
Carlton, thank you for offering this rare self-analysis. fred
Response:
snipping relevant, interesting or truthful material…
Response:
snipping relevant, interesting or truthful material…
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet once again, Fred adds nothing substantive to the discussion, preferring invective and slander to discussion of the issues. Who says you can’t depend on anything anymore? You can depend on the medical industry to flush the patients down the pan in the name of economics Really? Virtually all of our studies use a progression of disease endpoint (new infection or death). For whom, Carlton, those in your "studies" who are compliant?
Fred reveals his drastic gap in knowledge. Endpoints are used for assessing all randomized patients. Anything else would be fraud. After all, those in the 2-drug study arm are MORE compliant than those in the 3-drug arm — and we KNOW who gets sicker and dies, now don’t we, Carlton?
Yep. The two drug arm folks. The potential benefit of antiretrovirals (i.e. their activity) are reduced by side effects, resulting in less perceived efficacy. You rant and rave, and make ludicrous assertions about "intent to treat", acting like it is just some AIDS conspiracy rather than the widely accepted most dependable and CONSERVATIVE analysis for ANY CONDITION OR DRUG, but you can’t back it up. Over two months ago, I challenged you to find any biostat text, introductory or advanced that supported your bizarre assertions. We’re stil waiting. My concern is that as many patients as possible remain free of infection or death. Which is why YOU are alive today — thanks to NONCOMPLIANCE with your "treatment regimen" (as you have confessed in this newsgroup).
You really are predictable and pathetic Fred. Actually, I would say my adherence was probably better than average, as I fortunately have been able to tolerate antiretrovirals quite well. I have said it before, and I will repeat it here. I attribute my continued survival to antiretroviral treatment Carlton concludes his spam with: "Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation." Who funds the clinical drug studies and other perqs that are key incentives in Carlton’s employment: A. Drug companies. B. The Pharmaceutical Industry. C. Pharmaceutical industry slush funds that are distributed through various industry "shell organizations", such as Marty Delaney’s Project Inform, New York’s TAG, GMHC,
Fred, do you think that if you repeat your hysterical denunciations over and over again, even when they have been refuted, somehow you will manage to make everyone adopt your "newspeak"? I have posted many times the fact that neither my salary, nor the cost of running CPCRA trials comes from industry. I realize that’s not as exciting as your hot-breathed invective (especially those sweaty little raptures when you wax lyrically about my "tattoo-covered body" ) But maybe it’s relative blandness is more than made up for by the fact that it’s the truth. See Fred, you can’t even keep your lies straight. You have claimed here that I am covered in tattoos head to foot (false) and that I use DNCB (also false). So Fred, you tell me: If I am supposedly so enamoured of these alleged tattoos, where am I burning holes in them with your industrial waste solvent disguised as a treatment? Really entertaining loonies weave an intricate and complex web of lies that have their own lunatic logic. Perhaps you can aspire to that. Carlton
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet once again, Fred adds nothing substantive to the discussion, preferring invective and slander to discussion of the issues. Who says you can’t depend on anything anymore? You can depend on the medical industry to flush the patients down the pan in the name of economics Really? Virtually all of our studies use a progression of disease endpoint (new infection or death).
For whom, Carlton, those in your "studies" who are compliant? After all, those in the 2-drug study arm are MORE compliant than those in the 3-drug arm — and we KNOW who gets sicker and dies, now don’t we, Carlton? My concern is that as many patients as possible remain free of infection or death.
Which is why YOU are alive today — thanks to NONCOMPLIANCE with your "treatment regimen" (as you have confessed in this newsgroup). Economics only enter the question when a sponsor want to charge excessive costs, making it difficult for patients to afford life-saving therapies.
Carlton is speaking of the "economics" of Big Business and the Congressional Conservative Republican appropriations for free HIV cocktail drugs (funds that are not only in excess of Clinton’s budget request, but actually originate from the conservatives who approve them without even the slightest peep of protest!). What other disease receives Congressional funding for the free "treatments" costing up to $40,000 per year (or more) FOR HEALTHY, ASYMPTOMATIC PERSONS? H-E-L-L-O ????? ANYBODY HOME? Carlton concludes his spam with: "Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation." Who funds the clinical drug studies and other perqs that are key incentives in Carlton’s employment: A. Drug companies. B. The Pharmaceutical Industry. C. Pharmaceutical industry slush funds that are distributed through various industry "shell organizations", such as Marty Delaney’s Project Inform, New York’s TAG, GMHC, AIDS Treatment News, the now-defunct ACT UPs, etc. D. All of the above. [Correct answer: D] fred – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | | Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center | | Coordinating Center for Biometric Research | | Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health | | University of Minnesota http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton | | 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200 Voice: (612) 626 8899 | | Minneapolis MN 55414 FAX: (612) 626 8892 | Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation.
Response:
Yet once again, Fred adds nothing substantive to the discussion,
Carlton’s non-substantive posts are intended to elicit non-substantive responses. When I disappoint him, he bitches. preferring invective and slander to discussion of the issues.
"Invective and slander"? Carlton, are you embarassed about: A. Your "HIV treatment activist" status as a closeted heterosexual . B. Your head-to-toe tattoos C. Your life as a biker dude. D. All of the above. [Correct answer: D] Who says you can’t depend on anything anymore?
Carlton, when everything seems so grimly undependable, you know that there is at least one Rock of Gibraltar in your life: Your drug company paycheck. fred
Response:
Yet once again, Fred adds nothing substantive to the discussion, preferring invective and slander to discussion of the issues. Who says you can’t depend on anything anymore?
You can depend on the medical industry to flush the patients down the pan in the name of economics
Response:
Yet once again, Fred adds nothing substantive to the discussion, preferring invective and slander to discussion of the issues. Who says you can’t depend on anything anymore? You can depend on the medical industry to flush the patients down the pan in the name of economics
Really? Virtually all of our studies use a progression of disease endpoint (new infection or death). My concern is that as many patients as possible remain free of infection or death. Economics only enter the question when a sponsor want to charge excessive costs, making it difficult for patients to afford life-saving therapies. Carlton | | | Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center | | Coordinating Center for Biometric Research | | Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health | | University of Minnesota http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton | | 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200 Voice: (612) 626 8899 | | Minneapolis MN 55414 FAX: (612) 626 8892 | Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Yet once again, Fred adds nothing substantive to the discussion, preferring invective and slander to discussion of the issues. Who says you can’t depend on anything anymore? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve been flamed by the best – by some very smart, funny, acerbic people. Carlton flamed? I don’t believe it ! Your post doesn’t even qualify as a flame. More like a moist spot of ambient warmth. Following Carlton’s repudiation of Rump Ranger status, perhaps he alludes to his diaper fetish … Carlton, your last post made no sense at all in reply to mine—so much for your logic. I would have to disagree. You see, there is ALWAYS a level at which Carlton’s posts make perfect sense — you just have to pretend that you have an extra chromosome, and it all fits together beautifully. As opposed to the impeccable logic you used when you made extraordinary claims about … Indeed, Carlton’s claims are always quite peccable, in the truest sense of the word. HIV, then changed the subject to cancer when you were asked to defend them? The cancer industry spawned the aids industry—and you by the look of it. Nope. Sorry. Just good old academia. See — another peccable answer! I suspect Carlton was a young, carefree and heavily-tattooed biker studlet when AIDS made its grand entrance upon the rump-ranger sex club scene. If Carlton
Response:
I’ve been flamed by the best – by some very smart, funny, acerbic people.
Carlton flamed? I don’t believe it ! Your post doesn’t even qualify as a flame. More like a moist spot of ambient warmth.
Following Carlton’s repudiation of Rump Ranger status, perhaps he alludes to his diaper fetish … Carlton, your last post made no sense at all in reply to mine—so much for your logic.
I would have to disagree. You see, there is ALWAYS a level at which Carlton’s posts make perfect sense — you just have to pretend that you have an extra chromosome, and it all fits together beautifully. As opposed to the impeccable logic you used when you made extraordinary claims about …
Indeed, Carlton’s claims are always quite peccable, in the truest sense of the word. HIV, then changed the subject to cancer when you were asked to defend them? The cancer industry spawned the aids industry—and you by the look of it. Nope. Sorry. Just good old academia.
See — another peccable answer! I suspect Carlton was a young, carefree and heavily-tattooed biker studlet when AIDS made its grand entrance upon the rump-ranger sex club scene. If Carlton
Response:
[snip] Touched a nerve? Actually is suspect yes, you did. the combination of ignorance, arrogance and self confidence you posess is a very provocative mixture Are you confusing me with Dr Harris?
not hardly. . Most of your postings are quite irritating. Some of us are better able to control it but each of us loses it sometime. Assuming you had something to lose?
I still have my patience. But Carltons point is well taken. Even herbal and homeopathic remedies are chemotherapy, unless you think they work via mechanisms other than chemistry and physics. Water is chemotherapy if you want to stretch it. Chemotherapy is a term, in popular parlance, used to donate pharmaceutical drug use in cancer, drugs found in the PDR or National Formulary (UK).
Well in the "popular parlance of antimicrobial chemotherapy" I have been using the term since about 1962. Not to mention the journal "antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy" and the "Interscience Conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy" which has met annually for over 30 years. What you are referring to is "cytotoxic chemotherapy" and it is true that it is in the popular mind as "chemotherapy" I was careful to point out why carlton was right in his use of the term and hope you are now a little more educated about the technical use of the term. If you are going to post in this group as a layman you are going to get educated by the professionals who keep people like you honest. do let use know if you ever get off your sarcastic and scornful high horse and some day we might even have a real conversation.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy. Touched a nerve? Nope. Just uprooted another of your illogical, prejudicial smears that you seem to prefer over rationally arguing a point. I’ve been flamed by the best – by some very smart, funny, acerbic people. Your post doesn’t even qualify as a flame. More like a moist spot of ambient warmth. Carlton, your last post made no sense at all in reply to mine—so much for your logic.
As opposed to the impeccable logic you used when you made extraordinary claims about HIV, then changed the subject to cancer when you were asked to defend them? The cancer industry spawned the aids industry—and you by the look of it.
Nope. Sorry. Just good old academia. Carlton
Response:
Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids. You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy. Touched a nerve?
Actually is suspect yes, you did. the combination of ignorance, arrogance and self confidence you posess is a very provocative mixture. Most of your postings are quite irritating. Some of us are better able to control it but each of us loses it sometime. But Carltons point is well taken. Even herbal and homeopathic remedies are chemotherapy, unless you think they work via mechanisms other than chemistry and physics.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids. You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy. Touched a nerve? Actually is suspect yes, you did. the combination of ignorance, arrogance and self confidence you posess is a very provocative mixture
Are you confusing me with Dr Harris? . Most of your postings are quite irritating. Some of us are better able to control it but each of us loses it sometime.
Assuming you had something to lose? But Carltons point is well taken. Even herbal and homeopathic remedies are chemotherapy, unless you think they work via mechanisms other than chemistry and physics.
Water is chemotherapy if you want to stretch it. Chemotherapy is a term, in popular parlance, used to donate pharmaceutical drug use in cancer, drugs found in the PDR or National Formulary (UK).
Response:
You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy. Touched a nerve? Nope. Just uprooted another of your illogical, prejudicial smears that you seem to prefer over rationally arguing a point. I’ve been flamed by the best – by some very smart, funny, acerbic people. Your post doesn’t even qualify as a flame. More like a moist spot of ambient warmth.
Carlton, your last post made no sense at all in reply to mine—so much for your logic. The cancer industry spawned the aids industry—and you by the look of it.
Response:
Carlton, do you think birth is cancer?
In your case, apparently it was. Go bug the cancer NGs Once again, the HIV Thought Police attempt to censor this unmoderated newsgroup with a typical smokescreen.
No, just trying to retain focus. Something you lack. Officer Charlatan Hogan needs to suppress the cancer research origin of ALL the "antiviral" drugs that comprise todays HIV "standard of care" that is far from standard or "care".
You’ve made this absurd claim before. The NNRTIs and protease inhibitors come from cancer research? Please do enlighten. Cancer drugs work by blocking proliferation of fast-replicating cells. While cancer cells are the fastest-growing aberrant cells in the body, everyone seems to forget that the immune cells are the fastest-replicating NORMAL cells in the body. That’s the basis of the immunosuppression caused by this class of drugs … and the HIV cocktails.
Show us further how they inhibit T cell proliferation. Officer Hogan is alive because of his treatment noncompliance with these drugs (as he has admitted). The lads of ACTUP Washington D.C. were quite compliant with their cocktail regimens … they’re all dead, of course.
No, not all. Now you’re spewing fantasy again, making claims about others lives that are untrue. Frod, how often did your mother drop you on your head as a child? George M. Carter
Response:
Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids. You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy.
Carlton’s extra chromosome pops up again — John was specific regarding "chemotherapy for cancer". Birth control pills are chemotherapy.
Carlton, do you think birth is cancer? Go bug the cancer NGs
Once again, the HIV Thought Police attempt to censor this unmoderated newsgroup with a typical smokescreen. Officer Charlatan Hogan needs to suppress the cancer research origin of ALL the "antiviral" drugs that comprise todays HIV "standard of care" that is far from standard or "care". Cancer drugs work by blocking proliferation of fast-replicating cells. While cancer cells are the fastest-growing aberrant cells in the body, everyone seems to forget that the immune cells are the fastest-replicating NORMAL cells in the body. That’s the basis of the immunosuppression caused by this class of drugs … and the HIV cocktails. Officer Hogan is alive because of his treatment noncompliance with these drugs (as he has admitted). The lads of ACTUP Washington D.C. were quite compliant with their cocktail regimens … they’re all dead, of course. fred
Response:
Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids. You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy. Touched a nerve?
Nope. Just uprooted another of your illogical, prejudicial smears that you seem to prefer over rationally arguing a point. I’ve been flamed by the best – by some very smart, funny, acerbic people. Your post doesn’t even qualify as a flame. More like a moist spot of ambient warmth. C – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids. You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy.
Touched a nerve?
Response:
Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids.
You ignoramus. Antibiotics are chemotherapy. Birth control pills are chemotherapy. Synthetic vitamins are chemotherapy. Go bug the cancer NGs
Response:
Chemotherapy for cancer. Good luck with the chemotherapy for aids. Samuel Epstein charges—"That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the "War against Cancer" was launched by President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement in treatment and survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading hype by the cancer establishment—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS). That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis and treatment _ and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers, has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime cancer risks now approaching 50%. That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead Congress and the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer prevention. Over the last year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims, ranging from $480 million to $1 billion, for its prevention budget while realistic estimates are well under $100 million. That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer _ the most avoidable of all cancers _ which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer deaths, besides being a major cause of childhood cancer. That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced by pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted by former NCI director Samuel Broder, the NCI has become "what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company." That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer." That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS _ the tail that wags the NCI dog _ has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of non-toxic alternative cancer drugs. That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives." Furthermore, it is the only known "charity" that makes contributions to political parties. That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs, tamoxifen and Evista, in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy women while suppressing evidence that these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term lethal complications of tamoxifen. The establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this fall on tamoxifen, and also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the ineffectiveness of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal. That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with available scientific information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products _food, cosmetics and toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective legislative and regulatory action have not been taken. That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African American and underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing them from taking action to protect themselves _ a flagrant denial of environmental justice."—Samuel Epstein "NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"–Samuel Epstein. "A study was done which shows the majority of oncologists who refer patients for chemotherapy for lung cancer would not themselves take chemotherapy for lung cancer. And in fact if the chemotherapy involved cis-platen, something like 75% of them said they wouldn’t take it. But what do these people do all day long? They’re sending people for cis-platen."–Ralph Moss (TLFD interview Jan 1998) John Cairns of Harvard published a study in Scientific American that showed chemotherapy drugs were of benefit to at most 5% of cancer patients they are given to, but are routinely given to 50% of patients! He also termed the chemotherapy used to treat malignancies too advanced for surgery (80% of cancers) as a "scientific wasteland". "Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve; Please note that, in the study you quoted below, that: "Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group." This is called missing the forest for the trees. The study was obviously trying to find HIV+ hemophiliacs with the same amount of Factor VIII usage as HIV- hemophiliacs, in order to do their matching. Of course, if the hypothesis that the amount of Factor VIII usage correlates with likelihood of HIV+ status and progression to AIDS, this would be difficult to do …. which is precisely what they found. On the other hand, if HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, it should be easy to find matching hemophiliacs, because the only difference between HIV+ hemophiliacs and HIV- hemophiliacs would be the presence of the virus. In fact, if the researchers knew the approximate amount of Factor VIII used by each hemophiliac, they could just calculate the average amount of Factor VIII used by HIV+ and HIV- groups, and see if there was a significant difference (which there almost certainly would be!).
This does absolutely nothing to fix the problem that cumulative factor VIII usage is confounded by HIV status. Calculating the average amount of factor merely gives you an average likelihood of HIV, it does not "disentangle" the association between factor VIII consumption and risk of HIV. You need to do as Steve suggested, match persons on prognostic factors, or better, do a cox regression controlling for the various possible confounders. Carlton | | | Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Statistical Center | | Coordinating Center for Biometric Research | | Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health | | University of Minnesota http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~carlton | | 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 200 Voice: (612) 626 8899 | | Minneapolis MN 55414 FAX: (612) 626 8892 | Affilation provided for purpose of identification, not representation.
Response:
Steve; Please note that, in the study you quoted below, that: "Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group."
Yes. But they still matched 17 people who used high concentrations of Factor VIII who were HIV+ with 17 people who used high concentrations of Factor VIII who were HIV-. And they found in 10 years that only the people with HIV infection had clinical events and an overall lower CD4 count. This is called missing the forest for the trees. The study was obviously trying to find HIV+ hemophiliacs with the same amount of Factor VIII usage as HIV- hemophiliacs, in order to do their matching. Of course, if the hypothesis that the amount of Factor VIII usage correlates with likelihood of HIV+ status and progression to AIDS, this would be difficult to do …. which is precisely what they found.
Why? If the concentration of Factor VIII were the issue, there would have been more clinical events in the higher concentration group. Ergo, you’re distorting the data. Yet again. George M. Carter
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve; Please note that, in the study you quoted below, that: "Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group." This is called missing the forest for the trees. The study was obviously trying to find HIV+ hemophiliacs with the same amount of Factor VIII usage as HIV- hemophiliacs, in order to do their matching. Of course, if the hypothesis that the amount of Factor VIII usage correlates with likelihood of HIV+ status and progression to AIDS, this would be difficult to do …. which is precisely what they found. On the other hand, if HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, it should be easy to find matching hemophiliacs, because the only difference between HIV+ hemophiliacs and HIV- hemophiliacs would be the presence of the virus. In fact, if the researchers knew the approximate amount of Factor VIII used by each hemophiliac, they could just calculate the average amount of Factor VIII used by HIV+ and HIV- groups, and see if there was a significant difference (which there almost certainly would be!). Regards, David Crowe No, david, this is called trying to hide some trees in a forest. The goal of the exercise was to determine if aids was related to HIV infection independent of the amount of factor used. No one ever claimed that getting HIV infection was independent of factor usage (except for those dissidents from Perth who said it was never present there). The claim was that the development of AIDS was associated with being HIV positive. That claim was supported by the study.
The paper stated quite clearly that the usage of Factor VIII was much higher (on average) in the HIV+ group. Therefore, it supports the argument that Factor VIII usage, by itself, can suppress the immune system and, quite possibly, cause the antibodies that are often called "HIV" antibodies to be produced. Regards, David Crowe
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve; Please note that, in the study you quoted below, that: "Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group." This is called missing the forest for the trees. The study was obviously trying to find HIV+ hemophiliacs with the same amount of Factor VIII usage as HIV- hemophiliacs, in order to do their matching. Of course, if the hypothesis that the amount of Factor VIII usage correlates with likelihood of HIV+ status and progression to AIDS, this would be difficult to do …. which is precisely what they found. On the other hand, if HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, it should be easy to find matching hemophiliacs, because the only difference between HIV+ hemophiliacs and HIV- hemophiliacs would be the presence of the virus. In fact, if the researchers knew the approximate amount of Factor VIII used by each hemophiliac, they could just calculate the average amount of Factor VIII used by HIV+ and HIV- groups, and see if there was a significant difference (which there almost certainly would be!). Regards, David Crowe No, david, this is called trying to hide some trees in a forest. The goal of the exercise was to determine if aids was related to HIV infection independent of the amount of factor used. No one ever claimed that getting HIV infection was independent of factor usage (except for those dissidents from Perth who said it was never present there). The claim was that the development of AIDS was associated with being HIV positive. That claim was supported by the study. The paper stated quite clearly that the usage of Factor VIII was much higher (on average) in the HIV+ group. Therefore, it supports the argument that Factor VIII usage, by itself, can suppress the immune system and, quite possibly, cause the antibodies that are often called "HIV" antibodies to be produced. Regards, David Crowe
you are using the same correlational evidence that you descry when it is applied to the association of HIV and aids. The fact is that longitudinal study shows that, even when people with low factor VII (or transfusion volume) usage get HIV, they get aids and even people with high factor use (or transfusion volume) do not get aids if they do not get HIV (or HIV antibodies, if you prefer). You ignore the evidence that people who get transfusions get HIV if they have an HIV positive donor and not, regardless of how much blood they get. That mothers who do not transmit HIV to their young do not transmit AIDS. Your theory considers the development to be a necessary precursor of aids. It has to, to take account of the fact that seronegatives never get aids (using the pre 1987, HIV-free, definition) regardless of additional risk. You want to consider it an epiphenomenon, unrelated to the true risks. Unfortunately the data show that, whether or not HIV antibodies reflect what you think they do, people with the antibodies have a transmissible agent which causes recipients (of transfusions, needlesticks, or materernal blood) to develop HIV antibodies coexistning with the ability to subsequently transmit the agent (in the laboratory culture or to a third generation of host). There is considerable precedent for a virus doing such things, which I understand that you reject. You are, simply wrong and you are very wise in your argument (though foolish in your search for truth) to contiue to insist on nonexistant 1973 standards of viral isolation as grounds for proof of viral causation. The rest of us, unfortunately, have moved on. ISolation the sense you use (purification rather than separation from other infective agents) is not necessary for identification of a virus in 1998.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve; Please note that, in the study you quoted below, that: "Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group." This is called missing the forest for the trees. The study was obviously trying to find HIV+ hemophiliacs with the same amount of Factor VIII usage as HIV- hemophiliacs, in order to do their matching. Of course, if the hypothesis that the amount of Factor VIII usage correlates with likelihood of HIV+ status and progression to AIDS, this would be difficult to do …. which is precisely what they found. On the other hand, if HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, it should be easy to find matching hemophiliacs, because the only difference between HIV+ hemophiliacs and HIV- hemophiliacs would be the presence of the virus. In fact, if the researchers knew the approximate amount of Factor VIII used by each hemophiliac, they could just calculate the average amount of Factor VIII used by HIV+ and HIV- groups, and see if there was a significant difference (which there almost certainly would be!). Regards, David Crowe
No, david, this is called trying to hide some trees in a forest. The goal of the exercise was to determine if aids was related to HIV infection independent of the amount of factor used. No one ever claimed that getting HIV infection was independent of factor usage (except for those dissidents from Perth who said it was never present there). The claim was that the development of AIDS was associated with being HIV positive. That claim was supported by the study. Your criticism is invalid and your method of analysis inadequate. I suggest you reread my post to gross (below) on investigating the relation between 2 variables while removing the effect of the third. Just what these folks did. They just used matching as an alternative to stratification. Same prinicple. By stratifying or matching you remove a source of variation from the data. The method you suggest does not remove the effect of HIV to examine the role of factor use on development of aids, nor does it remove the effect of factor use to examine the role of HIV in the development of aids. It just produces more of the same confused correlations that Duesberg likes to quote. The study… BMJ 1996 Jan 27;312(7025):207-210 Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV positive men with haemophilia A. Sabin CA, Pasi KJ, Phillips AN, Lilley P, Bofill M, Lee CA Department of Public Health, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London. OBJECTIVE–To investigate the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immunodeficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia. DESIGN–A comparison of AIDS defining conditions and CD4 counts in HIV positive and HIV negative patients with haemophilia matched for usage of clotting factor concentrate. SETTING–A comprehensive care haemophilia centre. SUBJECTS–17 HIV positive and 17 HIV negative male patients with haemophilia A (age range 12-60 at beginning of study period) who had received similar amounts of clotting factor concentrate yearly over the years 1980-90. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES–Clinical events listed as AIDS defining in the Centers for Disease Control AIDS definition; CD4 lymphocyte counts; death. RESULTS–Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group. Between 1980 and 1990, 16 clinical events occurred in nine of the 17 HIV positive patients. No event occurred in the 17 HIV negative patients. In each pair the mean CD4 count during follow up was, on average, 0.5 x 10(9)/l lower in the HIV positive patient. CONCLUSION–Th- ese data reject the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immuno- deficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia. and my comment… With regard to the correlation issue, I hope that the following will make sense to you. As a hypothetical construct, consider the following to be the state of the world: Aids-related habit (ARH) is present in 90% of gay men AIDS is caused by AIDS-related virus (ARV). It is a sexually transmitted virus and is associated ARH such that about 25% of ARH- gays have ARV and 52% (makes for whole numbers elsewhere) of ARH+ gays are infected. If an unselected group of persons who are ARV+ are followed for 5 years 30% of them will develop AIDS. Now given the above, consider the following hypothetical study. 1000 gay men, free of aids and representative of the population described above, are enrolled in a prospective study. At entry they are tested for ARV and asked about their practice of ARH. They are followed for 5 years each. The distribution of ARH and ARV at entry, and the number of cases of AIDS that develop in each group under the assumptions above are given in the following table ARH ARV AIDS NoAIDS Total y y 143 332 475 y n 0 17 17 n y 8 425 433 n n 0 75 75 — 1000 Note first that the overwhelming majority of AIDS Cases are seen in those with ARH (143 of 151 cases). A non-expert would say that there is a strong correlation with ARH. The expert asks for a correlation coefficent. Based on the following table: aids+ aids- ARH+ 143 349 ARH- 8 500 The correlation coefficient is actually 0.38. It is highly statistically significant but it is not a huge correlation since correlations can take values between -1 and +1. Now it is necessary to adjust the correlation for the effects of ARH. This is done by making separate tables for those who are ARV+ and ARV-. These are shown below: ARV+ ARV- aids+ aids- aids+ aids- ARH+ 143 332 0 17 ARH- 8 425 0 75 Correlation Coefs: 0.38 0 (no cases of AIDS) Note that looking only among those with the virus shows the same association as in the whole group (it is actually less in the third decimal. The change is small because ARH is so prevalent in the group.) But note that the correlation does not exist among the arv uninfected people. Now if it were ARH and not ARV that was the cause of aids a different pattern would be seen. In particular if ARH was unrelated to AIDS the correlations would be similar in both groups when they are stratified by the presence or absence of ARV. Thus can correlations disprove a causal relation, even if they cannot prove that one exists. The above data is representative of the sort of analysis done in the studies I cited and which disprove duesbergs assertions about the association with drug use. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BMJ 1996 Jan 27;312(7025):207-210 Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV positive men with haemophilia A. Sabin CA, Pasi KJ, Phillips AN, Lilley P, Bofill M, Lee CA Department of Public Health, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London. OBJECTIVE–To investigate the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immunodeficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia. DESIGN–A comparison of AIDS defining conditions and CD4 counts in HIV positive and HIV negative patients with haemophilia matched for usage of clotting factor concentrate. SETTING–A comprehensive care haemophilia centre. SUBJECTS–17 HIV positive and 17 HIV negative male patients with haemophilia A (age range 12-60 at beginning of study period) who had received similar amounts of clotting factor concentrate yearly over the years 1980-90. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES–Clinical events listed as AIDS defining in the Centers for Disease Control AIDS definition; CD4 lymphocyte counts; death. RESULTS–Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group. Between 1980 and 1990, 16 clinical events occurred in nine of the 17 HIV positive patients. No event occurred in the 17 HIV negative patients. In each pair the mean CD4 count during follow up was, on average, 0.5 x 10(9)/l lower in the HIV positive patient. CONCLUSION–Th- ese data reject the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immuno- deficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia.
Response:
The Society has asked me to write to thank you for posting your critques of Goedert’s Lancet paper. Foley was really quite foolish to think that any one paper could be a definitive proof and you took excellent advantage of his lack of foresight.
Actually, Brian Foley sent me quite an extensive list of papers. I will be reviewing them as time permits. So I think your criticism of him is quite unwarranted. Furthermore, I did not claim that this was the only paper. However, when supplied with a list of papers that together are claimed to "refute Duesberg", I think I can be forgiven for assuming that each paper should refute at least one claim made by Duesberg, something that this paper did not do. Unfortunately a careless error by your research associate will probably nullify any effect of this post. Ovid, a good friend at the Biblioteque Nacional de Medicina, informs me that Goedert did, subsequently conduct an analysis by factor VIII dose, as well as the one by duration of use. In a letter to Lancet, a followup to the study of british deaths among hemophiliacs (You remember, the one that showed excess deaths among HIV positive hemphiliacs unrelated to the severity of the hemophilia), Goedert reported the following analysis…. Goedert, James J. Mortality and haemophilia. [Letter] Lancet. 346(8987):1425-1426, 1995 November 25.
I will read the paper (I have learned that too many people founder by reading only the abstracts, which often miss out the really good/embarassing parts of the paper), and respond. The Society believes that all of your other criticisms of the Goedert study, however valid in their application to the individual paper, will also be refuted by other data sources. We hope that you will take immediate steps to terminate your research assistant, with as much predjudice as you feel justified by this egregious error.
I think that your uncharacteristic descent into olde Englishe indicates that I must be hitting somewhat closer to the bone. I take that as a compliment and will give my research assistant a raise in pay. As soon as you have secured reliable assistance we would like you to turn your attention to another matter of even greater potential importance to the survival of the world as we know it. We are receiving increased reports from returning sailors that, from the top of their masts, the horizon appears curved. Moreover ships appear to disappear over the horizon hull first. We need you to develop clear physical explantions of this optical illusion so we can counter the idea that there is a curvature to the earth’s surface.
Funny how for a long time people thought that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the Piltdown man was a real fossil, that Scurvy and Pellagra were infectious diseases, that cold fusion was real. The only question is which is the flat earth society this time? Thank you again for your assistance in this matter. With all warmest regards I remain.. Your obd. ser. etc.
This is obedience? It sure is hard to get good help nowadays, eh! PS: I do hope I can figure out how to send this directly to you without it getting out to the newsgroup as a whole. These newfangled devices are a nuisance, aren’t they. Don’t you wish for the days of quills and inkwells too?
Well, I guess it made it to the newsgroup. If you ever need help using your computer, I’d be more than happy to write your postings for you 
Regards, David Crowe
Response:
(Snip) 3. What is most striking is that the most significant factor for the development of AIDS or death is … the use of AZT!
Hey genius boy- this is because only HIV+ are prescribed AZT! It is not surprising that those who are not HIV + (all of whom would be in the "no-AZT group") had little or no progression to AIDS. This is a great example why we need randomized clinical trials in order to safely infer causality. The risk of developing AIDS was between 2.4 and 8.2 times higher among hemophiliacs using AZT, and the risk of death was between 1.1 and 5.0 times higher. Ironically, the paper speculates that the increased risk associated with use of AZT was because hemophiliacs at greater risk of coming down with AIDS were first to be put on AZT. However, there is no evidence given to support this speculation,
Being HIV+ raise your risk of future AIDS by a very, very, large amount. Carlton
Response:
Steve; Please note that, in the study you quoted below, that: "Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group." This is called missing the forest for the trees. The study was obviously trying to find HIV+ hemophiliacs with the same amount of Factor VIII usage as HIV- hemophiliacs, in order to do their matching. Of course, if the hypothesis that the amount of Factor VIII usage correlates with likelihood of HIV+ status and progression to AIDS, this would be difficult to do …. which is precisely what they found. On the other hand, if HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, it should be easy to find matching hemophiliacs, because the only difference between HIV+ hemophiliacs and HIV- hemophiliacs would be the presence of the virus. In fact, if the researchers knew the approximate amount of Factor VIII used by each hemophiliac, they could just calculate the average amount of Factor VIII used by HIV+ and HIV- groups, and see if there was a significant difference (which there almost certainly would be!). Regards, David Crowe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BMJ 1996 Jan 27;312(7025):207-210 Comparison of immunodeficiency and AIDS defining conditions in HIV negative and HIV positive men with haemophilia A. Sabin CA, Pasi KJ, Phillips AN, Lilley P, Bofill M, Lee CA Department of Public Health, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London. OBJECTIVE–To investigate the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immunodeficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia. DESIGN–A comparison of AIDS defining conditions and CD4 counts in HIV positive and HIV negative patients with haemophilia matched for usage of clotting factor concentrate. SETTING–A comprehensive care haemophilia centre. SUBJECTS–17 HIV positive and 17 HIV negative male patients with haemophilia A (age range 12-60 at beginning of study period) who had received similar amounts of clotting factor concentrate yearly over the years 1980-90. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES–Clinical events listed as AIDS defining in the Centers for Disease Control AIDS definition; CD4 lymphocyte counts; death. RESULTS–Of 108 HIV positive male patients with haemophilia A, only 17 could be matched to an HIV negative patient. This was due to the much higher average usage of factor VIII in the HIV positive group. Between 1980 and 1990, 16 clinical events occurred in nine of the 17 HIV positive patients. No event occurred in the 17 HIV negative patients. In each pair the mean CD4 count during follow up was, on average, 0.5 x 10(9)/l lower in the HIV positive patient. CONCLUSION–Th- ese data reject the hypothesis that high usage of clotting factor concentrate, rather than HIV infection, is the cause of immuno- deficiency and AIDS in men with haemophilia.
Response:
(snip) Scumbag sellout.
Fred! how nice to have you back! your posts are as well-referenced, merticulously thought out, and on the point as ever. You give "ad-hominem" a turbo-charged tune up for the ’90s. Carlton
Response:
snip… Wrong. DNCB is the only treatment that causes remission of disease progression, however.
As I said, Frod supports only one dubious treatment. DNCB. He sells it. Sadly, it’s primary proponet, Raphael Stricker, has been convicted of fraud. Wrong. The only convict here is our resident heroin addict, George Mary Carter.
Coming from a raging alcoholic! BTW, Billi works for Stricker. All her articles were published with him. Birds of a feather. George M. Carter
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Speaking of science … you and the other pharma Pom-pom queens in this "newsgroup" better start warming some library seats with your cheap poodle skirts. Get busy, girls! Ahh, so you’re the moron ppl talk about here ;o) Greetings. I suggest YOU spend a few hours going over the past few weeks of postings here: we’ve demolished every dissident viewpoint presented to us, when we eventually got a chance to discuss it properly, instead of degenerating into flame wars as usual. Sadly, the Frod Show is incapable of anything but feeble flaming and twisted distortions of science.
Psychological projection is Carter’s only way of coping with the ugliness he greets in the mirror every pitiful morning. He supports only one treatment for AIDS, DNCB.
Wrong. DNCB is the only treatment that causes remission of disease progression, however. Sadly, it’s primary proponet, Raphael Stricker, has been convicted of fraud.
Wrong. The only convict here is our resident heroin addict, George Mary Carter. Here’s my entire response to Carter’s attacks on Stricker in snip… Billi posts the science, nothing else. Billi has published more scientific articles in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature than ANYONE you will find on these newsgroups. Carter has published nada. Zip. Nullo. Nothing. Actually I have had many articles published. My work, though, is not clinically oriented.
THAT, George Marie, is putting it in the VERY BEST possible light! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!! And at least I don’t work with people who have been found guilty of committing outright fraud!
George Marie, your paranoia is showing! The subject was Billi, not Stricker. But since YOU changed the "discussion", let’s go… I wish I DID work with Stricker! Unfortunately, I don’t, but in my book Stricker is a Super Hero who has suffered false charges and was punished to the extreme for daring to stray into DNCB research! People like George Mary Carter and Marty Delaney of Projekt MisInform are Pharma-bribed heroin addicts (Marty is a morphine addict, same as heroin) and sleazeballs who promote the mediocrity of the status quo while impersonating the anti-establishment "activism" in order to suck their pathetic living out of those who suffer the horrors of this disease. The imbeciles of Carter’s (and Marty Delaney’s) ilk DO NOT HAVE HIV (unfortunately… these bastards DESERVE to be the recipients of their own murderous rampage!). fred Interestingly, this IS a beautiful example of how the AIDS establishment fucks over researchers who stray from the lockstep mentality of the drug companies and the bureaucratic fascism of the Imperial National Institute of Health (esp the Sicilian-style management of Tony Fauci’s corrupt NIAID – National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the U.S. government’s institution to promote drug commerce based entirely on ANTI-science and the murder of homosexuals and minorities via human experimentation). If anyone dares to investigate the value of an unpatentable and unprofitable therapy that can stop AIDS progression in its tracks, they can expect an outcome similar to Stricker’s. Thanks George Mary, your goon squad tactics have once again blown up in your ugly, greedy, heroin-tortured and obnoxious NYC face. Thanks also go to Martin Delaney (Martooney Delooney), the sleazebag Direktor of Projekt (Mis)Inform, who graciously supplied Carter with the following information about Dr. Stricker. It offers a stern warning to anyone who dares to allow a sense of personal integrity to contaminate their drug company-funded "research"!!! fred Raphael B. Stricker, M.D., University of California at San Francisco An investigation conducted by the University found that Dr. Stricker falsified data for a manuscript and a PHS-supported publication reporting research on AIDS. In the manuscript, Dr. Stricker selectively suppressed data that did not support his hypothesis, and reported consistently positive data whereas only one of four experiments had produced positive results.
Excuse me, but "suppression" of data (especially the awful facts of basic science) that don’t support one’s hypothesis has become the STANDARD of drug research and the tactics of the sleazy Pharma goons that infest this newsgroup because that’s what they’re paid to do! In the publication, Dr. Stricker reported that an antibody was found in 29 of 30 homosexuals, but not found in non-homosexuals. However, Dr. Stricker
Question:
I’m just riffing from my own beliefs. I’m trying to spend less time online—all evidence (like this tremendously long post!) to the contrary ;)
Hi yer Sher, I was actually having a little curmudgeonly fun in my BAD MOOD. Whatever works for him is OK by me. I have to represent curmudgeons, it’s the job I was assigned. NMWFB
Response:
You are not a body, you are a beautiful spirit convinced that her nightmare is true. I say it is not. The pain and scars are seem real, that is the deception, to keep you angry at God. Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists.
This is exactly the obfuscation that gets me annoyed. Housekeep1? I am annoyed. This claptrap is annoying. For myself, I am in awe of the gift of my body that God gave to me. Every breath I take is a miracle that I know nothing of, but that I have been granted the privilege of enjoying this miracle as long as it remains alive. My spirit wants to know of this body while I am here. It IS my temple. My temple is real. My pain is a message. My body is a messenger. Who said pain and scars are an excuse to be mad at God? What is this crap? A " deception?" Puleeze. NMWFB
Response:
: I’m just riffing from my own beliefs. : I’m trying to spend less time online—all evidence (like this : tremendously long post!) to the contrary ;) : Hi yer Sher, : I was actually having a little curmudgeonly fun in : my BAD MOOD. Whatever works for him is OK by me. : I have to represent curmudgeons, it’s the job I was assigned. : NMWFB Damn— I hate it when that happens. When I’ve been taking a conversation seriously, only to find out it wasn’t really mutual. ick. And seriously (pun intended), you have every right to be joking and curmudgeonly. I’m not pissed about that, not angry at you or anything. I’m just embarrassed. Call it a trigger, I suppose. I hate being the one who’s too thick to know when to be light and joking. Too smart, too serious, too wrong for the world. That’s me…… Sherri (don’t mind me, I’ll get over myself soon enough)
Response:
I find it especially galling that, directly after apologizing to me about "putting on airs," you end up speaking to silverleafs all about how you know better than she does…
: and god/dess has pointed me to the wiccan rede, ‘an it harm none, do as ye : will.’ and the sevenfold law, that whatever i put into my life will come : back sevenfold. i’m very glad you’ve found a teaching that works for you, : but *please* try to understand that other people follow other teachings : that are *equally* valid. : Same teaching. Same teacher. Krishna said: : "I am in every religion as the thread through a string of pearls. Wherever thou : seest extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying : humanity, know thou that I am there." : Lord Krishna Just for the record, when someone’s "respect for other spiritual paths" seems to bottom line at the position "I respect your path because really you’re just on the way to My Truth, only you don’t know it yet"—– well, suffice to say, that doesn’t ring to me as sincere respect for religious diversity. Lip service to diversity that consists of proclaiming how everyone’s beliefs are all subsets of Housekeep’s beliefs….. That’s not diversity, that colonization. :) The glory is in the details…..nuances matter to me. : derision? no. weary frustration, yes. why does your way have to be the : only one? : Never said that. You’re saying it all over the place. :) : why does your heaven demand i be happy even if i’m not? : No demands, if you are not happy, you have the choice to remain so… or : change. To repeat myself….. Change is not instantaneous for everyone. To my eyes—and I have been priveledged to have silverleafs’ e-presence before mine eyes for some years now—silverleafs is making healing choices and healing changes in her life. Alas, this does *not* mean that all unhappiness has disappeared from her life. Would that it were so. This simplistic dichotomy of "choice" simply doesn’t account for the power of one’s unconscious (subconscious? never can remember which term applies) mind. And even when one *chooses* to heal, consciously *chooses* to work towards happiness, the subconscious wounds will continue to carry unhappiness until _there has been enough time for them to heal_. If silverleafs has unhappiness in her life—if I have unhappiness in my life—it is not simply because we are choosing to remain unhappy. Even if we are choosing healing it takes TIME. : no. the real world is a beautiful place where both beautiful and horrific : things can happen. the real world is filtering pale sunlight through : golden leaves in my backyard. it’s also the place where i was raped by : both my parents. don’t tell my what my world is. : You are not a body, you are a beautiful spirit convinced that her nightmare is : true. I say it is not. The pain and scars are seem real, that is the deception, : to keep you angry at God. Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal : exists. You see, here you go, collapsing all things into "Housekeep’s Truth" again. This "you are not your body" thing is your cosmography. I can’t speak for silverleafs, but I know it sure isn’t mine. For starters, implying that the wounds caused by parent-rape are merely physical is just colossally ignorant. Most people I’ve checked with attest that in their own lives, the experience wounds both body and spirit. Never mind the fact that I *don’t* discount the body or the material plane. If the material weren’t important, I wouldn’t have a material manifestation. In other words: since I am in bodily form, I consider that form to be important. Not the be-all and end-all, since I am also intellect and spirit. But I am body, too. So even if the wounds of rape *were* only body-wounds, they would still deserve time and attention to heal. Let me reaffirm: I have no wish to alter your cosmography, no desire to tell you how you’re just really in my worldview only you won’t admit it. Your beliefs bring you joy, and I’m glad for you. I am perfectly capable of allowing you your joy even though your spirituality is not mine. All of which means, of course, that I am once again affording you more respect than you’re affording me…. 
Sherri
Response:
I hate it when that happens. When I’ve been taking a conversation seriously, only to find out it wasn’t really mutual. ick.
It IS mutual. We do not need to "match" emotional states. I am serious and humorous at the same time, it can be thus. Ask, averti. Please do not be embarrassed, please, please? And seriously (pun intended), you have every right to be joking and curmudgeonly. I’m not pissed about that, not angry at you or anything. I’m just embarrassed. Call it a trigger, I suppose. I hate being the one who’s too thick to know when to be light and joking. Too smart, too serious, too wrong for the world. That’s me…… Sherri (don’t mind me, I’ll get over myself soon enough)
We need smart and serious, there is a lot of witless idiocy in this world. We need all of us. I personally like uptight people. I imagine them courtly and deep, and deep-down passionate. Are you uptight? I am, around witless idiocy, particularly drunk ones. I use my uptightness as a humorous counterpoint. " Heeeeyyy, heey, HEY, whashoo doinck hic heeere, ishn’t thish great, or what, heeyy, yer lookihngh goot, I need a drink?" " Awaiting the end of your sentence with bated breath." " Naw, you dongh haff bad breadth." " Thanks." NMWFB
Response:
: derision? no. weary frustration, yes. why does your way have to be the : only one? : Never said that. no, you didn’t, and i apologize for saying you did. i have a certain amount of emotional baggage regarding religious intolerance, and i projected that on you. i’m sorry. : why does your heaven demand i be happy even if i’m not? : No demands, if you are not happy, you have the choice to remain so… or : change. this is too black and white for me. i can just choose to be happy? don’t you think i’d do it if i could? i can’t and WON’T pretend that i’m feeling something i don’t. yes, i take responsibility for what i feel, but i *also* take responsibility for being completely honest about those feelings. i’ve had enough people tell me how to feel and why to feel it that i really don’t listen to those lines anymore. : You are not a body, you are a beautiful spirit convinced that her nightmare is : true. I say it is not. The pain and scars are seem real, that is the deception, : to keep you angry at God. Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal : exists. these are *your* beliefs. they are not mine. and quite frankly, i am much more qualified to judge what i am, what my pain and scars are, and whether or not i’m angry at god. you don’t ask, you state. i’m not angry at the gods. i believe that they are part of my life and i am part of theirs. and your last statement is another belief that you state as fact. would it be so painful for you to talk about your beliefs as pertaining to YOU instead of *telling* me what i am? what incredible annoying arrogance. : i don’t want to enter heaven. i want to exist in my NOW. : The Universe has been created in EXACT accordance to your desire. When you are : tired of your NOW, check out Valhalla. i haven’t asked you to teach me. so shove it. if you want to discuss your beliefs, i’m willing to do that, which is why i wrote in the first place. i am not willing to be your loving disciple while you fill me in on what the universe really is. YOU DON’T KNOW. you BELIEVE. silverleaf — Nobody’s home, even if someone is.
Response:
Sherri thank you so, so much for this. you said so very well what i felt in response to this post, and with greater clarity than i could manage. and you said some things that i really needed to hear about me just now. lookit that, divinity expressed by mortality. *teary grin* *hugs* silverleafs — Nobody’s home, even if someone is.
Response:
what incredible annoying arrogance. i am not willing to be your loving disciple while you fill me in on what the universe really is. YOU DON’T KNOW. you BELIEVE. silverleaf
Yay! I was glad to see you stand up to that stifling yap. NMWFB ( ! )
Response:
I am overwhelmed, lack the wisdom to offer counsel, and find myself unable to muster simple speech.
Well welcome to The Predicament. We are all overwhelmed, the more confident counsel gets rightly shot-down, and wisdom is often in short supply. Not being able to speak in such circumstances, is evidence of most excellent wisdom. ( Too many continue to blather when clueless….) I am very proud of you for what you have done and excited for you that you have the strength and courage it took to do this. While difficult and painful, this is healthy. The demon’s roots wither significantly.
I will admit that I am in a deep battle with myself and my perceptions. The demon only withers when brought to the light of day. I fear I have a well-dressed dapper funny wealthy successful caring demon who hides magnificently a filthy furious deadly secret on my account. I must find the truth. NMWFB
Response:
i believe divinity is real, but rather than giving me a flying rope ladder out of my life, i believe it leads me *into* my life, helps me learn the lessons of this life,
Flying rope ladders suck. You are right. The work is here. Now. NMWFB
Response:
I am once again affording you more respect than you’re affording me….
I apologize. I intend no lack in my respect toward you or any. I shall try to take my clues, with regard to respect, from the regulars who post here. Eternal Joy, Housekeep Stuart Smalley (and other great .wav files) http://members.aol.com/housekeep1/sounds/soundb.htm
Response:
Hi friend, Oh, it is simple when you have figured it all out like a third grader. NMWFB yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and karmagirl and jeeco and jaffa and rosee and Freida and matty (and I know where Alan is, compressed vertebrae,) and scamper and James, how is it going? and Kennet& when I need you?
I am here. Just say the word. Hugs if you will receive them, from my heart ((((((((((NMWFB)))))))))) Scamper
Response:
cha cha boom, a canuck loon cha cha boom spike is in the room. My mail box is rusty, rust never sleeps. you can always email me, i won’t be a creep. Oh there are 2 very good programs mirc and irq, perhaps you should get them? They are easy to use and very small in size. Great for communication! Spike, at you service. p.s. "go leafs go" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – hiya nem. i’m here. i have court starting on monday, so i’m a wee bit… insular and disjointed. but if you need me, call. like you just did. what can i do for you? silverleaf — Nobody’s home, even if someone is.
Response:
it sounds like you had a very hard time, and i regret that we have that in common.
As do I. and god/dess has pointed me to the wiccan rede, ‘an it harm none, do as ye will.’ and the sevenfold law, that whatever i put into my life will come back sevenfold. i’m very glad you’ve found a teaching that works for you, but *please* try to understand that other people follow other teachings that are *equally* valid.
Same teaching. Same teacher. Krishna said: "I am in every religion as the thread through a string of pearls. Wherever thou seest extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know thou that I am there." Lord Krishna so what you’re saying is that you’re not joyful? because certainly there will always be people that don’t share your joy, that don’t agree with your teachings, don’t find the personal worth in them that you do.
No, some day, when Time is over, all Life shall recall that It is holy and It is One. Then our Joy shall be complete. derision? no. weary frustration, yes. why does your way have to be the only one?
Never said that. why does your heaven demand i be happy even if i’m not?
No demands, if you are not happy, you have the choice to remain so… or change. no. the real world is a beautiful place where both beautiful and horrific things can happen. the real world is filtering pale sunlight through golden leaves in my backyard. it’s also the place where i was raped by both my parents. don’t tell my what my world is.
You are not a body, you are a beautiful spirit convinced that her nightmare is true. I say it is not. The pain and scars are seem real, that is the deception, to keep you angry at God. Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists. i don’t want to enter heaven. i want to exist in my NOW.
The Universe has been created in EXACT accordance to your desire. When you are tired of your NOW, check out Valhalla. annoying God-troll, moving in Muhahahaha Eternal Joy, Housekeep http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/library/deterior.htm
Response:
And, of course, to get really accurate, I should be called pagan rather than heathen, but somehow I think that Housekeep would collapse all alternate spiritualities under the rubric "heathen" anyhoo…..
Not so, all paths to God are good, please refer to: http://members.aol.com/amminadab/temple.htm What rings up my suspicion flag here is the implicit disavowal of trouble in his life. As I have been discussing in other threads, shit does indeed happen, and it happens to those joyous people I know, and they make no effort to conceal that shit happens, they simply manage to get out of the shit quickly with grace and good humour.
Yes, this is called Life, and for me, Life is joyful. That even though he took this counter-intuitive risk: giving up the high powered career, etc., things still worked out okay?
The risk was phoney. I gave up nothing to gain everything. But my vision of things is that altruism needs to be balanced with self-care.
We are very close. Imagine that you… are the planet…manifesting as Sherri… to enjoy the Totality of what you are. Now when you clean up the beach or feed your sisters and brothers, you ARE caring for yourself. Jesus taught such. So, I dunno. Maybe "God" (whichever God we’re talking about now; I’m not sure *wink*) didn’t say once-a-month altruism is okay. But I’m not sure he set a specific schedule. Did he, and I missed it? :)
God is One. God did set up a schedule, whenever one encounters a need, she has a choice to either fill this need or believe that she is less than what she truly is, and follow the path of selfishness and littleness. Oh, same for men. If those are the boundaries on "God’s joy," then actually, no, I’m not sharing it, because I’m finding my spirituality and joy over in the New Age/Wiccan paradigm.
All paths to God are good. And, alas, if Housekeep’s joy, or if Housekeep’s God’s joy, is dependent on *my* spiritual conversion, he’s out of luck.
The Joy of the Whole is incomplete without your Song. This is not platitude, it is Truth. I’m really torn here. Yes, i think it’s troublesome, the way Housekeep presented this—it implies a type of exclusivity, with him as the chosen, and the rest of us as somehow lesser.
Bow to my Presence!! …I find that my instinctive rebuttal to Housekeep is an assertion that we all are special, rather than a move to assert how unspecial he is.
The Truth about you is so lofty, that nothing unworthy of the Goddess, is worthy of you. However appalling I found the elitism to be, I also envied that sense of confidence in "God’s love" or what-have-you, and I despaired ever having that sort of peace and confidence in my own self.
Elitism implies exclusivity. What I have received, I gladly offer to each who would receive. And I still find the elitism here to be untenable. But, I guess I’m actually one-upping on the superiority scale, because I do have a passing sense of connection to the divine, and I manage to feel that connection without having to claim exclusivity of connection.
You are holy, you are holiness itself. Created in the very Image of God and given Life with Her very Breath. You are holy for who you are, there is nothing you can do to change who you are. I’m just smart enough to know that what’s easy for me might *not* be easy for someone else, so I try not to make sweeping pronouncements about something being "incredibly simple."
I apologize. It is not my intent to "put on airs." What is easy now, was not easy at first. Explore with your mind, leave your body behind. annoying God-troll, moving in Muhahahaha Eternal Joy, Housekeep http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/library/deterior.htm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] NMWFB yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and karmagirl and jeeco and jaffa and rosee and Freida and matty (and I know where Alan is, compressed vertebrae,) and scamper and James, how is it going? and Kennet& when I need you? I’m here, all you gotta do is whistle 
) (or email !) jaffa And a rock feels no pain. And an island never cries. Thank-you, jaffa. I botched my registry, errored all these faults and exceptions and I DON"T NEED MY COMPUTER REJECTING ME! I lost my favorite desk top! I lost my little Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy wav. Life is SO COLD now. NMWFB
Aha ! Now I can play my CDs and use the computer at the same time I’ve freed myself of the tyranny of the personal desktop. I use the standard ‘blue sky’ wallpaper and no screensaver, but the CD starts up automatically…… I’d send you the .wav if I had it, but I don’t ( Having said that, last week I created an extra two days of work for myself by overwriting a file i’d been working on at home. I *hate* that……. jaffa And a rock feels no pain. And an island never cries.
Response:
: Where do I start? I was two-years old and in the hospital dying of spinal : meningitis when my dad left my mom. My older brother and sister and I, grew up : in the housing project while mom tried to provide our needs it sounds like you had a very hard time, and i regret that we have that in common. : My wife went to work at a preschool for low income families, I stayed home with : the kids, and baby sat my niece and two nephews. God pointed me to the "Sermon : on the Moun.t" and god/dess has pointed me to the wiccan rede, ‘an it harm none, do as ye will.’ and the sevenfold law, that whatever i put into my life will come back sevenfold. i’m very glad you’ve found a teaching that works for you, but *please* try to understand that other people follow other teachings that are *equally* valid. : God still won’t leave me alone. How can I be joyful when there is even one : brother that does not share this joy? How can God’s Joy be complete, when all : creation does not share it? These are not "Asshole Housekeep’s" questions. : These are thoughts God brings to me every night, every night. so what you’re saying is that you’re not joyful? because certainly there will always be people that don’t share your joy, that don’t agree with your teachings, don’t find the personal worth in them that you do. : So I come here, to face your certain derision. My message is simple: derision? no. weary frustration, yes. why does your way have to be the only one? why does your heaven demand i be happy even if i’m not? : God is real and He Loves you, and He has given you a way out, but only when : you’re ready. i believe divinity is real, but rather than giving me a flying rope ladder out of my life, i believe it leads me *into* my life, helps me learn the lessons of this life, helps me suvive the unsurvivable, helps me believe in a pattern that is greater than i can see. but this is MY belief, and i don’t expect anyone else to share it, because i believe all people find their own path to divinity, that every path is valid, whether or not i want to walk it. i don’t want to walk yours, but that doesn’t mean i don’t have divinity in my life. : The real world is a beautiful place with never-ending Joy. no. the real world is a beautiful place where both beautiful and horrific things can happen. the real world is filtering pale sunlight through golden leaves in my backyard. it’s also the place where i was raped by both my parents. don’t tell my what my world is. : To enter heaven, you must be willing to leave hell. That is all, incredibly : simple. i don’t want to enter heaven. i want to exist in my NOW. silverleaf — Nobody’s home, even if someone is.
Response:
Snipped the fun part! NMWFB yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and karmagirl and jeeco and jaffa and rosee and Freida and matty (and I know where Alan is, compressed vertebrae,) and scamper and James, how is it going? and Kennet& when I need you?
I am here. It is indeed nice to see you back! You do have such clear vision and a healthily *direct* lucid way of communicating. I enjoyed your reply. I have been a bit down lately. I find the pain I hear in this group simply overwhelming and I feel the pain and it leaves me sick and mute. I wanted to respond to you before you went but I could say nothing. I feel very bad for this and hoped you knew I was with you for support. I am having a hard time mentally and emotionally with what I know and continue to learn of this demon which can so easily and reliably distort reality 180 degrees out of phase. The good is seen as evil. The blameless blame themselves. Those who need to trust most cannot. Those who need to enjoy life the most cannot. Those who need love the most cannot. Those who most need to be positive cannot. Self-respect morphs to self-destruction. I could go on but I can not begin to comprehend. All things good in life seem inverse once this demon has planted it’s seed. I am overwhelmed, lack the wisdom to offer counsel, and find myself unable to muster simple speech. I am very proud of you for what you have done and excited for you that you have the strength and courage it took to do this. While difficult and painful, this is healthy. The demon’s roots wither significantly. Yes! There. I have done it. Now to press Send. James
Response:
[...] NMWFB yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and karmagirl and jeeco and jaffa and rosee and Freida and matty (and I know where Alan is, compressed vertebrae,) and scamper and James, how is it going? and Kennet& when I need you?
I’m here, all you gotta do is whistle ) (or email !) jaffa And a rock feels no pain. And an island never cries.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] NMWFB yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and karmagirl and jeeco and jaffa and rosee and Freida and matty (and I know where Alan is, compressed vertebrae,) and scamper and James, how is it going? and Kennet& when I need you? I’m here, all you gotta do is whistle ) (or email !) jaffa And a rock feels no pain. And an island never cries.
Thank-you, jaffa. I botched my registry, errored all these faults and exceptions and I DON"T NEED MY COMPUTER REJECTING ME! I lost my favorite desk top! I lost my little Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy wav. Life is SO COLD now. NMWFB
Response:
hiya nem. i’m here. i have court starting on monday, so i’m a wee bit… insular and disjointed. but if you need me, call. like you just did. what can i do for you? silverleaf — Nobody’s home, even if someone is.
Response:
: I was amazed. How had this wonderful teaching remained hidden from mankind. I : was on a mission. I started using whatever extra money I could find to print : up this teaching and distrubute it to whoever wanted. It gave my life purpose. : And you can lead the unwashed to water, but you can’t make them bathe. Hey! Who ‘ya calling unwashed?! *GRIN* I prefer the appelation "freshly showered heathen" to "unwashed heathen" any day. And, of course, to get really accurate, I should be called pagan rather than heathen, but somehow I think that Housekeep would collapse all alternate spiritualities under the rubric "heathen" anyhoo….. : My life is peaceful, nearly perfect, almost holy. : And my biggest suspicion is your need to tell us about it. Most of the : truly joyful angels of God I have had the pleasure to know are utterly : transparent in their ministry. It’s not so much the telling me about it—I have known people with a great inner joy that *do* make a conscious effort at ministry, and that’s okay by me as long as they know when to lay off. What rings up my suspicion flag here is the implicit disavowal of trouble in his life. As I have been discussing in other threads, shit does indeed happen, and it happens to those joyous people I know, and they make no effort to conceal that shit happens, they simply manage to get out of the shit quickly with grace and good humour. : I have everything a man could want except money. : ( and tact ) : I raise my kids and nephews, my wife works for the preschool, : while I keep the house. My family is happy, polite, respectful and : joyful. We have no fears, : Oh, well, thank-you for sharing. Your point? That even though he took this counter-intuitive risk: giving up the high powered career, etc., things still worked out okay? For whatever else is in this post, I’m not sure that’s such a bad parable. Goddess knows, I get no end of parental shit because I’m getting a PhD in the humanities instead of doing something "really lucrative" like an MBA or computer sciences. Because they don’t *get* that there’s more to a joyful life than the bank account, the summer houses and the country club. : God always comes through with the rent, I gave away our $2000 : security system, we don’t even lock our doors because there is : a halo around our house. : Well isn’t that special? I don’t lock mine because I have given myself : to my fellow journeyers on this planet. If they really want my stuff, : they can have it. I *do* lock mine (and I have a security system, natch) because I’m in the middle of a city and I value my safety, my dog’s safety, and my stuff enough to protect it as best I can. Not that locking my doors is any guarantee, and I know that. But, hey, last I heard, "Gods help those who help themselves" was as common a theology as any other….. : We give whenever asked, we feed the homeless once a : month, and we always, ALWAYS, go out of our way if we can help somebody. : This is utter tripe. The second you start grandstanding your : " altruism" you are scum in the eyes of the Lord. : God did not say," once a month " is okey dokey. I’m not going to take the opportunity to catalog what little charity/ activism I do—it’s not as much as it should be, I often feel. But my vision of things is that altruism needs to be balanced with self-care. Just a couple days ago, I was talking to a female friend (another survivor) about a mutual guy friend of ours. The survivor was comparing herself to him, saying "Unlike lazy me, he’s continued his political activism during grad school." Whereupon I reminded her that *he* didn’t have the added burden of recovery work to do. So, I dunno. Maybe "God" (whichever God we’re talking about now; I’m not sure *wink*) didn’t say once-a-month altruism is okay. But I’m not sure he set a specific schedule. Did he, and I missed it? :) You do what you can. : Of course we can’t find a church that will accept us, but that’s another story. : No, it is NOT another story, it is part and parcel of your : pollyanna predicament. Your post has given you away. Yeah, it’s part of the story. : How can God’s Joy be complete, when all : creation does not share it? : Because we DO all share it. Joy and Despair are part of the same : Universe, both are equally important. And we ARE all sharing it, so : relax you hypocritical snake, you can be joyful just because you want : to be joyful. Yuck! What a sentence, " How can I be joyful when there : is even one brother that does not share this joy?" Well, it depends on how narrow your definition of "God" is. As far as I can tell, Housekeep’s working from some sort of Christian/ Course in Miracles perspective. If those are the boundaries on "God’s joy," then actually, no, I’m not sharing it, because I’m finding my spirituality and joy over in the New Age/Wiccan paradigm. And, alas, if Housekeep’s joy, or if Housekeep’s God’s joy, is dependent on *my* spiritual conversion, he’s out of luck. : " God still won’t leave me alone." ( "hahaha i’m so Special!!" ) : What a bunch of puke. I’m really torn here. Yes, i think it’s troublesome, the way Housekeep presented this—it implies a type of exclusivity, with him as the chosen, and the rest of us as somehow lesser. On the other hand, and maybe it’s just because I’m feeling a small portion of inner peace this afternoon, I find that my instinctive rebuttal to Housekeep is an assertion that we all are special, rather than a move to assert how unspecial he is. I’m just speaking for myself here—I’m not exactly the arbiter of proper behavior. This comes solely out of my own history. I used to get a lot more angry and upset about these sorts of "I am of the Elite" statements, and looking back, I see that part of what drove my anger was envy mixed with despair. However appalling I found the elitism to be, I also envied that sense of confidence in "God’s love" or what-have-you, and I despaired ever having that sort of peace and confidence in my own self. And I still find the elitism here to be untenable. But, I guess I’m actually one-upping on the superiority scale, because I do have a passing sense of connection to the divine, and I manage to feel that connection without having to claim exclusivity of connection. : These are not "Asshole Housekeep’s" questions. : These are thoughts God brings to me every night, every night. : So I come here, to face your certain derision. : The only certainty of "derision" is in your own mind. I could be : weeping the tears of Christ Himself, right now, for you, and you would : not know the difference. The True Spirits, my friend, are far less : interested in proselytizing the " message" than SHARING IT by means of : listening, touch, time, and love. quietly Hopefully I haven’t preached too much here for your tastes. Believe it when I say that conversion and proselytizing aren’t my goals; I’m just riffing from my own beliefs. : My message is simple: : God is real and He Loves you, and He has given you a way out, but only when : you’re ready. : And maybe He/She has given me a way IN, too. For fuck’s sakes, just : because you have a little warm fart of an idea about how this all : works, please don’t get too excited about ramming it down our throats. : We have had enough of that already, I assure you. Never mind the narrowness of A Way Out, singular. I don’t believe that at all. :) We are all so unique, that I imagine many ways, all worthwhile. I suppose that somewhere at the base of it all, those different paths *might* have the same foundation (I’m not even sure about that, really, but it’s possible), but getting to that commonality would look very much like Schenkerian analysis, where Mvmt. 1 of the "Eroica" ends up being boiled down to a mi-re-do descent…. *shudder* I prefer a little more nuance, detail, and diversity in my world, thank ye kindly. : The real world is a beautiful place with never-ending Joy. : This sounds like exhausting Hell. It depends on how you conceptualize Joy. I’ve been doing some reading the last couple months (New Age stuff), and a few of these authors are using a conceptualization of joy that makes sense to me. It has to do with a difference between joy and happiness. In this sense, joy incorporates the knowledge that bad things happen: bad hair days, menstrual cramps, IRS audits, my family history, etc. But joy also incorporates a sense of faith/confidence/what-have-you: a knowledge that, when these bad things happen, you have the inner resources to persevere and triumph. Not to say I’m there yet—far from it. But that sort of joy, well, I could see myself working towards that….. : To enter heaven, you must be willing to leave hell. That is all, incredibly : simple. : Oh, it is simple when you have figured it all out like a third grader. Well, certain things *are* that simple for some people. It all comes back to individuality. Maybe all Housekeep needs to make the trip from hell to heaven is one conscious moment of choice. Bully for him. We all have things like that. For me, needlework comes that naturally. What else? Um, when you were asking about pre-verbal memories, how to find them, I was unable to answer you because it was easy for me—I just let myself cry a bunch and there they were: old feelings, taste memories. I’m just smart enough to know that what’s easy for me might *not* be easy for someone else, so I try not to make sweeping pronouncements about something being "incredibly simple." : NMWFB : yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and : silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and : Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and … read more »
Response:
I was amazed. How had this wonderful teaching remained hidden from mankind. I was on a mission. I started using whatever extra money I could find to print up this teaching and distrubute it to whoever wanted. It gave my life purpose.
And you can lead the unwashed to water, but you can’t make them bathe. My life is peaceful, nearly perfect, almost holy.
And my biggest suspicion is your need to tell us about it. Most of the truly joyful angels of God I have had the pleasure to know are utterly transparent in their ministry. I have everything a man could want except money.
( and tact ) I raise my kids and nephews, my wife works for the preschool, while I keep the house. My family is happy, polite, respectful and joyful. We have no fears,
Oh, well, thank-you for sharing. Your point? God always comes through with the rent, I gave away our $2000 security system, we don’t even lock our doors because there is a halo around our house.
Well isn’t that special? I don’t lock mine because I have given myself to my fellow journeyers on this planet. If they really want my stuff, they can have it. We give whenever asked, we feed the homeless once a month, and we always, ALWAYS, go out of our way if we can help somebody.
This is utter tripe. The second you start grandstanding your " altruism" you are scum in the eyes of the Lord. God did not say," once a month " is okey dokey. Of course we can’t find a church that will accept us, but that’s another story.
No, it is NOT another story, it is part and parcel of your pollyanna predicament. Your post has given you away. God still won’t leave me alone. How can I be joyful when there is even one brother that does not share this joy? How can God’s Joy be complete, when all creation does not share it?
Because we DO all share it. Joy and Despair are part of the same Universe, both are equally important. And we ARE all sharing it, so relax you hypocritical snake, you can be joyful just because you want to be joyful. Yuck! What a sentence, " How can I be joyful when there is even one brother that does not share this joy?" " God still won’t leave me alone." ( "hahaha i’m so Special!!" )
What a bunch of puke. These are not "Asshole Housekeep’s" questions. These are thoughts God brings to me every night, every night. So I come here, to face your certain derision.
The only certainty of "derision" is in your own mind. I could be weeping the tears of Christ Himself, right now, for you, and you would not know the difference. The True Spirits, my friend, are far less interested in proselytizing the " message" than SHARING IT by means of listening, touch, time, and love. quietly My message is simple: God is real and He Loves you, and He has given you a way out, but only when you’re ready.
And maybe He/She has given me a way IN, too. For fuck’s sakes, just because you have a little warm fart of an idea about how this all works, please don’t get too excited about ramming it down our throats. We have had enough of that already, I assure you. The real world is a beautiful place with never-ending Joy.
This sounds like exhausting Hell. To enter heaven, you must be willing to leave hell. That is all, incredibly simple.
Oh, it is simple when you have figured it all out like a third grader. NMWFB yes, I am in a bad mood, so what? so where’s Crisis and averti and silverleaf and Laurie S. and fakefur and Ally and Spike and Mick and Sherri and Seraphina and Panther and Angelita and karmagirl and jeeco and jaffa and rosee and Freida and matty (and I know where Alan is, compressed vertebrae,) and scamper and James, how is it going? and Kennet& when I need you?
Response:
Your life was so fuckin’ beutiful, man! My life sucks big
Grandma’s house was two weeks of my life. I didn’t have it near as bad as you did, but, I was a kid and it was plenty bad: [WARNING - Following this warning is some blatant website advertising, talk about God, advocacy of insanity, and probably a whole lot more about me than any of you really want to know. Remember, it is your decision to read further] Where do I start? I was two-years old and in the hospital dying of spinal meningitis when my dad left my mom. My older brother and sister and I, grew up in the housing project while mom tried to provide our needs (there weren’t too many social services for single moms in the early 60’s) Today, one of my most vivid memories is watching my mom search for edible vegetables in the dumpster behind Safeway. When I was 7, mom married an abusive man who tried to rape my sister and gave me a serious addiction to pornography. My brother left for the army, my sister ran away, and I stayed with mom, we did the best we could. I was always an excellent student and possessed a quick wit and talent to entertain. I believed in the American dream and set out to improve my life situation. <snip Have you ever seen "The Last Temptation of Christ"? In the beginning of this movie, Jesus is tormented by God trying to get his attention. Again and again, God pushes Him, and Jesus just yells, "Leave me alone!" This is my experience. 3 years ago I find myself married with two children and a successful career as the Branch Manager of a Home Security System sales organization, making $60,000 base plus overides, bonus and commissions, and working 90 hours a week. God intervenes(again) and gets my attention. We had money, but my family was still without a father. I made money by appealing to the greed of my company and sales department. Our sales were made by scaring families enough that they bought our system. God opened my eyes to this grave error. So I quit my job, just walked away. My wife went to work at a preschool for low income families, I stayed home with the kids, and baby sat my niece and two nephews. God pointed me to the "Sermon on the Moun.t" http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/temple/christn/sermon.htm I was amazed. How had this wonderful teaching remained hidden from mankind. I was on a mission. I started using whatever extra money I could find to print up this teaching and distrubute it to whoever wanted. It gave my life purpose. When my church asked me to give the message one Lent, I was going to read "Sermon on the Mount" for how could I improve on it — I was told it was too much scripture for church. So I told "My Story." http://members.aol.com/fridgeart1/thoughts/mystory.htm We were all but excommunicated. About this time, I was led to "A Course In Miracles" at the library. http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/temple/newage/acim1.htm I understood immediately. It made perfect sense. I completed the workbook my first attempt without ever missing a day. The Course explained the Holy Instants that I had experienced many times in many ways. <snip My life is peaceful, nearly perfect, almost holy. I have everything a man could want except money. I raise my kids and nephews, my wife works for the preschool, while I keep the house. My family is happy, polite, respectful and joyful. We have no fears, God always comes through with the rent, I gave away our $2000 dollar security system, we don’t even lock our doors because there is a halo around our house. We give whenever asked, we feed the homeless once a month, and we always, ALWAYS, go out of our way if we can help somebody. Of course we can’t find a church that will accept us, but that’s another story. God still won’t leave me alone. How can I be joyful when there is even one brother that does not share this joy? How can God’s Joy be complete, when all creation does not share it? These are not "Asshole Housekeep’s" questions. These are thoughts God brings to me every night, every night. So I come here, to face your certain derision. My message is simple: God is real and He Loves you, and He has given you a way out, but only when you’re ready. Remember when Riker couldn’t determine whether he was in the play or the institution? The real world is a beautiful place with never-ending Joy. To enter heaven, you must be willing to leave hell. That is all, incredibly simple. seeds planted, moving on Peace forever, Housekeep http://members.aol.com/amminadab1/library/godmemo.htm
Response:
Grandma’s House I was thinking today about Grandma
Question:
The Dark Lodge is waiting for you to discover it.
cool. and Vaughan, he doesn’t mean anything horrible by dark lodge he means remember your Mother.
Response:
The early Nazis exhibited "back to the woods" tendancies from early on. They thought that working on the land was the ultimate existance, and they wanted more land for that purpose. They tolerated no other viewpoint, and they were fiercely undemocratic. Sound familiar?
And they did not advocate protecting the land did they. The back to the land idea is an idea about the historic past and its vital relation to the people. People had to get out of the soft cities and experience the tough relaties of nature. It was an idea expressed by all sorts of Germans (Wagner). It had nothing to do with loving or protecting nature. It had to do with remoulding the German people. The American Boy Scouts is a similar Paramilitary group! So is the Universalist church in Montana. It is hardly ecofriendly! I don’t care if you don’t like the analogy, but it should make you think if you believe in a reasonably free and just society. Single-issue politics are inherently undemocratic, and a scenario exists where it could fatally undermine our current freedoms. I have noticed that many people on this newsgroup are anarchists, but thats fine in a country like the UK. NOBODY STOPS YOU. How many anarchists are tolerated in one-party states?
Another totally undeomocartic force in America is foreigh policy conduct. Actually the eco-freaks are very diverse and fragmented. It shows in their ability to get things done. So it is hardly one issue or monolithic!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — is this new group to be used for co-ordinating the burning of crops? burning of crops? i didn’t sugest that, Vaughan did! jim This sort of thing has already started. Do you think branding GE crops as the most evil thing since the Plague is unlikely to influence a few of the more easily led? It seems some people prefer to agitate and manipulate from the safety of their own homes, and let others carry the can.
quite, old boy. you have quite a fervent imagination tending towards well, destruction of (GE) crops. on the one hand maybe i think the goddess works through the most unusual channels. If you want to incite burning of GE crops Vaughan who am i to stop you? you even have the backing of royality!, I think Vaughan sees only what he wants to see. Prattle on and on while the planets burns is what i meant you old s-striirrer! anyway rest easy Vaughan you probably have the money to procure your own oxygen supplies when the air becomes so polluted with the products of industrial culture that it becomes unbreathable. If not, and if you value life on Earth, we really have to step back from this economic growth consumer culture that is running rampant over the Earth destroying life systems like a pathogenic bacteria. You could say that GEcrop markers are merely full-on white cells ov the Earth’s immune system. Talking to Mrs Jones , a claiment adviser at Llangefni Jobcentre about plans for a community owned and managed fruit, nut and native tree woodland she could see exactly the vision i am describing. In fact it was her who said, ‘we need to return to living in small self-sufficient communities where everyone knows everyone else’ Plans are progressing for the community wood, the edible and useful products of which shall be shared through the community of Talwrn. Perhaps, as aan ex captain of industry with green credentials you feel able and willing to share some of your wealth to enable purshase of the land (price 8000 quid for 6 acres). If we carry on the way we are in the mainstream here in the ‘west’ we all die. we have to change and live in balance with Mother Earth.
Response:
BTW, there was a good article in the Economist the other day drawing the parallels between Enviromentalists and the early Nazis. Do you wonder why the more aware think you need watching? More aware of what? And who will watch the watchers?
Paranoid. You watch people don’t you. This newsgroup is full of it. Since it was me who posted the original message, would you care to elucidate your claim thet I have commonalities with nazis, otherwise bugger off.
The early Nazis exhibited "back to the woods" tendancies from early on. They thought that working on the land was the ultimate existance, and they wanted more land for that purpose. They tolerated no other viewpoint, and they were fiercely undemocratic. Sound familiar? I don’t care if you don’t like the analogy, but it should make you think if you believe in a reasonably free and just society. Single-issue politics are inherently undemocratic, and a scenario exists where it could fatally undermine our current freedoms. I have noticed that many people on this newsgroup are anarchists, but thats fine in a country like the UK. NOBODY STOPS YOU. How many anarchists are tolerated in one-party states? Objectively, the way you talk is very similar to nazis, since they were heavily into control.
I am not into control whatsoever. I think everyone should be left alone, even if the majority don’t agree with it. What concerns me about recent trends is an attempt to move to a monoculture, where only one point of view can be accepted. There have been a series of issues where special interest groups have pushed a dubious agenda onto the population using rhetoric verging on the religious. Regardless of the merits of the situation, no debate was possible. Lets have a few: fox hunting, GE crops, Brent Spar, even (intake of breath) global warming. In all of these cases, there was much valid argument that some in the Green movement ignored, or tried to drown out. I will laugh myself into a puddle if the last one above turns out not to happen. Whatever happened to Global Cooling (vintage 1975)? Maybe they will cancel each other out . BTW, I have decided to start adding silly faces, as no-one on this group seems to have a sense of irony, or know when I am taking the piss. The GE issue makes me laugh. A friend of mine is an ardent environmentalist. Last month she resigned in protest from Greenpreace. She is a microbiologist, and has worked a lot on genetic research. The position taken by Greenpeace she found outrageous. Funny how it seems different when something you really know about is subject to some sexy DIRCT ACTION TASKFORCE. Eco-Stormtroopers to the fore. Why do you, if you are one of these ‘more aware’ beings, not speak out against the direct unmandated actions taken by the likes of Monsanto
Why? The US government has hundreds of thousands of safety inspectors, and hundreds of millions of law-happy citizens. Nobody does shit there if they didn’t think it was OK. Market forces will butcher them if they get it wrong. Which is how it should be. And lastly, it really pisses me off that you think you have a monopoly on a group called uk.environment. I have no interest in groups called uk.politics.greens.and.other.veg or whatever, but it might amaze you to know that other people outside your cabal actually work on their own to protect the environment in more sensible ways. During my career, I have spent tens of millions of pounds on various systems to eliminate or prevent pollution, emmissions and waste production. This is because (like most people who work in the real world) it has always been recognised that this is a primary responsibility. I am seldom helped by the technophobes who call themselves "greens", few of whom I have noted over the years have ever had to make a hard decision in their lives. If anything, they make things harder for the more moderate, as everyone gets tainted with the extremist brush. I have to couch everything in terms of "efficiency" and "good PR". I find it amusing watching the current (generally commendable) government struggle with the business of real governance, where resources are limted, but demand is endless. They have already learned a few lessons about not interfering in peoples lives. They’ll get there eventually. From idealists to realists in one brutal step. BTW, how about not crossposting from now on?
Response:
— is this new group to be used for co-ordinating the burning of crops? burning of crops? i didn’t sugest that, Vaughan did! jim
This sort of thing has already started. Do you think branding GE crops as the most evil thing since the Plague is unlikely to influence a few of the more easily led? It seems some people prefer to agitate and manipulate from the safety of their own homes, and let others carry the can.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So one must agopt the "pro-" point of view to participate? This seems pretty biased. Not all those who disagree with some of the pro ideas are as you say "nutters." Usenet is full of arguments between those for and against various forms of action, and indeed those who argue about whether or not anything is wrong withour world. Sometimes we want to discuss among ourselves various issues, without being diverted into other arguments. However we are continually interrupted by these things, and we want to make a forum where this doesn’t happen. To my mind we are actually being censored presently, by unwanted interruption in every thread we take part in. You alread have plenty of fora where you can flame us, or even enter into polite debate with us. Surely you don’t want to stop us from discussing the things we want to discuss in our own forum? After all, this will be a new newsgroup, not censorship of an existing one. Alt.politics.greens, for example, are one of the groups this theread is crossposted to, and they do not want discussion here about things not to do with Green Politics, specifically Green Party business. What I just wrote here is relevant as it mentions them, but the argument about censorship is not relevant at all. Why should we impose ourselves on them? Isn’t that a form of censorship; spoiling their newsgroup and making it more difficult for them to find what they want? I know we all do this sometimes, I don’t claim to be exempt from this, but I don’t deliberately disrupt groups because I don’t like what they are discussing. Do you like kiddy porn? If not, why don’t you do something useful and go and harangue them instead? Andy —
Yep, since, we are brainwashed from birth, all of us, and have gone through the grinder so many times, this will be one more method we use to deprogram ourselves. We don’t need to meet the mindless, grinderpeople EVERYWHERE. We should also have one or two places where we can be ourselves completely and without reservation, shouldn’t we? Amos — < My virtual, wilderness community address is: < http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6010/ < My address at midnight:
Question:
Wealth is the accumulation of the value of work, yours and or other
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And what are people supposed to do? Cower in fear? Sit back and take a car-full of crap because they are afraid to suffer a little bit for it? God, I’m grateful that this sort of mentality wasn’t in vogue fifty odd years ago. Can you imagine?? "Men, today we’re going to invade the beaches of Normandy to help staunch the flow of totalitarian, right-wing government." "Sorry sir, I don’t think we should do that. The Germans don’t like confrontation. Maybe we could just sit here and do nothing about it. Besides, I might break a nail or something." I think that you completely misunderstood my original point. If Clinton had actually *paid* for his anti-war stance in some remote, tiny way, I might have some respect for the man. He informed the American public that his actions during the Vietnam War were motivated by a deep feeling that the war was unjust. But instead of paying the price for it, like plenty other "activists" did during that period, Clinton weasled out of the draft, out of service, etc. Now a reasonable person might assume that people who are willing to pay the price for their beliefs have stronger convictions about those beliefs than those who are not willing to pay the price for their beliefs. Clinton paid no "price" for his supposedly strong anti-war beliefs. Being a reasonable person, I come to the conclusion that Clinton’s anti-war beliefs weren’t very strong. Thus, his actions must have been motivated by something else. That something else we might never know, but I think in there might be fear, cowardice, and lack of conviction. Not great qualities of a Commander-in-Chief. Mike, if you’re an undergraduate at RPI,
then I’m not going to seriously argue the point further. Please don’t take this as a personal attack, because I don’t know you from a hole in the wall, but I think the vast majority of undergraduates out there have no real clue about
what motivates individuals in real life. Mostly because college/university
is a state of suspended reality. It’s not until one graduates and enters the real world that one truly understands "paying the price." Of course there are many, many instances where this is not so, so don’t bother replying that "I had to pay my way through college with no arms and sixteen brothers" stuff.
But I live and work in Boston, *the* university town of America, and I see it all around me.
FYI: I’m a Ph.D student. Peace Corps Kenya ‘86-9 — I lived more or less in the middle of a longstanding rebellion which has degenerated into organized banditry. Been infected with rabies, had malaria, been shot at, interrogated by security, watched friends and students die from perfectly preventable causes and come home, like many volunteers, with permanently and negatively affected health. Oh, and yes, one volunteer in our group "paid the price", that childish euphemism for useless death. I expect several other of my PCV friends to die as well. I speak six languages, have lived and travelled all over Asia and have worked for a democracy movement elsewhere (and had fun with their security forces as well). So, in the main, I feel like I have earned the right to view people oppressed by bewildering, evil choices with compassion rather than making harsh and simplistic real-men-make-stark-choices judgements about what actions should be taken by individuals in complex, shifting circumstances. Vietnam was not WWII –you and I would both have volunteered in WWII, I gather — and Clinton and his generation were not confronted by the same choices their fathers were. BTW, I’ve seen the real world. It ain’t Boston. Mike Turton RPCV Kenya ‘86-’89
Response:
I am not saying that one should not take a stand or work to end oppression. But for every Solzhenitsin heroically suffering in the Gulag there is a women weeping quietly at home and children without a father, not to mention friends being audited by the taxman or associates fired from their jobs. It’s not as simplistic as this naive "paying the price" mentality that so many have about political activism and public service. No, it isn’t that "simplistic". Did you read "Gulag"? There were millions of women who loved their men even in the prisons. There were children who loved and respected their fathers, even as gone as they were. As for A.S. himself, try not to make it sound like he gave up his life for principle. He didn’t do any such thing. He was an artillery officer, and was pulled out of battle to be arrested. He was a communist whose life was turned inside out by the state he served. *That’s* where his perspective came from. Billy What Solzhenitsyn was arrested for was putting something that could be interpreted as critical of Stalin in a letter. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Response:
BTW, I’ve seen the real world. It ain’t Boston.
There you go, Mike. If you argue something long enough, you finally find something to agree upon.
Response:
COLUMNS OF COMPANIES FROM THE RIGHT. "A" COMPANY. Columns righeeeeeeet. Harch! (A little Souza St. Louie Blues, please!) Well done, goat! (Mine was Objee, the bear.)
BY..ORDER…OF…HAROLD…W…HABERMEYER…JUNIOR…CAPTAIN…UNITED…STAT ES. BRIGADE……PREEE….SENT…(FUCK!)……ARMS (BOOM! BOOM!–watch the plebes shake up front–) IHTFP.
Response:
BY..ORDER…OF…HAROLD…W…HABERMEYER…JUNIOR…CAPTAIN…UNITED…STA TES. BRIGADE……PREEE….SENT…(FUCK!)……ARMS (BOOM! BOOM!–watch the plebes shake up front–)
BY THE LEFT, QUICK MARCH, OUT OF COUNTRIES YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BEEEE IN — Survivors Describe A320 Flight As `Normal’ (Aviation Week, March 6th 95) Michael Carley, Mechanical Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Response:
| To say that this vindicates or validates Clinton’s actions is a slap in | the face of not only veterans, but those who opposed the war and went | to jail, or left the country, or otherwise _acted_ on their opposition, | accepting the results of their position. None of this "I opposed the | war because it was bad for my personal social life to be in favor of | it." |I’m afraid you will not be able to cite that quote anywhere except in your |mind. It is not a direct quote of anyone, except mayhaps some one I didn’t know at the time, who is just a little more honest about the subject. But even _I_ wasn’t that clueless … one doesn’t tell The Powers That Be that you don’t "want" to do something, when they didn’t ask if you ‘wanted to’. My point remains: those who acted according to their convictions and personal standards of honor, I’ll respect. Even those who did jail time rather than serve, or deserted or emmigrated. I may not like them, but they have the courage to act on their convictions. Now, if Candiate Clinton had said _ I opposed the war in Vietnam and did everything I could to keep my butt out of the army_ it would have been a wash. By saying so, he would have stood for some thing. As it is, he appears to stand for expediency: what ever seems to work today. chus pyotr — New Years Eve: when the beautiful promise of tomorrow is transformed into the ugly reality of today, and the disgusting miasma of now becomes the rosy nostalgic netherworlds of yesterday.
Response:
maybe this isn’t very important, but as for what I remember about how hard or easy it was to get CO status acknowledged by the Selective Service: You couldn’t be against THIS war, you had to be against ALL war, and you had to produce some coherent belief system to back up your feelings. What made the war particularly devisive was the 2S student deferment. That WAS easy, at least in states that made it easy to go to college. As long as you could keep up a minimum class load and not flunk out, you were golden.
Response:
I am not saying that one should not take a stand or work to end oppression. But for every Solzhenitsin heroically suffering in the Gulag there is a women weeping quietly at home and children without a father, not to mention friends being audited by the taxman or associates fired from their jobs. It’s not as simplistic as this naive "paying the price" mentality that so many have about political activism and public service.
No, it isn’t that "simplistic". Did you read "Gulag"? There were millions of women who loved their men even in the prisons. There were children who loved and respected their fathers, even as gone as they were. As for A.S. himself, try not to make it sound like he gave up his life for principle. He didn’t do any such thing. He was an artillery officer, and was pulled out of battle to be arrested. He was a communist whose life was turned inside out by the state he served. *That’s* where his perspective came from. Billy
Response:
But "my country, right or wrong" and "my government, right or wrong" are not the same thing.
I’d argue that they are the same thing. In the US, we have "free elections" to select our government. The theory behind selecting a government is to appoint those people who share your visions of "country" into positions of power to engineer those visions. What is the difference? And I can’t understand this sort of macho mentality that sorts things into "prices" and "tests", as though if only we kill enough people of funny colors and strange accents, we can maintain the American standard of living.
A "macho mentality" has nothing to do with it. When you go into a store and plunk down $0.65 for a Coke do you feel like beating on your chest? I certainly don’t. The analogy to citizenship is that our standard of living comes at a price. Thus, "our standard of living" = "Coke." Get it? Think about what you mean here. "Reaping the benefits of being an American citizen without paying the price" is ever so slightly silly –if we had a generation without war, or permanent peace was established, would the citizenship and patriotism of the succeeding generations have a little asterisk in front of it, saying "no price paid?"
What is so silly about paying a price for your standard of living? And who ever said that the only price one could pay was combat? In fact, there is every reason to believe that my generation, the often-called Generation-X, will be untouched by war. Our price to pay will undoubtably be the debt and the bankruptcy of our government. We will be the ones who have to figure out how to solve that mess. And what about women? "Paying the price" is really only possible for men —
Completely wrong. Plenty of women have served. Sufferage? Combat nurses? In fact, women right now are campaigning to be *allowed* to fight in combat. And let’s not forget to count all the women who had to maintain a family all by themselves while their husbands were off fighting. And all the women who lost partners, lovers, etc. killed in war. You think that *they* didn’t pay a price? How ridiculous. does this mean that women are second-class citizens? What about C.O.s, priests, the retarded and handicapped, those physically unable to join the
See above. Remember, in the ’60s, the government didn’t just retaliate against the activists, it poisoned their *lives*: it harassed family and friends, spread slander in public……and so forth. You only have to look at the shattered personal lives of so many activists and the huge toll it took on them physically, emotionally and mentally.
What you write in this section seems to contradict your stance. After umpteen odd posts (at least two anyway), where you take the position that one does not have to pay a price for his beliefs, etc., you stand on an example of a group of people who *stood up* for their beliefs. 60’s activists believed that the war was wrong, and they took overt, active measures to assert their beliefs. They paid the price by having the government take notice of them. If you remember, the original theme of my post was that Clinton had a "belief," and took it for free, and insulted those who paid the price. I am not saying that one should not take a stand or work to end oppression. But for every Solzhenitsin heroically suffering in the Gulag there is a women weeping quietly at home and children without a father, not to mention friends being audited by the taxman or associates fired from their jobs. It’s not as simplistic as this naive "paying the price" mentality that so many have about political activism and public service.
And what are people supposed to do? Cower in fear? Sit back and take a car-full of crap because they are afraid to suffer a little bit for it? God, I’m grateful that this sort of mentality wasn’t in vogue fifty odd years ago. Can you imagine?? "Men, today we’re going to invade the beaches of Normandy to help staunch the flow of totalitarian, right-wing government." "Sorry sir, I don’t think we should do that. The Germans don’t like confrontation. Maybe we could just sit here and do nothing about it. Besides, I might break a nail or something." I think that you completely misunderstood my original point. If Clinton had actually *paid* for his anti-war stance in some remote, tiny way, I might have some respect for the man. He informed the American public that his actions during the Vietnam War were motivated by a deep feeling that the war was unjust. But instead of paying the price for it, like plenty other "activists" did during that period, Clinton weasled out of the draft, out of service, etc. Now a reasonable person might assume that people who are willing to pay the price for their beliefs have stronger convictions about those beliefs than those who are not willing to pay the price for their beliefs. Clinton paid no "price" for his supposedly strong anti-war beliefs. Being a reasonable person, I come to the conclusion that Clinton’s anti-war beliefs weren’t very strong. Thus, his actions must have been motivated by something else. That something else we might never know, but I think in there might be fear, cowardice, and lack of conviction. Not great qualities of a Commander-in-Chief. Mike, if you’re an undergraduate at RPI, then I’m not going to seriously argue the point further. Please don’t take this as a personal attack, because I don’t know you from a hole in the wall, but I think the vast majority of undergraduates out there have no real clue about what motivates individuals in real life. Mostly because college/university is a state of suspended reality. It’s not until one graduates and enters the real world that one truly understands "paying the price." Of course there are many, many instances where this is not so, so don’t bother replying that "I had to pay my way through college with no arms and sixteen brothers" stuff. But I live and work in Boston, *the* university town of America, and I see it all around me.
Response:
: It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were : a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. : What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. : Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some : to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong : here was committed by the government and the elites who made the : decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young : people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in : any way they could. Well written and quite correct. I’m going to repeat part of it that I want to emphasize: The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation
I was draft number 165, low enough so I couldn’t feel perfectly safe, even though I was unlikely to be drafted. So what do do? Go to war out of mindless allegiance to flag and country? Allow myself to be drafted and fight in a war I don’t believe in and try to kill people I don’t regard to be my enemies? Follow policies and orders of leaders I don’t trust and whom I believe to be misguided (and which MacNamara and others have since shown WERE misguided)? Or evade the draft, lie to get a CO status, leave the country? You are absolutely right – the US leadership at that time was forcing its young people into *nothing* but illegal and immoral choices. When you do that you have no right to complain about their conduct. —peter
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were : a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. : What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. : Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some : to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong : here was committed by the government and the elites who made the : decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young : people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in : any way they could. Well written and quite correct. I’m going to repeat part of it that I want to emphasize: The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation I was draft number 165, low enough so I couldn’t feel perfectly safe, even though I was unlikely to be drafted. So what do do? Go to war out of mindless allegiance to flag and country? Allow myself to be drafted and fight in a war I don’t believe in and try to kill people I don’t regard to be my enemies? Follow policies and orders of leaders I don’t trust and whom I believe to be misguided (and which MacNamara and others have since shown WERE misguided)? Or evade the draft, lie to get a CO status, leave the country? You are absolutely right – the US leadership at that time was forcing its young people into *nothing* but illegal and immoral choices. When you do that you have no right to complain about their conduct. —peter
Illegal choices? Yes. Immoral? I think quite the opposite: those who resisted were acting in a profoundly moral sense (if they resisted for moral reasons). –Anthony
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: : It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were
: a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. : What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. : Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some
: to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong
: here was committed by the government and the elites who made the
: decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young
: people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in
: any way they could.
Well written and quite correct. I’m going to repeat
part of it that I want to emphasize:
The moral wrong
here was committed by the government and the elites who made the
decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young
people of the nation
I was draft number 165, low enough so I couldn’t
feel perfectly safe, even though I was unlikely
to be drafted. So what do do? Go to war out of
It would have been a lot better (IMHO) had you opted for the honorable solution. If you cannot serve whan called, then go away, and never return! mindless allegiance to flag and country? Allow myself
to be drafted and fight in a war I don’t believe in and try to kill people I don’t regard to be my enemies?
Follow policies and orders of leaders I don’t trust and whom I believe to be misguided (and which MacNamara
and others have since shown WERE misguided)? Or evade
the draft, lie to get a CO status, leave the country?
You are absolutely right – the US leadership at that time
was forcing its young people into *nothing* but illegal
and immoral choices. When you do that you have no right
to complain about their conduct.
—peter
I bet you have no moral delima in accepting the benefits provided by this country. Which were paid for, in part, by the blood of good and brave Americans, from the Revolution, to this very day. Rick
Response:
It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in any way they could. A short while ago, the president of the United States,
William J. Clinton, was – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -on the verge of invading a small, third-world nation that was in the midst of social and political unrest. American security was not threatened. There was no dreaded threat of the "spread of international communism." The unrest had absolutely no geopolitical significance. Sounds a little bit like what was happening in Vietnam from the end of WWII to the early sixties, doesn’t it? But William sent the troops in anyway, albeit not in a full scale "invasion." But ask the Haitian victims of a US Marine patrol led by a 1992 Naval Academy graduate (there were eight dead) if the bullets were any less real. If Clinton’s decisions do not sound hypocritical to you, then I demand to see your definition of hypocracy. At least Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had the threat of the "domino theory" factored into their decisions. Clinton could not even use that. I feel bad for the Baby Boomers out there that now aspire to power. Every one of them is going to have to own up to what they did during Vietnam. So no, I don’t feel that the only morally wrong decision was made by the government. A moral wrong was committed by everyone who reaped the benefits of being an American citizen without paying a price; whatever that price may have been. There were several methods of paying the bill available.
But "my country, right or wrong" and "my government, right or wrong" are not the same thing. And I can’t understand this sort of macho mentality that sorts things into "prices" and "tests", as though if only we kill enough people of funny colors and strange accents, we can maintain the American standard of living. Think about what you mean here. "Reaping the benefits of being an American citizen without paying the price" is ever so slightly silly — if we had a generation without war, or permanent peace was established, would the citizenship and patriotism of the succeeding generations have a little asterisk in front of it, saying "no price paid?" And what about women? "Paying the price" is really only possible for men — does this mean that women are second-class citizens? What about C.O.s, priests, the retarded and handicapped, those physically unable to join the armed What people do in the face of oppression is their own business and not for us to judge. Suppose (as I actually did) one works for an independence movement against a foreign government with a known penchant for harassment, violence, even murder in *this* country. I am married. I have every right to make that choice *for myself*, but what about my wife (at that time my son was not born)? What about her relatives in that country, who may suffer? We live in networks of people — we’re not disassociated individuals of western mythology — and what we do commits everyone we’re involved with. Remember, in the ’60s, the government didn’t just retaliate against the activists, it poisoned their *lives*: it harassed family and friends, spread slander in public……and so forth. You only have to look at the shattered personal lives of so many activists and the huge toll it took on them physically, emotionally and mentally. I am not saying that one should not take a stand or work to end oppression. But for every Solzhenitsin heroically suffering in the Gulag there is a women weeping quietly at home and children without a father, not to mention friends being audited by the taxman or associates fired from their jobs. It’s not as simplistic as this naive "paying the price" mentality that so many have about political activism and public service. Mike Turton
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(Robert Pothier) writes: I certainly am not defending our NWO prez, but all you hindsighters, especially you elitists from Harvard, Yale, etc. should tuck your butt between you legs and simply shut your mouths. How many of you toadies put your butt on the line? Be careful who you call elitist, pal. Headers *can* be deceiving. I only *work* at Harvard. Hindsighter I might be, but that I could not control. I am an Annapolis grad who spent over six years in the service. My father and my uncle put their "asses" on the line. If I were born 25 years earlier, my ass would have definitely been on the line. I just can’t wait to see your heinie in a uniform killing some poor farmer for the UN – I’ve done the math- the military sucks… Been there. If you want I’ll send you a *.jpg of me in my khakis or flight suit. See above. If Clinton’s a coward, why don’t you sign up to show what a man you are? Been there. Done that. Sort of takes away your argument, doesn’t it? Now it seems to me that the writer of this reply has spent some miserable years in the military. And perhaps he might have seen combat. Why he (or she, I guess) would want to attack my pro-veteran stance is beyond my admittedly limited powers of logic. Maybe it was just macho posturing? But this back-and-forth is silly. Until I hear a logical,
well-reasoned reply – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -why it is not, I still believe that to say McNamara’s book vindicates Clinton’s Vietnam-era actions is a massive insult to veterans and their loved ones. And I will, as a previous post claimed, expand that to include those who objected and *paid the price*, ie, went to jail. It is easy to have beliefs, but to pay for those beliefs is another matter all together. Now, does anyone out there have the answer to this question…from what I have been led to believe, consciencious objector status was not all that difficult to obtain. Relatives of mine who were alive during that period say that all you needed was a letter from a priest, rabbi, or a minister, and that priests etc. were more than willing to give ‘em out. Can anyone who was there shed some light on this?
Response:
Clean up crew. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Andrew Turton) writes: writes: To say that this vindicates or validates Clinton’s actions is a slap in the face of not only veterans, but those who opposed the war and went to jail, or left the country, or otherwise _acted_ on their opposition, accepting the results of their position. None of this "I opposed the war because it was bad for my personal social life to be in favor of it." It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in any way they could. Mike Turton
Response:
It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in any way they could.
In my opinion, what a man or a woman does in the face of oppression is the true measure of that person’s character. What Clinton and many other draft dodgers did was to turn tail in the face of oppression. Clinton weasled his way around a large and ungainly draft system, avoiding confrontation instead of challenging the problem straight on. I realize that hindsight is 20/20, and that I can’t judge the man without walking a mile in his shoes, but I think his actions then speak to his actions now, as president of the United States and arguably the most powerful man in the western world. Clinton had a responsibility, as an American citizen, to abide by the system. That "my country, right or wrong" bullshit is extremely corny, but it’s right on. Clinton and everyone around him enjoyed the benefits of living in the United States. Those benefits do not come without a price. Ask someone who served in World War II. Every generation has its test. Vietnam was the Baby Boomer’s test. If Clinton would have stood up for his beliefs and gone to jail, served in a mental facility, or served as a medic, then he would have paid the price. But he didn’t. Isn’t it ironic that now he’s fighting so hard to maintain the status quo? Look at it from this standpoint. What kind of message does this send to young people of today? Say, God forbid, the US found itself in a military operation akin to Vietnam. Would young men and women be justified in avoiding a draft? The President of the United States seems to think *he* was justified. A short while ago, the president of the United States, William J. Clinton, was on the verge of invading a small, third-world nation that was in the midst of social and political unrest. American security was not threatened. There was no dreaded threat of the "spread of international communism." The unrest had absolutely no geopolitical significance. Sounds a little bit like what was happening in Vietnam from the end of WWII to the early sixties, doesn’t it? But William sent the troops in anyway, albeit not in a full scale "invasion." But ask the Haitian victims of a US Marine patrol led by a 1992 Naval Academy graduate (there were eight dead) if the bullets were any less real. If Clinton’s decisions do not sound hypocritical to you, then I demand to see your definition of hypocracy. At least Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had the threat of the "domino theory" factored into their decisions. Clinton could not even use that. I feel bad for the Baby Boomers out there that now aspire to power. Every one of them is going to have to own up to what they did during Vietnam. So no, I don’t feel that the only morally wrong decision was made by the government. A moral wrong was committed by everyone who reaped the benefits of being an American citizen without paying a price; whatever that price may have been. There were several methods of paying the bill available.
Response:
Robert Pothier writes:
It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. What people do in Robert the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in any way they could. Robert In my opinion, what a man or a woman does in the face of Robert oppression is the true measure of that person’s character. Robert What Clinton and many other draft dodgers did was to turn Robert tail in the face of oppression. Clinton weasled his way Robert around a large and ungainly draft system, avoiding Robert confrontation instead of challenging the problem straight Robert on. I realize that hindsight is 20/20, and that I can’t Robert judge the man without walking a mile in his shoes, but I Robert think his actions then speak to his actions now, as Robert president of the United States and arguably the most Robert powerful man in the western world. Robert Clinton had a responsibility, as an American citizen, to Robert abide by the system. That "my country, right or wrong" Robert bullshit is extremely corny, but it’s right on. Clinton It is not right on, it is the opposite of everything America stands for. Robert and everyone around him enjoyed the benefits of living in Robert the United States. Those benefits do not come without a Robert price. Ask someone who served in World War II. Every Robert generation has its test. Vietnam was the Baby Boomer’s Robert test. If Clinton would have stood up for his beliefs and Robert gone to jail, served in a mental facility, or served as a Robert medic, then he would have paid the price. But he didn’t. Robert Isn’t it ironic that now he’s fighting so hard to maintain Robert the status quo? ah
Response:
To say that this vindicates or validates Clinton’s actions is a slap in the face of not only veterans, but those who opposed the war and went to jail, or left the country, or otherwise _acted_ on their opposition, accepting the results of their position. None of this "I opposed the war because it was bad for my personal social life to be in favor of it."
It’s not a slap in the face to anybody. The late ’60s were a time when young men were oppressed by the fact of the draft. What people do in the face of oppression is not so easy to judge. Some try to ignore it, some to leave it, some to fight it, some to find compromises with it, some to join it. The moral wrong here was committed by the government and the elites who made the decisions and put nothing but evil choices in front of the young people of the nation, not by the people who avoided the draft in any way they could. Mike Turton
Response:
writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Robert Pothier) writes: I certainly am not defending our NWO prez, but all you hindsighters, especially you elitists from Harvard, Yale, etc. should tuck your butt between you legs and simply shut your mouths. How many of you toadies put your butt on the line? Be careful who you call elitist, pal. Headers *can* be deceiving. I only *work* at Harvard. Hindsighter I might be, but that I could not control. I am an Annapolis grad who spent over six years in the service. My father and my uncle put their "asses" on the line. If I were born 25 years earlier, my ass would have definitely been on the line. I just can’t wait to see your heinie in a uniform killing some poor farmer for the UN – I’ve done the math- the military sucks… Been there. If you want I’ll send you a *.jpg of me in my khakis or flight suit. See above. If Clinton’s a coward, why don’t you sign up to show what a man you are? Been there. Done that. Sort of takes away your argument, doesn’t it? Now it seems to me that the writer of this reply has spent some miserable years in the military. And perhaps he might have seen combat. Why he (or she, I guess) would want to attack my pro-veteran stance is beyond my admittedly limited powers of logic. Maybe it was just macho posturing? But this back-and-forth is silly. Until I hear a logical, well-reasoned reply why it is not, I still believe that to say McNamara’s book vindicates Clinton’s Vietnam-era actions is a massive insult to veterans and their loved ones. And I will, as a previous post claimed, expand that to include those who objected and *paid the price*, ie, went to jail. It is easy to have beliefs, but to pay for those beliefs is another matter all together. Now, does anyone out there have the answer to this question…from what I have been led to believe, consciencious objector status was not all that difficult to obtain. Relatives of mine who were alive during that period say that all you needed was a letter from a priest, rabbi, or a minister, and that priests etc. were more than willing to give ‘em out. Can anyone who was there shed some light on this? You would have had to lie to your clergyman, to claim religious exemption, if that was not truly your belief. EVERYONE except the hippies believed the government was doing right, because of the press and the silence of those in the know. AW
Response:
New point. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know if this helps, but the requirements for CO up until 70 were extremely stringent and designed to shove your butt in military. Amongst other things you had [at 18] to write a set of biographical esssays explaining your position and justifying why you were a CO amongst the bsubjects was your first and earliest religious experience. etc Look up a book by Tollefson [1994] THE STRENGTH NOT TO FIGHT. I certainly am not defending our NWO prez, but all you hindsighters, especially you elitists from Harvard, Yale, etc. should tuck your butt between you legs and simply shut your mouths. How many of you toadies put your butt on the line? Be careful who you call elitist, pal. Headers *can* be deceiving. I only *work* at Harvard. Hindsighter I might be, but that I could not control. I am an Annapolis grad who spent over six years in the service. My father and my uncle put their "asses" on the line. If I were born 25 years earlier, my ass would have definitely been on the line. I just can’t wait to see your heinie in a uniform killing some poor farmer for the UN – I’ve done the math- the military sucks… Been there. If you want I’ll send you a *.jpg of me in my khakis or flight suit. See above. If Clinton’s a coward, why don’t you sign up to show what a man you are? Been there. Done that. Sort of takes away your argument, doesn’t it? Now it seems to me that the writer of this reply has spent some miserable years in the military. And perhaps he might have seen combat. Why he (or she, I guess) would want to attack my pro-veteran stance is beyond my admittedly limited powers of logic. Maybe it was just macho posturing? But this back-and-forth is silly. Until I hear a logical,
well-reasoned reply – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – why it is not, I still believe that to say McNamara’s book vindicates Clinton’s Vietnam-era actions is a massive insult to veterans and their loved ones. And I will, as a previous post claimed, expand that to include those who objected and *paid the price*, ie, went to jail. It is easy to have beliefs, but to pay for those beliefs is another matter all together. Now, does anyone out there have the answer to this question…from what I have been led to believe, consciencious objector status was not all that difficult to obtain. Relatives of mine who were alive during that period say that all you needed was a letter from a priest, rabbi, or a minister, and that priests etc. were more than willing to give ‘em out. Can anyone who was there shed some light on this?
Response:
Don’t agree. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Long) writes: I certainly am not defending our NWO prez, but all you hindsighters, especially you elitists from Harvard, Yale, etc. should tuck your butt between you legs and simply shut your mouths. How many of you toadies put your butt on the line? Be careful who you call elitist, pal. Headers *can* be deceiving. I only *work* at Harvard. Hindsighter I might be, but that I could not control. I am an Annapolis grad who spent over six years in the service. My father and my uncle put their "asses" on the line. If I were born 25 years earlier, my ass would have definitely been on the line. I just can’t wait to see your heinie in a uniform killing some poor farmer for the UN – I’ve done the math- the military sucks… Been there. If you want I’ll send you a *.jpg of me in my khakis or flight suit. See above. If Clinton’s a coward, why don’t you sign up to show what a man you are? Been there. Done that. Sort of takes away your argument, doesn’t it? Now it seems to me that the writer of this reply has spent some miserable years in the military. And perhaps he might have seen combat. Why he (or she, I guess) would want to attack my pro-veteran stance is beyond my admittedly limited powers of logic. Maybe it was just macho posturing? But this back-and-forth is silly. Until I hear a logical,
well-reasoned reply – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -why it is not, I still believe that to say McNamara’s book vindicates Clinton’s Vietnam-era actions is a massive insult to veterans and their loved ones. And I will, as a previous post claimed, expand that to include those who objected and *paid the price*, ie, went to jail. It is easy to have beliefs, but to pay for those beliefs is another matter all together. Now, does anyone out there have the answer to this question…from what I have been led to believe, consciencious objector status was not all that difficult to obtain. Relatives of mine who were alive during that period say that all you needed was a letter from a priest, rabbi, or a minister, and that priests etc. were more than willing to give ‘em out. Can anyone who was there shed some light on this? I do not have the book here at work but will try to bring it in tomorrow. This book is a series of studies of draft resisters including COs. I will post the title and isbn number. This book is a series of studies of draft resisters including the written decisions of various courts concerning the requirements to qualify for CO status. In general, it was held that unless you religion had as a basic tenant that military service was wrong, you could not get a CO status on the sayso of your clergy that you were morally opposed to war. In some cases it was ruled that a conversion to a religion such as Quacker was simply a ploy and the person was denied their CO status. Questioning of a CO applicant might include secnarios which included mother, sister, aunt, etc. being attacked and raped. If the applicant’s answer was to physically defend said mother, sister …, CO status was denied as you must be committed to non violence in every situation to qualify for CO status. It wasn’t until very late in the game that a morasl opposition to a given conflict was accepted as a CO stance. Even this was filled with exceptions.
Response:
To say that this vindicates or validates Clinton’s actions is a slap in the face of not only veterans, but those who opposed the war and went to jail, or left the country, or otherwise _acted_ on their opposition, accepting the results of their position. None of this "I opposed the war because it was bad for my personal social life to be in favor of it."
I’m afraid you will not be able to cite that quote anywhere except in your mind.
Response:
changing cross post – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t know if this helps, but the requirements for CO up until 70 were extremely stringent and designed to shove your butt in military. Amongst other things you had [at 18] to write a set of biographical esssays explaining your position and justifying why you were a CO amongst the bsubjects was your first and earliest religious experience. etc Look up a book by Tollefson [1994] THE STRENGTH NOT TO FIGHT. I certainly am not defending our NWO prez, but all you hindsighters, especially you elitists from Harvard, Yale, etc. should tuck your butt between you legs and simply shut your mouths. How many of you toadies put your butt on the line? Be careful who you call elitist, pal. Headers *can* be deceiving. I only *work* at Harvard. Hindsighter I might be, but that I could not control. I am an Annapolis grad who spent over six years in the service. My father and my uncle put their "asses" on the line. If I were born 25 years earlier, my ass would have definitely been on the line. I just can’t wait to see your heinie in a uniform killing some poor farmer for the UN – I’ve done the math- the military sucks… Been there. If you want I’ll send you a *.jpg of me in my khakis or flight suit. See above. If Clinton’s a coward, why don’t you sign up to show what a man you are? Been there. Done that. Sort of takes away your argument, doesn’t it? Now it seems to me that the writer of this reply has spent some miserable years in the military. And perhaps he might have seen combat. Why he (or she, I guess) would want to attack my pro-veteran stance is beyond my admittedly limited powers of logic. Maybe it was just macho posturing? But this back-and-forth is silly. Until I hear a logical,
well-reasoned reply – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – why it is not, I still believe that to say McNamara’s book vindicates Clinton’s Vietnam-era actions is a massive insult to veterans and their loved ones. And I will, as a previous post claimed, expand that to include those who objected and *paid the price*, ie, went to jail. It is easy to have beliefs, but to pay for those beliefs is another matter all together. Now, does anyone out there have the answer to this question…from what I have been led to believe, consciencious objector status was not all that difficult to obtain. Relatives of mine who were alive during that period say that all you needed was a letter from a priest, rabbi, or a minister, and that priests etc. were more than willing to give ‘em out. Can anyone who was there shed some light on this?
Response:
Question:
How can a LEGAL REFORM proposal be considered inappropriate in misc.legal and/or alt.activism?
=o= Right, and how much of this interminable thread has actually been about a legal reform proposal? Very little. How much about activism over this proposal? None whatsoever. =o= Look, alt.activism does not exist for cross-posted long-winded never-ending discussions about abortion. The talk.abortion newsgroup was created *specifically* because people were tired of the same old flamewars about abortion showing up everywhere. It is one of the most basic rudiments of Usenet courtesy not to cross-post to every known newsgroup in creation. =o= Alt.activism is a forum for activists to exchange resources. This might come as a shock, but sitting on your butt in front of a terminal flaming people doesn’t qualify as activism. *If* you have a discussion thread of relevance to activism or activists (I say *if* because this particular interminable thread doesn’t qualify), there is an alt.activism.d newsgroup for it. <_Jym_
Response:
How can a LEGAL REFORM proposal be considered inappropriate in misc.legal and/or alt.activism? =o= Right, and how much of this interminable thread has actually been about a legal reform proposal? Very little.
You obviously haven’t been reading very closely. Tort reform has been proposed. Contract Law reform has been proposed. Reform of the paternity child support statutes themselves has been proposed. Were you asleep? How much about activism over this proposal? None whatsoever.
Forming concrete proposals for judicial and/or legislative changes is the first step towards activism, is it not? What’s the second step? Most of us are new at this activism stuff: we await your alt.activism Pearls of Wisdom, but all we seem to get is impotent whining about crossposts. =o= Look, alt.activism does not exist for cross-posted long-winded never-ending discussions about abortion.
This is *NOT* about abortion, per se. It’s about how the current state of abortion and adoption laws AFFECT paternity child support. You demonstrate yet again that you haven’t been reading the material. The talk.abortion newsgroup was created *specifically* because people were tired of the same old flamewars about abortion showing up everywhere.
Well, this ain’t the "same old flamewar". Not by a long shot. It is one of the most basic rudiments of Usenet courtesy not to cross-post to every known newsgroup in creation.
I never started crossposting "to every known newsgroup in creation". You can thank others for that. But now that the cat’s out of the bag, I’m not about to deprive readers in those newsgroups the chance to follow and/or participate in them, regardless of your personal theories about newsgroup boundaries. =o= Alt.activism is a forum for activists to exchange resources.
Sounds like an awfully minimalist definition of "activism". I reject it. This might come as a shock, but sitting on your butt in front of a terminal flaming people doesn’t qualify as activism.
Just what are *YOU* doing then, hypocrite? *If* you have a discussion thread of relevance to activism or activists
I think this discussion thread cries out for input from activists. (I mean *real* activists, not just crosspost-whiners). (I say *if* because this particular interminable thread doesn’t qualify),
In Your Holy, Demonstrably-uninformed Opinion. there is an alt.activism.d newsgroup for it.
Pardon me, but my understanding is that {whatever}.d groups are for discussion of what goes on in the main {whatever} group. I have negligible interest in (meta-)discussions about what goes on in alt.activism (that seems to be more your department than mine). I would rather get valuable input from real activists on how Male Choice can be implemented in the Real World. Is there any available from alt.activism, or is it just full of crosspost-whiners like yourself? – Kevin
Response:
Response:
Nothing! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
NOTHING. SO, why post it?
Response:
NOTHING. SO, why post it?
I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, David. No need to get all bent out of shape. – Kevin
Response:
If our argument were based on that premise, it would be a bogus argument. But it’s not, so it isn’t. So let’s give the straw man a rest, eh? =o= Let’s give alt.activism and misc.legal a rest, too, and not post any more of this thread to those newsgroups, where it does not and for the most part never has belonged.
How can a LEGAL REFORM proposal be considered inappropriate in misc.legal and/or alt.activism? Whaddanidiot. Just because you personally don’t care for this issue doesn’t mean it’s inappropriate, unless of course you have fevered delusions of being a de facto moderator. – Kevin
Response:
Question:
Is it remotely possible that the Sendero Luminoso movement in Peru is a little too violent itself and that essentially there is a civil war going on with neither side especially virtuous? Or is it possible that the Sendero has never murdered anyone?? Doesn’t the economic reality of multimillions in cocaine crops and processing etc. lend a jaded aspect to "politics" and doesn’t that make this adolescent undergrad Maoist Movement sut stuff a bit much?
Response:
Please, do not think that all Peruvians are as crazy as the person who wrote this threatening note. Unfortunately, there are many like him in Peru and outside Peru, but most Peruvians are rational. Probably living in the United States has done some damage to him. A few weeks ago, I heard the President of a Security Company speak about Safety in the U.S.A. He said that an average of 26,000 (twenty six thousand) people get murdered each year in the United States of America. He said these numbers do NOT include dissapearances, accidents, suicides, etc. The 26,000 only includes confirmed murders. In ten years this would make 0.1% of the U.S. population which is approximately the same percentage of people who have been killed in Peru in the same number of years. The difference is that Peru is in the midst of a civil war, but the U.S. is at peace. Sabina "Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa "I read your posting in the internet about Amnesty International and Peru. Well guys I have something to tell you: Watch out! Be really careful! Start locking doors and windows, park your cars in well iluminated spots, always walk in groups of three or more and never accept gifts from strangers, especially from any of your little brown brothers. We peruvians have already learned our lesson, we
[... and more nonsense deleted]
Response:
….{stuff deleted } ……. The difference is that Peru is in the midst of a civil war, but the U.S. is at peace. Sabina
So Sabina you think that our country is in a civil war, wich means the people against the state. Two bands facing each other in a conventional war. Probably not that conventional since for you the State has not been that conventional and Shining Path after 13 years has not gotten an army able to face the state. But for you there is a Civil War. It means that Shining Path for you is not just a murdered movement. It is a one of the bands in a civil war. I am not meaning that you are in one band or in the other one. I am just following your interpretation. I would like to know what is your main argument to state that Shining path is fighting a war in a way that reaches the dimension of a civil war. And what is the difference between Shining Path and movements like ETA and IRA, or perhaps there is no difference. Ricardo Roman Nova Scotia Canada
Response:
So Sabina you think that our country is in a civil war, wich means
First of all, I have a hard time arguing with people who do not follow the basic rules of debate. If you want to quote me, do so but do not of put words in my writting. You should try to follow the rules of simple linear logic. If you want to understand what I mean by "civil war" ask! Do not interpret it the way you want without having investigated first. Then you can especifically define your understanding of civil war and we can debate the basis of our differing definitions. I use the term "civil war", the way the press use it. (If you do not like it complain to them). Webster New Collegiate Dictionary’s definition: civil war, n: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. This definition does not put any judgement on the characteristics of the citizens that participate in the war; neither does it specifies the type of warfare. Hamuntankichu? Sabina
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Xref: dragon.acadiau.ca alt.activism:49079 alt.politics.radical-left:5375 soc.culture.peru:552 Path: dragon.acadiau.ca!nstn.ns.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howl and. reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!caen!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwn et.n et!news.u.washington.edu!stein1.u.washington.edu!sgastete Newsgroups: alt.politics.mideast,alt.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.radical-l eft, soc.culture.peru Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu So Sabina you think that our country is in a civil war, wich means First of all, I have a hard time arguing with people who do not follow the basic rules of debate. If you want to quote me, do so but do not of put words in my writting.
Can you be more specific? which ones are the words that I put in your writting? I just quoted you last statement, in your last posting. like I’m doing now: soc.culture.peru Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu [stuff deleted] ……. The difference is that Peru is in the midst of a civil war, but the U.S. is atpeace. Sabina You should try to follow the rules of simple linear logic. If you want to understand what I mean by "civil war" ask! Do not interpret it the way you want without having investigated first. Then you can especifically define your understanding of civil war and we can debate the basis of our differing definitions.
I did not blame you for a particular ideology. I do not know why you get so upset. If you do not want to be interpret do not post. I see no error in trying to interpret your stament. I can err interpreing your statement that Peru is in Civil war but is part of the discussion. However, my last posting more than stement or interpretation it is a question. I use the term "civil war", the way the press use it. (If you do not like it complain to them).
I am not talking with the international press. I am talking to you. I am talking with an other peruvian. The opinion of a peruvian in this issue is not a simple definition. Webster New Collegiate Dictionary’s definition: civil war, n: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. This definition does not put any judgement on the characteristics of the citizens that participate in the war; neither does it specifies the type of warfare.
OK. if you do not want to make any judgement you must have your reasons. Yet it does not change that you think Peru is in civil war in the press way or in the Webster way. Unfortunatly to recognize it like a Civil War is not just a matter of definitions. It is a matter of laws and international diplomacy. There is a difference between a warrior and a murder. I cannot call warriors three guys hidden in the darkness of night puting bombs at molls, theaters or schools. If you are using the Webster New Collgiate Dictionary’s definition and making no judgement in order to call them a group of citizens that participate in the war, it is your right. However, must be clear that I do not think that the difference between your opinion and mine in this issue is because an ideological difference. This It is the reason because I am discussing with you. I have given up discussing with ideological postings since they do not discuss ideas, they make propaganda.Ours is just a desagreement in interpreting our country reality. I recognice your efforts in human rights but, perhaps the difference in our interpretations is the time that you have lived at the United States and that you have not worked for years in Peru with peruvian human rights organizations. Ricardo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hamuntankichu? Sabina
Response:
Probably living in the United States has done some damage to him. A few weeks ago, I heard the President of a Security Company speak about Safety in the U.S.A. He said that an average of 26,000 (twenty six thousand) people get murdered each year in the United States of America. He said these numbers do NOT include dissapearances, accidents, suicides, etc. The 26,000 only includes confirmed murders. In ten years this would make 0.1% of the U.S. population which is approximately the same percentage of people who have been killed in Peru in the same number of years. The difference is that Peru is in the midst of a civil war, but the U.S. is at peace. Sabina
Yes, but that 26,000 number includes killings by police of criminals, of suspected criminals, of innocent people; it includes a huge number of killings directly linked to the black market in drugs. According to some sources up to 3/4 of killings in Washington DC are linked to the black market in drugs — either dealers shooting each other in disputes over territory, or police killings, or dealers or police shooting civilians. The official stance of police is that they should be given more power and less restrictions on their actions. Suggestions that drugs be legalized are of course ignored, despite the drastic reduction in violence that this would bring. Followups directed to talk.politics.drugs. -Tom — Worldcon: Arkham in ‘98.
Response:
I did not blame you for a particular ideology. I do not know why you get so upset. If you do not want to be interpret do not post.
Estimado Ricardo: Lo que me molesta de la forma en que debates es que tu pones mucho mas de tus propias interpretaciones que lo que la otra persona realmente dice. En tu interpretacion de lo que yo digo, tu no la escribes especificando que es tu propia interpretacion sino que la pones en un contexto que fuerzas a que otros entiendan que yo habre dicho todo lo que tu dices, lo cual no es cierto. Tienes que ajustarte solamente a lo que yo digo y el resto ponlo como idea tuya. Yo pienso que muchas de tus preguntas son reto’ricas y en mi campo de estudio hay un rechazo tajante a ese tipo de preguntas. Una pregunta reto’rica no busca informacio’n, ni busca entender la forma de pensar de la persona a quien se le pregunta. Ese tipo de pregunta esta’ cargada de prejuicios y asume ya demasiado. En un debate hay que buscar comprensio’n; si se llena de preguntas reto’ricas entonces ya no es un debate sino una pelea. Por ejemplo, Pregunta reto’rica: Esta pregunta asume que ya la otra persona apoya a los terrucos, no busca informacio’n. Es una pregunta que ya esta’ acusando. Y en las circunstancias de nuestro pai’s, esta se convierte en una pregunta amenazadora que nadie tiene la obligacio’n de contestar. Pregunta que busca informacio’n u opinio’n: Esta pregunta busca informacio’n. Si esta pregunta se pone en un contexto cargada de prejuicios sobre la persona a quien se le pregunta, entonces su valor se diluye como por ejemplo, Es haciendo preguntas reto’ricas donde el debate acaba. Se convierte en pelea y yo no estoy para eso. Individuos de los dos lados del conflicto me dan ya demasiado palo (lenguaje figurativo). Lo que les molesta a estos individuos (la mayori’a son hombres) es mi independencia, es el hecho que yo NO me "subo al carro" de sus proyectos. Y siguiendo con tus prejuicios, tu asumes cosas de mi vida (fechas de contacto con grupos de dd.hh., etc.) de la cual no sabes nada y sobre la cual no tengo por que’ estar corrigiendote. Yo nunca me he metido en tu vida, ni nunca me he dirigido a ti asumiendo cosas de tu vida. Hay varias personas de la lista, a quienes no conozco personalmente, con quienes he compartido experiencias de mi vida, aprendizaje, etc. porque en sus opiniones, debates conmigo, etc. no los llenan de enjuiciamientos. Estas personas son tanto pro-capitalistas como pro-socialistas y debatimos nuestras diferencias con respeto sin asumir cosas de uno o del otro. Aunque no estoy de acuerdo con la forma en que O.F. trata a ciertas personas, el siempre se ha disculpado conmigo por lo menos 20′ despues de mandarme su "flame". Esto lo aprecio mucho aun de personas con quienes no comparto gran parte de sus opiniones. I use the term "civil war", the way the press use it. (If you do not like it complain to them). I am not talking with the international press. I am talking to you. I am talking with an other peruvian. The opinion of a peruvian in this issue is not a simple definition.
Disculpame, pero esto es confuso. En mis comunicaciones con otros uso palabras o frases aceptadas en el vocablo de la poblacio’n. Si cada persona va a ponerle su propia definicion a cada frase la comunicacio’n significado de la frase "civil war" en el le’xico ingle’s? Es como decir que el hecho que la naraja es acida influye en que el sol sea redondo. Webster New Collegiate Dictionary’s definition: civil war, n: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. This definition does not put any judgement on the characteristics of the citizens that participate in the war; neither does it specifies the type of warfare. OK. if you do not want to make any judgement you must have your reasons.
No es que yo quiera o no quiera. Yo me ajusto a la definicio’n aceptada y eso es todo. La definicion NO tiene nada que ver con mis opiniones sobre el conflicto en Peru. Ours is just a desagreement in interpreting our country reality.
De acuerdo, si’ diferimos en co’mo interpretamos la realidad de nuestro pais y esto es lo mas normal del mundo. Como ya dije antes, este mundo seria super aburrido si todos pensaramos de la misma forma. Pero no mezclemos nuestras opiniones, o nuestra nacionalidad con definiciones estandarizadas. En el mundo de las ciencias, se definen nuevos conceptos constantemente y es muy importante ajustarse a las definicions aceptadas para tener un productivo intercambio de ideas. I recognice your efforts in human rights but, perhaps the difference in our interpretations is the time
Gracias Ricardo; el reconocimiento se los doy aun mas a los trabajadores de dd.hh. que estan ahora mismo en Peru pues ellos son los que mas esta’n expuestos a arbitrariedades fisicas. Por el momento yo solo recibo "flames" y mensajes acusadores. En lo concerniente a los ultimos, yo no quiero entrar a sus circos de leones machos. Ricardo Hamuntankichu?
Sabina
Response:
] BTW, why are you posting from an anon service. Afraid eh? Personal fear is not the issue. When revolutionaries come under state repression, the people they serve lose. MIM recommends several books on state repression of revolutionaries, including _Agents of Repression_, by Ward Churchill and Jim Vanderwall, who document the FBI’s war on the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. MIM has in the past also documented (as yet milder) forms of repression directed against us. Vigilante violence, with or without state complicity, is also a danger to revolutionary organizing. Here is a letter MIM recently received: "Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa "I read your posting in the internet about Amnesty International and Peru. Well guys I have something to tell you: Watch out! Be really careful! Start locking doors and windows, park your cars in well iluminated spots, always walk in groups of three or more and never accept gifts from strangers, especially from any of your little brown brothers. We peruvians have already learned our lesson, we are not afraid anymore. After all these years of blood and tears the peruvian people, browns, whites, blacks, is finally taking the initiative and forgetting the fear. I think you realise that by now almost all the leaders of Sendero including Guzman are spending their last days in prison. After having assasinated so many innocents, now they can expect the best possible treatment and courtesies from all of us, they will have plenty of food and water an of course plenty of beer and wine for Guzman ( he can not live without a good bottle of red wine by his side). And for you, suburban revolutionaries, we know who you are, where you live and all your daily routines; do not think that just because you are away from Peru you are safe. We owe you a lot and now it is payback time! It may take time but we will never forget, be certain about that. We have always been very peaceful people but you terrucos have been very good teachers. And the lessons you taught us are now deeply rooted, and will accompany us for the rest of our life." ## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT # # # # # # # -PO BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106- Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Response:
Question:
I haven’t gone back to check, but I was relying on an old memory when I cited the 400,000 figure for the French Terror. Question: among people who know about the Terror, is there a consensus on the ballpark figures for the number of victims?
The 40,000 figure (17,000 executions+12,000 deaths in jail+11,000 without trial) is pretty much accepted since David Greer established them in 1935. He also analyzed the 17,000 victims in terms of geography, sociology, etc: a number of myths are thereby dispelled (e.g. nobles represented 8.2% of the victims, priests 6.5%; working classes + peasants acccount for almost 60%). The victims of the civil war in Vendee are harder to count, and recent efforts (Sedillot) have been made at reaching a 400,000 or 500,000 figure. I can’t judge the work itself, but it seems to me to be out of the mainstream.
Response:
[I've trimmed the newsgroups a little and set follow-up to alt.revisionism] "1.1 million" dead in Auschwitz has a suspicious air of accuracy about it.
For many historical cases your suspicions would certainly have merit. However, the Nazis were fastidious record keepers, much of what is known is from their own files. Many of these files are available (I’ve seen original entrance recordings pointing out various individuals of interest.) You don’t need to read too much into "fastidious". The Nazis were a modern bureaucracy (for the time), that’s all, most such govts are fastidious record keepers, particularly in the military sector in controlled situations such as prisons. If I told you 1.1 million people have served time in prisons in New England (whatever) would you find a number like that “suspiciously accurate”. Of course not, you would assume the figure derives from bureaucratic records (and the only remaining question would be whether this was accurately represented.) We’re not working entirely in the dark as we might in trying to measure battlefield effects on civilians, e.g. where the errors might be much, much larger. Auschwitz was not a battlefield or towns being marched through or bombed from the air. Auschwitz was a managed military prison with an admissions and records office etc. Periodic reports were sent back to the central govt in Berlin, etc. Although records are far from perfect a number like 1.1M probably is not in and of itself suspiciously accurate (a priori), even if there is some dispute on its precise value. At least some of the dispute comes from precisely what is being measured (e.g. clearly murdered vs died maybe murdered vs incarcerated but died when transferred, etc.) Anyhow, you can look at something like Yahil’s "The Holocaust" for information on such matters. Her book has gotten a lot of acclaim in historical research circles. — -Barry Shein Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Response:
I have edited the header of this message so it doesn’t flood nearly as many newsgroups as the original of this thread (a subject addressed many times). However, so as not to deprive those who might be interested in other newsgroups, I’ve left the following: alt.discrimination (Because that’s where I’m dealing with it) alt.activism alt.revisionism If the conversation thread starts getting off the subject of either of the other two newsgroups, we’ll try to cut it back even further. As for myself, the most appalling thing about the Holocaust was its absence of passion. The Holocaust involved tens of thousands of people who killed others in an almost assembly-line fashion on 9-to-5 jobs. No screeching Madame While extremely accurate, I must admit I never thought of it that way. It makes me shudder. villages with torches. Just millions of people — no one really knows how many — exterminated bureau- cratically, without fuss, muss, or bother. As has been pointed out in another conversation, this is what happens when disrespect for others is permitted to get out of control. When you no longer view another person as a person, or respect that person’s rights as a sentient being, atrocities like this happen because they’re not thought of as atrocities. Which fits right into the top of alt.discrimination. Discrimination of any sort is generally based on an intolerance for something different from your views. And I am primarily clueless as to why it occurs and even more clueless as to what to do about it, short of what EVERY PERSON must do….show your dislike of discrimination when and where you see it. Stop making it easy for people to be racists. Stop making it easy for people to be sexists. It is too easy today for those people to be what they are. Discrimination is an easy thing to get away with. So make it less easy. There is an inherent problem with this, of course; in chastising someone for not being tolerant of other viewpoints, we are technically being intolerant as well. But that’s just a manmade paradox; if you make a stand on an issue you are, by definition, being somewhat intolerant. That is just a fact of life. That’s not to say that these people don’t have the right to have their say; freedom of speech is very important. But when freedoms like this extend to the point where they hurt other people, the rights are no longer within their defined boundaries. Then it is time to act. We need to make it less easy for these people to be the way they are if we hope to make a change. Stop making it easy for any sort of discrimination. In some ways, the fighting of fire with fire works, on large scale problems. If they can discriminate against gays by not hiring them, don’t hire people who can’t tolerate gays. Don’t give them your apartments. Respond in kind. Excuse yourself from conversations that take a discriminatory bend. Let others know you simply aren’t going to tolerate it anymore. This has several practical upshots. The first is that you are speaking out, and if it turns out you and your type are actually in the majority, the minority will quickly learn to keep quiet. The second is that by taking an action, you are a leader; others who agree but never had the thought of or guts to take such an action may follow your lead. Silence is death. Steven K. Hoskin : Strictly MY opinion, no bearing on : "Anything not earned is not respected."
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Gregory McColm) writes: 2. Europeans were horrified by the Massacre on St Bartholemew’s Day. 50,000 dead. They were appalled by the French Terror. 400,000 dead… Try 12,000 (13,000 tops)–but note that this for the Terror only, not casualties in the concurrent war with the rest of Europe. And it’s It all depends what one counts in. The Terror proper, that is the suspension of civil liberties from Spring 1793 to July 1794 resulted in 17,000 executions. Of those, half were in the West of France, where Civil War was raging. To these executions, one adds 10 to 12,000 deaths in jail, and 10 to 12,000 executed without trial in the West of France; a total of 40,000 deaths directly attributed to the laws of the Terror. [...]
I haven’t gone back to check, but I was relying on an old memory when I cited the 400,000 figure for the French Terror. Question: among people who know about the Terror, is there a consensus on the ballpark figures for the number of victims? Such a consensus seems to exist for the number of victims of the Black Death, the number of victims of the Potato famine, etc. I haven’t heard of any revisionists disputing the ballpark estimates for the number dead in the 30 Year’s War. Maybe I just wasn’t listening. Or maybe no one feels as strongly about these events as about the Holocaust, in which case much of the recent squabbling in these newsgroups is more heat than light. As for myself, the most appalling thing about the Holocaust was its absence of passion. The Holocaust involved tens of thousands of people who killed others in an almost assembly-line fashion on 9-to-5 jobs. No screeching Madame DeFrarge, no bawdy soldiers seeing how many civilians they could impale on a pike, no howling mobs racing through villages with torches. Just millions of people — no one really knows how many — exterminated bureau- cratically, without fuss, muss, or bother. —–Greg McColm
Response:
(Gregory McColm) writes: 2. Europeans were horrified by the Massacre on St Bartholemew’s Day. 50,000 dead. They were appalled by the French Terror. 400,000 dead…
Try 12,000 (13,000 tops)–but note that this for the Terror only, not casualties in the concurrent war with the rest of Europe. And it’s not clear to me that there was any strong reaction anywhere else in Europe except England, whose government had a lot to worry about if the revolution concept caught on. *** *** Ken Perlow ***** ***** 24 Jun 93 ****** ****** 6 Messidor An CCI ** ** ** ** …L’AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L’AUDACE! ENCORE DE L’AUDACE!
Response:
(Gregory McColm) writes: 2. Europeans were horrified by the Massacre on St Bartholemew’s Day. 50,000 dead. They were appalled by the French Terror. 400,000 dead… Try 12,000 (13,000 tops)–but note that this for the Terror only, not casualties in the concurrent war with the rest of Europe. And it’s
It all depends what one counts in. The Terror proper, that is the suspension of civil liberties from Spring 1793 to July 1794 resulted in 17,000 executions. Of those, half were in the West of France, where Civil War was raging. To these executions, one adds 10 to 12,000 deaths in jail, and 10 to 12,000 executed without trial in the West of France; a total of 40,000 deaths directly attributed to the laws of the Terror. Some might argue that the Civil War in the West was a separate matter altogether. Others will on the contrary add all victims of that war (by disease, hunger, massacres, battle…). But that number itself is hard to estimate (attempts have been made by demographics: how many people were there before 1793, how many left in 1800, how many there should have been in 1800: the difference is the number of victims). A reasonable guess seems to be 150,000. But then again, this is a civil war, with guerilla warfare, scorched earth policy, mass reprisals, etc. In any event, 400,000 attributed to the Terror is way too much. And, as Ken points out, the horror came not from the numbers, but from the identity of some victims (well-known figures in the nobility) and the political implications in other countries. 40,000 dead at the battle of Leipzig in 3 days in 1813 did not provoke an unending wave of revulsion. Source: Colin Jones, _The Longman Companion to the French Revolution_, p.115.
Response:
[N.B. Followup-To line set to (hmm, so many to choose from. let's see, how about) alt.discrimination and alt.censorship ONLY] Gregory McColm writes: 2. Europeans were horrified by the Massacre on St Bartholemew’s Day. 50,000 dead. They were appalled by the French Terror. 400,000 dead. Nowadays, some people seem to think that if the Turks killed "only" 150,000 people (Turkish gov’t figures), and if "only" 250,000 Jews (one revisionist figure I’ve seen) died in the camps, then hey, what are we getting excited about? Besides, no one really cares about the 2 million + Biafrans and 1 million + Indonesians who died during the Sixties. Am I imagining things, or are we becoming numb?
Yes, we are. For example, I received some mail from a person from talk.rape who believes that aggressive speech, insulting behaviour and acts of disrespect are perfectly fine ways to interact with people, with no deletirous (sp?) effects. He puts it down to something along the lines of standard practice in the US, and so it is okay, everybody does it, so everybody knows what’s going on, so it is A-Okay. (I have not included the said individuals identity for ethical reasons)
Gregory is, of course, correct, some people are getting numb. These days it takes a large death toll for people to consider something a massacre. On the other hand, we have people who trivialize even "large" massacres by placing them in the same class as "aggressive speech, insulting behavior, and acts of disrespect". Unbelievable. –John L. Scott
Response:
Auschwitz seems to be a strange subject for this newsgroup (I am writing from sci.research. Why is everyone broadcasting this stuff everywhere? Why not bother sci.physics with this, instead?).
Don’t give Gannon any ideas… Besides … 1. Everyone know how poor the estimates of war dead are, especially in Eastern Europe. Figures on Soviet war dead seem to vary by over 10 million depending on the sources. "1.1 million" dead in Auschwitz has a suspicious air of accuracy about it.
Estimates vary, as has been said, from about 1.1 to about 1.6 million. Am I imagining things, or are we becoming numb?
Unfortunately, you’re not imagining it… Followups set to the only appropriate group. —
Response:
Auschwitz seems to be a strange subject for this newsgroup (I am writing from sci.research. Why is everyone broadcasting this stuff everywhere? Why not bother sci.physics with this, instead?). Besides …
Yes, but everything is linked to everything, if you understand it all… [text deleted] 2. Europeans were horrified by the Massacre on St Bartholemew’s Day. 50,000 dead. They were appalled by the French Terror. 400,000 dead. Nowadays, some people seem to think that if the Turks killed "only" 150,000 people (Turkish gov’t figures), and if "only" 250,000 Jews (one revisionist figure I’ve seen) died in the camps, then hey, what are we getting excited about? Besides, no one really cares about the 2 million + Biafrans and 1 million + Indonesians who died during the Sixties. Am I imagining things, or are we becoming numb?
Yes, we are. For example, I received some mail from a person from talk.rape who believes that aggressive speech, insulting behaviour and acts of disrespect are perfectly fine ways to interact with people, with no deletirous (sp?) effects. He puts it down to something along the lines of standard practice in the US, and so it is okay, everybody does it, so everybody knows what’s going on, so it is A-Okay. (I have not included the said individuals identity for ethical reasons) Globally or personally, I’m not sure I have any admitting to do; things may be getting DIFFERENT all the time, but I don’t know if they are really getting BETTER. (and I am not really a Beatles fan either) And it all fits together, because what we do affects what we believe, and what we believe affects what we do, and this is the point of censorship, right? G.F.M.
Response:
Auschwitz seems to be a strange subject for this newsgroup (I am writing from sci.research. Why is everyone broadcasting this stuff everywhere? Why not bother sci.physics with this, instead?). Besides … 1. Everyone know how poor the estimates of war dead are, especially in Eastern Europe. Figures on Soviet war dead seem to vary by over 10 million depending on the sources. "1.1 million" dead in Auschwitz has a suspicious air of accuracy about it. 2. Europeans were horrified by the Massacre on St Bartholemew’s Day. 50,000 dead. They were appalled by the French Terror. 400,000 dead. Nowadays, some people seem to think that if the Turks killed "only" 150,000 people (Turkish gov’t figures), and if "only" 250,000 Jews (one revisionist figure I’ve seen) died in the camps, then hey, what are we getting excited about? Besides, no one really cares about the 2 million + Biafrans and 1 million + Indonesians who died during the Sixties. Am I imagining things, or are we becoming numb? —–Greg McColm
Response:
Next page
Previous page