No, I'm gathering research for an author; there are several of us
taking part in the
research end of it.  Not just in this newsgroup but in others ---some
actively post,
others just actively read.   I've been taking postings, (both sides of
this great debate)
and it is in the manner in which the postings are made (personal
attacks) which seems
to be the bigger picture in the great debate.  I'm no angel and either
are you that's why
it is necessary that the research be as fair to the real picture as
possible.

For example, DC, you might not like the way I post about something;
say allergies to
milk products, instead of understanding my allergies to milk products,
you might personally
attack me saying it is all in my head----blah blah blah---others might
say, you don't have a
milk product allergy, you are lactose intolerant.....but no one really
knows but the actual
poster or if the poster was just told this by a conventional medicine
practitioner, or an alternative
practitioner, or if one has never heard of this allergy before,
someone else could jump on the bandwagon,
and state that this was a lie.  If an alternative practitioner for
instance said to avoid the substance you
are allergic to, and the conventional practitioner said to take
allergy shots because it is important that you
get the Vitamin D in your body every day - and people here are making
fun of your posting --- it becomes a
tower of babble---everyone's talking, everyone has an idea --- so you
take the information you get,
and start evaluating it ---here's the alternative practitioner ---he/
she says to "avoid the product."  Ok, there are
no conflicts of interests with that statement.  The conventional
practitioner says to take "allergy shots to get
the needed Vitamin D in your body," - okay - what would be in it for
him/her ---allergy shots-clinic visit-$$$$$
Why not just go outside and stand in the sun, or find another form of
Vitamin D --unless one enjoys drinking milk,
then they might journey down the conventional pathway to get milk back
in their lives.  If they don't enjoy drinking
milk, they can look for alternatives to getting that Vitamin D in
their bodies that is needed in their daily requirement.
When someone brings thoughts to a newsgroup -- instead of attacking
the poster, or making them feel that their
post is "stupid," or they are "stupid," calling them a moron just
because you do not happen to believe in what they are
saying, does not mean that their post is any less important than the
person that does not agree with them.

Can you imagine, DC if you were a medical doctor, for example, and had
a healthy practice in New Mexico, or Texas, or
wherever, and someone ran a google search on you, and saw a variety of
attacks on you -- or your practice, this would not be good for
business.  People would wonder what kind of person you were--based on
the information they were getting from a newsgroup--or if you were a
real estate agent, or you were a dentist, or whatever --- the
information you are presenting, no matter how right or wrong you think
you are or someone else is presenting--could come back to bite you.  I
didn't realize this until the other day when I started going forth
with the research in a little higher gear that these groups
show up in a variety of searches in a variety of websites from website
search engines, and not just google groups.  That's when I thought of
Andrew Kingoff, if we were all a little bit more concerned, (both
sides of the coin), about each other and how this could effect our
businesses, then we might be a little more kinder and gentler about
the manner in which we post to reflect the message and not the poster.
The problem with removing posts is that when people respond, they
quote what you said, and the original post is brought back to life
even in a for instance, a google search.

Part of the point of this research is trying to determine where the
information is actually originating from, whether it be a posters
original idea or their original thoughts or an actual group of
individuals with some conflicts of interests that they have not
properly disclosed to the other readers.  Everyone jumps on "Spam,"
like it was horrible---it is when it has nothing to do with the
subject matter, and it would appear that the poster is trying to sell
something -- by using a newsgroup to do it, but what is the difference
between a group of individuals trying to push a certain point across,
and take control of a topic, and that of what is considered, "Spam?"
It could come across as being like spam.

I'm willing to discuss your thoughts on this DC (and others) as
well.

Thank you.

More to the point, when has this froup ever discussed "alternative
healthcare?"  Aside from spammers, it doesn't happen -- the topic
here is vilifying those who practice mainstream medicine, and
especially preventive medicine.

+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

Richard, untangle the posts made by the different posters here, and
address them specifically.

Thank you.

This thread is not about Jan Drew.

You don't even have a clue

Jan isn't participating in the study; where would you get that idea?
I'm picking subject matters
that are discussed here both pro and con - and researching somewhere
else...this just gives me
a good starting point for what I am actually researching.

"MothWrangler" <mothwrangler@hotmail.com>

Woo-zy