 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking the validity and benefits of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals as “blogging“ the newsgroups, although they do not (for obvious reasons) promote a specific company or product as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. This is an effort aimed at cultivating mind share under pretense of grass roots advocacy, and there is also a common thread between industry presence on a blog and its participation in a newsgroup: both are done under the pretense that the poster is not professionally affiliated. These people are likely to be associated with a PR project underwritten anonymously by the media or marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to various patterns of language, key word phrases, tone, underlying message, frequency of posting, evasion, and (when it suits their purpose) attacks on individuals who advocate the use of natural medicine. I might refer to these posters as “pharma thugs” or “pharma hoods” when responding to them, whereas they like to use the term “altie” in referring to users of alternative medicine. Please familiarize yourself with their tactics so you can identify them. See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html See: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7208 See: http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm What to look for while participating on mha: 1. Pharma hoods on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. They actively discourage a scientific discussion and disrupt ongoing discussions that explore alternative treatments in healthcare. 2. Pharma hoods on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine, asserting that disease-management "healthcare" is the only viable form of treatment. Their comments are frequently embedded in pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting scientific data or references. 3. Pharma hoods on usenet work to bury the comments of others, especially when those comments are a negative portrayal of conventional medicine. A key feature of this tactic is its VERTICAL focus, whereby activity is pushed further into existing threads as a way to engage regular posters there, draw energy away from newer threads, and reduce overall discussion. Use of flames and personal attacks are likewise designed to distract from meaningful discussion and also to discourage visitors so they will leave. Health advocates should be aware of this tactic and strive to formulate a consistent type of response (yes, I‘ve noticed!) -- or no response -- in order to limit the damage caused by these persons in favor of a more productive contribution. We each have to decide this one for ourselves based on our own level of conviction, knowledge, and abilities. 4. Pharma hoods on usenet are much faster at posting than other participants; they almost always respond first (and last) to a new thread, question, or comment. 5. Pharma hoods on usenet use multiple posters in a swap-and-relay fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who express interest in natural healing methods, or to provide aid for a peer who is losing control of a thread. You will see this tactic used more often in the former scenario than any other. 6. Pharma hoods on usenet refute numerous published studies showing the benefits of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare, including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, biofeedback, acupuncture, acupressure, reflexology, and other approaches. You can find the science supporting a variety of natural medicine methods in a consumer-friendly format at http://www.newstarget.com. 7. Pharma hoods on usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these promoters belies their true motives and reveals their ties to industry. 8. Pharma hoods on usenet rely on junk science references (or limited data) to support their attacks on natural healing methods. At the same time, they decline to provide meaningful scientific references in support of their defense of most conventional treatments. Since most conventional medicine is marginally effective, unproven, and often dangerous, it is not surprising that support of those methods relies on studies funded by the drug makers (or other medical industry players) themselves. These “data” represent the basis for both FDA approval and later marketing claims. These data will rarely be referenced or provided due to their conflicted nature. 9. Pharma hoods on usenet assert that conventional medicine is "evidence based," however the lack of corroborating science disproves that claim. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority of cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use experimentally after decades of failed use. For most cancer patients, there is no proven benefit in the use of these enormously expensive and dangerous drugs. 10. Pharma hoods on usenet ignore iatrogenic studies showing the dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (i.e., more than 100,000 deaths annually, with some estimates several multiples higher), as well as a 20% recall or advisory on all previously approved drugs. They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of such drugs, the long term side effects that include organ failure and death, or the hazards of other commonly prescribed medical, surgical, and cosmetic treatments. If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably condescending toward others, and if that response is a repudiation of natural healing methods or the individual advocating such approaches, you can be sure you have encountered a Pharma hood. The mission of industry- funded PR projects aimed at public forums is to prevent a critical mass in consumer awareness about disinformation regarding matters of public health. Please read that again. It is unfortunate that more of these individuals are at work posting to usenet on a daily basis than almost anyone else, but it should not be surprising. These are reasons I am posting this alert . If you find it strange that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural healing, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The Pharma thugs have overrun the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma and ridicule, causing many casual posters or readers to be frightened away. From Wikipedia: "An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a blog can function as an internet forum...many bloggers differentiate themselves from the mainstream media, while others are ***members of that media working through a different channel.*** SOME INSTITUTIONS SEE BLOGGING AS A MEANS OF "GETTING AROUND THE FILTER" AND PUSHING MESSAGES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC." [CAPS for emphasis] From: http://reconstruction.eserver.org/064/boyd.shtml "The practice of blogging is also not bounded and does not signal a set of shared values and goals, even if there are some common ones. Early adopters believed that blogging is about the ability to speak freely to a large audience with no limiting authority or editorial control. AS INSTITUTIONS BECOME INTERESTED IN BLOGS AS A POTENTIAL MARKET, BLOGS ARE EMERGING WITH CONTROLLED CONTENT. [CAPS for emphasis] ... Much consternation arises amongst journalist-minded bloggers over whether bloggers should edit their posts, how attribution should work and whether or not bloggers have a responsibility to announce their affiliations and economic incentives. These are values prototypical to bloggers with a particular practice, but they are not universally shared. The goals and intentions of individual bloggers affect their practice and, in turn, the medium. "By reframing blogs as a culture-driven medium upon which the practice of blogging can occur, IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY IN STRUCTURE AND CONTENT. [CAPS for emphasis] As McLuhan noted, the message is not the medium--"It is only too typical that the 'content' of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium" (McLuhan 1995: 152). While such a reframing resolves many tensions and confusions about blogging, it also offers a framework in which to consider how blogging is blurring textuality and orality, corporeality and spatiality, public and private." * Pharma-thug: An individual who uses the Internet, or Usenet newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend mainstream medicine and disease management; 2) attack those who express a preference for natural or alternative medicine; and 3) promote the ideas of junk medical science funded by industry for the purpose of creating markets for ineffective and often dangerous medical products, procedures, and devices. Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they would be daft not to use whatever they can. I think people pretending to be other than they are has been a factor on newsgroups ever since I can remember. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Impact the Public Discourse on Matters of Public Health To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry are attempting to shape public thinking about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking the validity and benefits of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals as “blogging“ the newsgroups, although they do not (for obvious reasons) promote a specific company or product as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. This is an effort aimed at cultivating mind share under pretense of grass roots advocacy, and there is also a common thread between industry presence on a blog and its participation in a newsgroup: both are done under the pretense that the poster is not professionally affiliated. These people are likely to be associated with a PR project underwritten anonymously by the media or marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to various patterns of language, key word phrases, tone, underlying message, frequency of posting, evasion, and (when it suits their purpose) attacks on individuals who advocate the use of natural medicine. I might refer to these posters as “pharma thugs” or “pharma hoods” when responding to them, whereas they like to use the term “altie” in referring to users of alternative medicine. Please familiarize yourself with their tactics so you can identify them. See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html See: http://www.prwatch.org/node/7208 See: http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm What to look for while participating on mha: 1. Pharma hoods on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. They actively discourage a scientific discussion and disrupt ongoing discussions that explore alternative treatments in healthcare. 2. Pharma hoods on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine, asserting that disease-management "healthcare" is the only viable form of treatment. Their comments are frequently embedded in pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting scientific data or references. 3. Pharma hoods on usenet work to bury the comments of others, especially when those comments are a negative portrayal of conventional medicine. A key feature of this tactic is its VERTICAL focus, whereby activity is pushed further into existing threads as a way to engage regular posters there, draw energy away from newer threads, and reduce overall discussion. Use of flames and personal attacks are likewise designed to distract from meaningful discussion and also to discourage visitors so they will leave. Health advocates should be aware of this tactic and strive to formulate a consistent type of response (yes, I‘ve noticed!) -- or no response -- in order to limit the damage caused by these persons in favor of a more productive contribution. We each have to decide this one for ourselves based on our own level of conviction, knowledge, and abilities. 4. Pharma hoods on usenet are much faster at posting than other participants; they almost always respond first (and last) to a new thread, question, or comment. 5. Pharma hoods on usenet use multiple posters in a swap-and-relay fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who express interest in natural healing methods, or to provide aid for a peer who is losing control of a thread. You will see this tactic used more often in the former scenario than any other. 6. Pharma hoods on usenet refute numerous published studies showing the benefits of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare, including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, biofeedback, acupuncture, acupressure, reflexology, and other approaches. You can find the science supporting a variety of natural medicine methods in a consumer-friendly format at http://www.newstarget.com. 7. Pharma hoods on usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these promoters belies their true motives and reveals their ties to industry. 8. Pharma hoods on usenet rely on junk science references (or limited data) to support their attacks on natural healing methods. At the same time, they decline to provide meaningful scientific references in support of their defense of most conventional treatments. Since most conventional medicine is marginally effective, unproven, and often dangerous, it is not surprising that support of those methods relies on studies funded by the drug makers (or other medical industry players) themselves. These “data” represent the basis for both FDA approval and later marketing claims. These data will rarely be referenced or provided due to their conflicted nature. 9. Pharma hoods on usenet assert that conventional medicine is "evidence based," however the lack of corroborating science disproves that claim. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority of cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use experimentally after decades of failed use. For most cancer patients, there is no proven benefit in the use of these enormously expensive and dangerous drugs. 10. Pharma hoods on usenet ignore iatrogenic studies showing the dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (i.e., more than 100,000 deaths annually, with some estimates several multiples higher), as well as a 20% recall or advisory on all previously approved drugs. They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of such drugs, the long term side effects that include organ failure and death, or the hazards of other commonly prescribed medical, surgical, and cosmetic treatments. If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably condescending toward others, and if that response is a repudiation of natural healing methods or the individual advocating such approaches, you can be sure you have encountered a Pharma hood. The mission of industry- funded PR projects aimed at public forums is to prevent a critical mass in consumer awareness about disinformation regarding matters of public health. Please read that again. It is unfortunate that more of these individuals are at work posting to usenet on a daily basis than almost anyone else, but it should not be surprising. These are reasons I am posting this alert . If you find it strange that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural healing, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The Pharma thugs have overrun the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma and ridicule, causing many casual posters or readers to be frightened away. From Wikipedia: "An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a blog can function as an internet forum...many bloggers differentiate themselves from the mainstream media, while others are ***members of that media working through a different channel.*** SOME INSTITUTIONS SEE BLOGGING AS A MEANS OF "GETTING AROUND THE FILTER" AND PUSHING MESSAGES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC." [CAPS for emphasis] From: http://reconstruction.eserver.org/064/boyd.shtml "The practice of blogging is also not bounded and does not signal a set of shared values and goals, even if there are some common ones. Early adopters believed that blogging is about the ability to speak freely to a large audience with no limiting authority or editorial control. AS INSTITUTIONS BECOME INTERESTED IN BLOGS AS A POTENTIAL MARKET, BLOGS ARE EMERGING WITH CONTROLLED CONTENT. [CAPS for emphasis] ... Much consternation arises amongst journalist-minded bloggers over whether bloggers should edit their posts, how attribution should work and whether or not bloggers have a responsibility to announce their affiliations and economic incentives. These are values prototypical to bloggers with a particular practice, but they are not universally shared. The goals and intentions of individual bloggers affect their practice and, in turn, the medium. "By reframing blogs as a culture-driven medium upon which the practice of blogging can occur, IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY IN STRUCTURE AND CONTENT. [CAPS for emphasis] As McLuhan noted, the message is not the medium--"It is only too typical that the 'content' of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium" (McLuhan 1995: 152). While such a reframing resolves many tensions and confusions about blogging, it also offers a framework in which to consider how blogging is blurring textuality and orality, corporeality and spatiality, public and private." * Pharma-thug: An individual who uses the Internet, or Usenet newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend mainstream medicine and disease management; 2) attack those who express a preference for natural or alternative medicine; and 3) promote the ideas of junk medical science funded by industry for the purpose of creating markets for ineffective and often dangerous medical products, procedures, and devices. > Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they > would be daft not to use whatever they can. How many readers do you thing MHA has? The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not a money-making plan unless those five are *major* buyers. You can fiddle the numbers any way you like, but I seriously doubt that you can come up with *any* scenario that makes business sense. However, *accusing* someone of base motives is a very comforting thing because it saves people from having to take disturbing thoughts seriously. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > > > Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they > > would be daft not to use whatever they can. > > How many readers do you thing MHA has? How many subscribers do you see listed? > The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses > are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not > a money-making plan unless those five are *major* buyers. You can > fiddle the numbers any way you like, but I seriously doubt that > you can come up with *any* scenario that makes business sense. Is that why you've posted to mha and the other health related ngs several thousand times in the last few years, because you believe you're only addressing 5 other people? > However, *accusing* someone of base motives is a very comforting > thing because it saves people from having to take disturbing > thoughts seriously. We all know what you're selling, Dougie, we just don't want any. >> In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: >> > Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they >> > would be daft not to use whatever they can. >> >> How many readers do you thing MHA has? > > How many subscribers do you see listed? One. You are, of course, welcome to propose an alternate model. >> The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses >> are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > several thousand times in the last few years, because you believe > you're only addressing 5 other people? I have the luxury of not needing to make a business case. What's your excuse? | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <3e49822a-4f12-49d3-bc0c-f826d23c0...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > One. You are, of course, welcome to propose an alternate model. Maybe you should try not using your newsreader, or is it that simply an excuse for not seeing the number of subscribers? > >> The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses > >> are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have the luxury of not needing to make a business case. > What's your excuse? Sounds like you need an argument -- Kibble is *not* a luxury. >> In message <3e49822a-4f12-49d3-bc0c-f826d23c0...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Maybe you should try not using your newsreader, or is it that simply > an excuse for not seeing the number of subscribers? Sure -- NNTP isn't subscriber based. Again, you're welcome to present some actual facts. So far none in evidence. >> >> The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses >> >> are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Kibble is *not* a luxury. Hey, I'm not commenting on your diet here. If posting is the only way you can afford to eat, go for it. Conveniently, I have a job that pays quite well and allows me to afford luxuries such as an NNTP feed so I can enjoy the comedy that is MHA. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <f88e4088-152f-45c0-ad6c-27bf21a27...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Hey, I'm not commenting on your diet here. If posting is the > only way you can afford to eat, go for it. Don't worry, you'll be working for your supper again. > Conveniently, I have a job that pays quite well and allows me > to afford luxuries such as an NNTP feed so I can enjoy the > comedy that is MHA. Sure you do. And one of your job descriptions is claiming you can't see the subscriber count for mha. >> In message <f88e4088-152f-45c0-ad6c-27bf21a27...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> >> In message <3e49822a-4f12-49d3-bc0c-f826d23c0...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> >> >> In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: >> >> >> > Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they >> >> >> > would be daft not to use whatever they can. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Don't worry, you'll be working for your supper again. Yup, come Monday. Details available to those with more than an idiot-level ability to do simple research. >> Conveniently, I have a job that pays quite well and allows me >> to afford luxuries such as an NNTP feed so I can enjoy the >> comedy that is MHA. > > Sure you do. And one of your job descriptions is claiming you can't > see the subscriber count for mha. I wouldn't say *can't* see the subscriber count -- I'm willing to have you point out where it's available. I just *don't* see a count for any server but my own. I will, however, be quite surprised to find any cumulative subscriber info for newsgroups given what I know of the protocol. But by all means, go ahead and show us. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <66069897-c0e2-4c55-8058-4c6dea38a...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > quite surprised to find any cumulative subscriber info for > newsgroups given what I know of the protocol. And what is the count for your server? Is it 5? > But by all means, go ahead and show us. >> In message <66069897-c0e2-4c55-8058-4c6dea38a...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> >> Conveniently, I have a job that pays quite well and allows me >> >> to afford luxuries such as an NNTP feed so I can enjoy the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And what is the count for your server? Is it 5? No, one. As noted previously. >> But by all means, go ahead and show us. <Cricket chirps> | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ Peter, I see you get the same jollies as I do from grabbing the pigs in the barnyard and watching them run everywhere while squealing loudly. :)) Chris > Peter, > I see you get the same jollies as I do from grabbing the pigs in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Chris You know my story pretty well, Chris. And little pigglies tells a better story than I *ever* could. ;)) > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thing because it saves people from having to take disturbing > thoughts seriously. It also has the purpose of poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. Those who whine about conspiracies, keystroke programs, etc. think that these whines are a means of increasing their credibility. > > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Those who whine about conspiracies, keystroke programs, etc. think > that these whines are a means of increasing their credibility. And yet, Markey, you and your cadre authored the "Warning" post yourselves by demonstrating all of its noted behaviours. Take your bows...don't be shy. > > > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > yourselves by demonstrating all of its noted behaviours. Take your > bows...don't be shy.- Wrong, dimbulb. YOU authored it, as a means of poisoning the well, a known logical fallacy used by those who come to realize that their ideas are bogus, and that they are full of male bovine excreta. Like I said, any *intelligent* person sees your tactics for what they are, and, of course, you did not see that. Guess you proved you are not a member of that group. : Like I said, any *intelligent* person sees your [PeterB's] tactics for : what they are, and, of course, you did not see that. : : Guess you proved you are not a member of that group. He proved that ages ago when he provided a reference that said the exact opposite of what he claimed it did, and continued to do so even after the reference was quoted directly on this newsgroup. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . . > In article <e345f926-8274-453e-8c7e-ebf8e3558...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > opposite of what he claimed it did, and continued to do so even after > the reference was quoted directly on this newsgroup. Care to document that? I didn't think so. :> He proved that ages ago when he provided a reference that said the exact :> opposite of what he claimed it did, and continued to do so even after :> the reference was quoted directly on this newsgroup. : : Care to document that? I didn't think so. I have done so multiple times (including today), but you are either far too stupid to understand that, or far too committed a liar to back down at this point. In the meantime, I eagerly await your apology for having called me a liar when I claimed that there is a study documenting a benefit for aspirin. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > > In article <e345f926-8274-453e-8c7e-ebf8e3558...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Care to document that? I didn't think so. All of your posts prove that you are not a member of the group known as "intelligent people". > > > > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > their ideas are bogus, and that they are full of male bovine > excreta. Markey, if there was ever a "well" on mha, you filled it in with your first 25 posts. Did you ever get a visit from EPA? > Like I said, any *intelligent* person sees your tactics for what > they are, and, of course, you did not see that. My description of your antics is not a tactic, Markey, it's just a description. I'm sorry if you resemble those remarks. > Guess you proved you are not a member of that group. There are books on wit that might reduce your lack of it. > > > > > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Markey, if there was ever a "well" on mha, you filled it in with your > first 25 posts. Did you ever get a visit from EPA? No, but your posts have been cited as pollution. > > Like I said, any *intelligent* person sees your tactics for what > > they are, and, of course, you did not see that. > > My description of your antics is not a tactic, Markey, it's just a > description. I'm sorry if you resemble those remarks. Your use of a logical fallacy proves that you know that your arguments lack substance (other than male bovine excreta) and that you need to discredit those who prove you wrong. > > Guess you proved you are not a member of that group. > > There are books on wit that might reduce your lack of it You only read half that book on wit. I guess that is why you are a half-wit. [to PeterB] : Like I said, any *intelligent* person sees your tactics for what they : are, and, of course, you did not see that. : : Guess you proved you are not a member of that group. As you can see, he *still* hasn't learned his lesson: not only does he still think that I cannot document his claim that a book supports his thesis that vaccination had no effect on the reduction of disease incidence, when in fact the book specifically states that vaccination *did* have a significant effect, even though I have posted the quotation in question several times; he apparently actually believed that I would not be able to produce examples of studies that showed evidence that the benefits of taking aspirin can outweigh the risks. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?" > In article <e345f926-8274-453e-8c7e-ebf8e3558...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As you can see, he *still* hasn't learned his lesson: Richard, what makes you think he is capable of learning? I don't waste a grey cell thinking that. PeteyB is immune to facts and logic. not only does he still > think that I cannot document his claim that a book supports his thesis > that vaccination had no effect on the reduction of disease incidence, when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > produce examples of studies that showed evidence that the benefits of > taking aspirin can outweigh the risks. That is called cognitive dissonance, and it is the way these critters reject facts. : Richard, what makes you think he is capable of learning? I don't waste : a grey cell thinking that. PeteyB is immune to facts and logic. I agree with you that he is uneducable -- or at least, given a choice between admitting that he learned something and going with the same lie he used before, he sticks with the lie. There may be people out there, however, who are unfamiliar with "PeterB," and they at least deserve to know just what it is that they are dealing with. : not only does he still :> think that I cannot document his claim that a book supports his thesis [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : That is called cognitive dissonance, and it is the way these critters : reject facts. I'm not sure that it's "cognitive dissonance" so much as "basic stupidity" (as Gary Larson, IIRC, put it). ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" On May 6, 5:40 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote: > In article > <e345f926-8274-453e-8c7e-ebf8e3558...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > As you can see, he *still* hasn't learned his lesson: Richard, what makes you think he is capable of learning? I don't waste a grey cell thinking that. PeteyB is immune to facts and logic. not only does he still > think that I cannot document his claim that a book supports his thesis > that vaccination had no effect on the reduction of disease incidence, when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > produce examples of studies that showed evidence that the benefits of > taking aspirin can outweigh the risks. That is called cognitive dissonance, and it is the way these critters reject facts. Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-September 7, 2004" <M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t 09-07...@lambercartel.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-July 10, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 07-10...@lymbercartel.com> From: M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 30, 2004 (M.a.r.k_P.r.o.b.e.r.t_04-30...@limbercartel.com) Newsgroups: alt.support.cerebral-palsy, misc.handicap From: "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 11, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 06-11...@lombercartel.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:11:24 GMT > In article <e345f926-8274-453e-8c7e-ebf8e3558...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > produce examples of studies that showed evidence that the benefits of > taking aspirin can outweigh the risks. As always, Schultzie is OT and struggling for an argument. I'll post the original discussion of the vaccine issue in a separate thread so he can demonstrate his inability (again) to read for comprehension. We might even be lucky enough to get a "fraudian slip" or a quote that isn't. > > In message <PTVSj.19061$yD2.17...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Brian Gaff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Support??? >> > However, *accusing* someone of base motives is a very comforting >> > thing because it saves people from having to take disturbing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Support??? Like a lot of things on MHA, you pretty well have to take people at their word. Whether it's earth radiation, magic water, unknown laws of physics, the Illuminati, "innate intelligence," teams of secret agents keeping posters under surveillance, or aliens giving birth to Elvis' love children -- if you demand proof you're going to be disappointed. All you find here are words and a bunch of people who have discovered that Usenet is cheaper than supermarket tabloids. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > Like a lot of things on MHA, you pretty well have to take > people at their word. Whether it's earth radiation, magic water, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > words and a bunch of people who have discovered that Usenet > is cheaper than supermarket tabloids. Well, Thats why I always provide a link to back up my claims!! What I have to say is factual and credible, Thats the truth. :o) > In message <9443c71b-cd0b-4f43-8fb4-87ac8843c...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Kevysmom wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > It also has the purpose of poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. > Those who whine about conspiracies, keystroke programs, etc. think > that these whines are a means of increasing their credibility. Those that are connected with private investigator companies and Homeland Security have zero credibility as far as I am concerned. And those individuals that post here connected to insurance companies, are equally as unethical. I see the point you are trying to make, but I'm not buying that you are some innocent poster here on Usenet. On May 4, 2:00 pm, Butterflies1...@gmail.com wrote: > > It also has the purpose of poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. > > Those who whine about conspiracies, keystroke programs, etc. think [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are some > innocent poster here on Usenet. Frankly, doofus, I do not give a cleanse as to what you believe. You are an extorint, hypocritical, stalking moron who either spent hours searching for my past, or, spent dollars and cents to use a proprietary database. In either case, you are worthless and there is no need to worry about what you "think" (note that I use the word "think" solely because of the limitations of the English language not having the appropriate descriptive word for what you do.) > Frankly, doofus, I do not give a cleanse as to what you believe. You > are an extorint, hypocritical, stalking moron who either spent hours [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the limitations of the English language not having the appropriate > descriptive word for what you do.) I didn't spend anything, it is all there in public records, I am not stalking you, never have even contacted you, however you have emailed me when I asked you not to. The only time I emailed you back is when you lied on the board about me using a proprietary database, and I sent you the information back in an email. I could have posted it, but I didn't. Your company is right out there on the internet in public reoords. People here should know you are connected with a private investigative firm-now it makes a lot of sense how you are always the welcoming committee for new posters. Find out information about information about them, and post there whereabouts. I've never told you where I live, but you posted it out here. Where did you get your information? It would appear that you have been stalking me. I don't have a proprietary database. Public Records. They are online these days. You are the one that brought it to Kulacz' attention that your brother was in Homeland Security, when that is something you should not have done. He simply put it out there, and I don't blame him, I'm wondering how many other times you have told him about I do have to agree with Bolen about his description of you. On May 5, 2:27 pm, Butterflies1...@gmail.com wrote: > > Frankly, doofus, I do not give a cleanse as to what you believe. You > > are an extorint, hypocritical, stalking moron who either spent hours [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I didn't spend anything, it is all there in public records, That is a L I E. It is not there in the public records. When I conduct a Google search I get no hits what-so-ever. For you to suggest that you randomly selected that particular state and get the 20+ year old information is absurd. Nothing in that state's website links to that information. The ONLY conclusion is that YOU went to a proprietary database and bought it. > I am not stalking you, never have even contacted you, No....looking up my past is not stalking. bullshit. however you > have emailed me when I asked you not to. The only time I emailed you > back is when you lied on the board > about me using a proprietary database, and I sent you the information > back in an email. However, you did not email me the URL. When you failed to do that, I smelled the stink. I could have posted it, > but I didn't. Your company is right out there on the internet in > public reoords. It was NOT my company. You search was inadeqate, and the circumstances involved the death of one of my family members. > People here should know you are connected with a private investigative > firm-now it makes a lot of sense how you are > always the welcoming committee for new posters. That is so illogical that only a moron would think that it is logical. My business has nothing to do with what I post here. Nothing. Find out information > about information about them, and post there whereabouts. Oh? When have I posted "whereabouts"?? Like addresses? You are making this up as you type. I've never > told you where I live, but you posted it out here. Where did you get > your information? It would appear that you have been stalking me. First, I did not post where you live, but a large region of the country. Second, I told you where I got the information. Your messages to Usenet contain a header with an NNTP Posting Host. Yours resolves broadly to where I said. I could have been more specific, but I chose to not do so. > I don't have a proprietary database. Public Records. They are online > these days. Not in the state where those records are. > You are the one that brought it to Kulacz' attention that your brother > was in Homeland Security, Do learn to use your memory. It was my brother-in-law, and Kulasz brought his name into the email. HE had no business looking back to the early 1980's. > when that is something you should not have done. He simply put it out > there, No, he did it by email, and then "put it out there". and I don't blame him, > I'm wondering how many other times you have told him about Wonder to your hearts content. Email him and ask him. > I do have to agree with Bolen about his description of you. Agreeing with Bolen is the sign of having serious brain damage. > Do learn to use your memory. It was my brother-in-law, and Kulasz > brought his name into the email. HE had no business looking back to > the early 1980's. Do learn to use public records, and memory. There were two addresses posted (which you bitched out, as I recall) for the businesses you are associated with, you know the private investigation company. Those were in two different states. By using the PUBLIC records online, it doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to put in someone's last name, which is what I did, and it pulled up the information. Before you falsely accuse someone of lying, thinking before you post is always the better option, especially when something that simple that took 5 minutes of my time was found. And then by using google, it would appear that party also ran for some kind of political office in yet another State. That also is public record. To make a false claim that I had some kind of proprietary database is indeed being very untruthful. On May 6, 3:19 pm, Butterflies1...@gmail.com wrote: > > Do learn to use your memory. It was my brother-in-law, and Kulasz > > brought his name into the email. HE had no business looking back to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > were > in two different states. What the hell are you talking about? I saw no such thing. By using the PUBLIC records online, it > doesn't take > much of a rocket scientist to put in someone's last name, which is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > office in yet another State. > That also is public record. That may be public record, but the rest is NOT. The state where the adult facility does not have a public record from 20+ years ago that is on line. > To make a false claim that I had some kind of proprietary database is > indeed being very untruthful. That is what I believe, and still believe, to be true. I do not believe you. > That may be public record, but the rest is NOT. The state where the > adult facility does not have a public record from 20+ years ago that > is on line. Bullshit. Not only did I send it to you, but I sent it to three other people, and not the people you would suspect. And I then I sent three other people the link. Your credibility is shrinking with each mistruth that you tell you against me. And the other party connected to your last name ran for office of some type, and that information is online as well. Maybe the sleazebag who hacked my computer has a special proprietary base that I am not aware of. It smells like a sleazebag private investigator to me. How else would anyone know where I live? I know that the sleazebag private investigator that lived in my former neighborhood was illegally monitoring me. And since I never told you, yet you posted it, it would appear that you have some kind of "connections," that are just as sleazy as the former neighbor. You, and a couple of your buddies have posted information about me that I have not shared with anyone in this forum. Do explain that. > That may be public record, but the rest is NOT. The state where the > adult facility does not have a public record from 20+ years ago that > is on line. Since you insist, here is the link to the public records on line. I'm tired of being called a liar by you. http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=J90645&inq _came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_numbe r=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PARKLANE&names_filing_type= On May 4, 2:00 pm, Butterflies1...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 3, 12:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are some > innocent poster here on Usenet. Frankly, doofus, I do not give a cleanse as to what you believe. You are an extorint, hypocritical, stalking moron who either spent hours searching for my past, or, spent dollars and cents to use a proprietary database. In either case, you are worthless and there is no need to worry about what you "think" (note that I use the word "think" solely because of the limitations of the English language not having the appropriate descriptive word for what you do.) AND Mark S Probert claim/lie he reads Torah everyday has been proven again. > On May 4, 2:00 pm, Butterflies1...@gmail.com wrote: >> On May 3, 12:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > AND > Mark S Probert claim/lie he reads Torah everyday has been proven again. Hello--Marcia D.C. Sessions wrote: >The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses >are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not >a money-making plan unless those five are *major* buyers. First, we obviously have more than 5 readers and/or posters. Second, your view of what's good business is not necessarily that of the big drug companies. Third. here's an alternate (pun intended) scenario: Executives at the top of a major drug company have decided they want absolutely NO talk about cures and treatments other than those they have laid out for folks through the 'usual' outlets. To accomplish that, since they have huge profits available to them, they decided to combat ANY mention in a public place of alternate treatments that may upset their apple cart. The reason being to completely obfuscate the truth so that the false view will be taken as the only one available. As well, that policy can irritate people that might frequent a forum, by putting forward too much fighting back and forth so as to cause people who would normally be interested in alternatives to go elsewhere to avoid the unpleasantness. There are plenty of small minded, little people who would love to play 'secret agent' to feel like they were somebody, while only a few of their drug company handlers were in the know. For their ego boost, they would probably do the work for a pittance just to be able to 'be on the inside'. Because of this interest, the business considerations become even more viable, when the drug companies can get what they want for less. Chris The above scenario among others, is definitely a sensible possibility. Consider that for some companies the cost is outweighed by their need to combat alternate images. > D.C. Sessions wrote: >>The problem with the whole "secret agent" notion is that businesses >>are in ... business. Paying someone to write to five people is not >>a money-making plan unless those five are *major* buyers. > > First, we obviously have more than 5 readers and/or posters. Of course -- but if I'd used a larger number I'd have had even *more* nonsense about the exact number. It's a simple matter to calculate how large an audience you need before you get anywhere near cost-effectiveness in any kind of marketing, and even the most inflated estimates of MHA readership are orders of magnitude short. > Second, your view of what's good business is not necessarily that of > the big drug companies. Third. here's an alternate (pun intended) > scenario: "Good business," as claimed in the TFH posts here, means making more than you spend. Usually by a pretty hefty margin, where an employee generates sales several times the individual's salary, benefits, and other direct costs. There's nothing magical about pharmaceuticals; they use the same accounting rules as every other business (in large part as a matter of securities law.) > Executives at the top of a major drug company have decided they > want absolutely NO talk about cures and treatments other than those > they have laid out for folks through the 'usual' outlets. Cue "mission impossible" theme. > To > accomplish that, since they have huge profits available to them, they > decided to combat ANY mention in a public place of alternate > treatments that may upset their apple cart. Better yet, just call those nice young men in the clean white coats. > The reason being to > completely obfuscate the truth so that the false view will be taken as > the only one available. As well, that policy can irritate people that > might frequent a forum, by putting forward too much fighting back and > forth so as to cause people who would normally be interested in > alternatives to go elsewhere to avoid the unpleasantness. Which only leaves bookstores, magazines, private mailing lists, tens of thousands of homeopaths, naturopaths, orthopaths, hiking paths, movies, television, radio, and (wait for it) a large number of medical schools. Including at least one, Georgetown University, which not only /requires/ coursework in "integrative medicine" but has reworked the curriculum to include it in all of the required classes, such as organic chemistry and statistics. However, the All-Powerful Pharmaceutical Cartel has decided to draw the line at the most influential medium of all: Usenet. Riiiiiight. > There are plenty of small minded, little people who would love > to play 'secret agent' to feel like they were somebody, while only a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > considerations become even more viable, when the drug companies can > get what they want for less. First you have to assume several things: 1) These companies are run by drooling morons, 2) Even drooling morons think that they can actually shut down all discussion, 3) Those drooling morons have even _heard_ of Usenet, 4) They *need* to pay people That last is quite instructive. In a world where intelligent and informed people have differences of opinion about everything from music to software, AND WILL ARGUE THEIR SIDE ONLINE AT THE DROP OF A HAT [1], you are presuming that the "alternative medicines" [2] are so universally acknowledged to be indisputably true that nobody would post skeptically here without some external inducement. How curious. > The above scenario among others, is definitely a sensible > possibility. Consider that for some companies the cost is outweighed > by their need to combat alternate images. You're at the same time assuming that these companies are capable of nearly unlimited resources, able to command the best marketing agencies in the world, able to order whole governments around, and so forth. And, yet, you're simultaneously assuming that they're so driven by irrational urges and so out of touch with basic marketing realities that they make plans that require shutting off all public comment unfavorable to them -- and don't get a clue that it's not working even after decades of abject failure. Yeah, that's a "sensible possibility." [1] And will cheerfully drop the hat themselves. [2] Plural deliberate. Many of the "alties" posting here directly contradict each other, so you have to keep track of who is who to avoid "friendly fire." | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >>D.C. Sessions wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > most inflated estimates of MHA readership are orders of magnitude > short. I suspect that, in general, a lot of usenet posters greatly over-estimate the number of people who read their posts. I also suspect that for all but the most active newsgroups--and MHA isn't one of those--the readership is pretty darn tiny. And the number of posts which are actually read (and not blocked, killfiled, filtered, or just skipped over) is much smaller still. Given the many millions of individuals who obtain information via the Internet each day, the number of people who have ever read a single usenet post, let alone a MHA post, is minuscule. Most Internet users don't even know what usenet is, or how to access it, and generally aren't interested in finding out. In the general Internet world, usenet is pretty much irrelevant. >>Second, your view of what's good business is not necessarily that of >>the big drug companies. Third. here's an alternate (pun intended) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > accounting rules as every other business (in large part as a > matter of securities law.) <snip> > However, the All-Powerful Pharmaceutical Cartel has decided to draw > the line at the most influential medium of all: Usenet. Riiiiiight. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 3) Those drooling morons have even _heard_ of Usenet, > 4) They *need* to pay people Well, there's a good basis for this assumption: you know as well as I do that ingesting, injecting, or otherwise using those toxic pharmaceutical products causes nasty side effects, most notably drooling, moronic thinking, and irrational behavior. > That last is quite instructive. In a world where intelligent and informed > people have differences of opinion about everything from music to software, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How curious. Rats! No fair! I've been trying to find out how to get paid for my usenet posts for years now. I like to think that my posts are influential enough that I deserve to be *highly* compensated for them. But no-o-o-o-o....No contact by the deep-pocketed and desperate-for-pharmashills companies. No offers of payment. No money at all. Bah! :-( How do I cash in? Is there a system for applying for these payments that I've overlooked? >> The above scenario among others, is definitely a sensible >>possibility. Consider that for some companies the cost is outweighed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unfavorable to them -- and don't get a clue that it's not working > even after decades of abject failure. And, these companies choose to spend their money trying to influence usenet's small, and increasingly smaller, number of readers. And, these companies choose to spend their money trying to influence individuals who perhaps may change their minds only if, and when, hell freezes over. And probably not even then. Sure they do. > Yeah, that's a "sensible possibility." > > [1] And will cheerfully drop the hat themselves. > [2] Plural deliberate. Many of the "alties" posting here > directly contradict each other, so you have to keep > track of who is who to avoid "friendly fire." I can't imagine that the pharmaceutical companies could believe that any anti-alternative or pro-pharma claims they might make via MHA posts would be in any way effective or influential. Even if MHA had a large number of readers, which I highly doubt it has, the number of readers who might be persuaded to change their beliefs with regard to alternative treatments is probably...well...none. How many posters here have ever changed their beliefs about alternative treatments after reading the post of someone who espoused "the other side" (either "for" or "against")? Has there ever been a poster here who eventually "saw the light" and switched sides in the debate? As far as I've seen, most of the MHA posters seem to be pretty firmly wedded to their general confidence in science-based medicine and their beliefs in the validity of alternative treatments. It seems to me the pro-alternatives posters aren't ever going to change their minds in response to the skeptics' posts. (No matter how cogent and logical and well-supported those posts may be.) And anti-science based medicine posters aren't ever going to change their minds in response to pro-science based medicine posts and suddenly embrace science-based medicine. SignatureProud member since 2007, WWWSC #1 Ann/Emma Anne #4 : I suspect that, in general, a lot of usenet posters greatly : over-estimate the number of people who read their posts. In the Good Old Days, they used to estimate that there were 10 lurkers for every active poster. I suspect that the ratio is less nowadays, thanks to the popularity of blogging (at least among bloggers). ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." On May 4, 1:13 am, MothWrangler I take a contrary position to both your and your respondent Tweeledee's comments regarding the number of people reading these newsgroups. Precisely because the number of Internet users has grown there are probably far more people reading these newsgroups than is realized. I agree that a great many users don't know what USENET is but suspect they have stumbled across it, perhaps in a google search but don't know how to post or feel uncomfortable expressing their views. Keep in mind also that a great many of these newsgroup comments get archived by various news servers and reappear in special interest collections in various web pages here and there. Last but not least, Google itself archives the comments which means they can reappear any time in a google newsgroup search. Citizen Jimserac > On May 4, 1:13 am, MothWrangler > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > across it, perhaps in a google search but > don't know how to post or feel uncomfortable expressing their views. One significant indicator is the number of NNTP hosts. Ten years ago, every ISP hosted Usenet. Today, most of them don't bother; if you want a feed, you either use Google or sign up with one of (IIRC) two hosting services. That doesn't sound like a thriving business model. Compared to the number of blog sites, it's in the noise. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <dcada7f4-1f1c-4ebf-bfab-ab339d256...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ OK, points acknowledged. Now how about this one, are not the fewer NNTP servers capacity, particularly Google's far greater now than 10 years ago? Thanks Citizen Jimserac > OK, points acknowledged. Now how about this one, are not the fewer > NNTP servers capacity, particularly Google's far greater now than 10 > years ago? It's an indicator of demand. To an ISP, downstream bandwidth to subscribers is much cheaper than upstream bandwidth to external hosts such as NewsGuy or Google. Servers themselves are cheap. And yet, ISPs don't have enough demand to justify providing news service to subscribers and instead leave it to Google and the others who charge for news feeds. Do the math. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > It seems to me the pro-alternatives posters aren't ever going to change > their minds in response to the skeptics' posts. (No matter how cogent [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their minds in response to pro-science based medicine posts and suddenly > embrace science-based medicine. Every now and then I ask someone, "what conceivable set of events would cause you to change your mind?" I had one reply, once, of "nothing can change my mind." That was at least honest. All of rest just went silent. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >> In message >> <e176a964-3cb7-44a1-a0a7-68b37df2aa2f@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > deep-pocketed and desperate-for-pharmashills companies. No offers of > payment. No money at all. Bah! :-( lol....I have had the same feelings for the entire time I have known about usenet...always of course being accused of being a "pharma shill"... still waiting for that first check... whatever evil one thinks "evil organized medicine is" must not know that pharma with its deep pockets and so called cover up behaivor...are publicly owned companies...with stock holders and boards of directors(my hubby spent his career in very upper level medical device management,,,,is now on the Board of an evil medical device company.....he never ceases to be amazed at the level of watchdogness etc..exp since Exxon...most every piece of paper that leaves the company is picked apart by numerous depts for truthfulness etc...no Board member..he included ...is willing to spend time in prison for allowing deceptive practices...Sorbanes Oxley is an entire LAW written since Exxon debacle..to protect the consumer) yeah..I realize few here will ever believe such behaivor..much easier to believe that "those of us" in evilllll organized medicine (a science based field) would sell our souls to post to this group with non scientific info.. > How do I cash in? Is there a system for applying for these payments that > I've overlooked? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > minds in response to pro-science based medicine posts and suddenly embrace > science-based medicine. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/7c164120890c998a Jan 26 2008 I can't read too many of the posts on MHA myself. The sheer magnitude of uneducated (and not just uneducated, but *proudly* uneducated), illogical, magical, and delusional thinking there makes me too Woo-zy. Nancy Unique, like everyone else > > In message <e176a964-3cb7-44a1-a0a7-68b37df2a...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, mainframetech wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I suspect that, in general, a lot of usenet posters greatly > over-estimate the number of people who read their posts. According to the GoogleGroups web page for MHA, there are a total of 2368 subscribers. While this is a lot more than 5, it is not sufficient to justify paying anyone to post here. This 'pay to post' whine is merely an ad hominem used in a feeble attempt to discredit those who disagree. It is used by those who cannot formulate and support a logical argument to justify their claims. When I see them posting it, I know immediately that I am dealing with someone who knows that they are behind the curve on proof of claims. > Executives at the top of a major drug company have decided they > want absolutely NO talk about cures and treatments other than those > they have laid out for folks through the 'usual' outlets. To > accomplish that, since they have huge profits available to them, they > decided to combat ANY mention in a public place of alternate > treatments that may upset their apple cart. I'll add that if this is their objective, they've been singularly ineffective in pursuing it. At the same time, Madame Butterflies has someone spending major money to keep her under surveillance. So, I wonder, why don't they just arrange a little accident for those who annoy them by posting here? It's much more effective, far harder to trace to them, and less expensive by job lots. After that they can start to work on a strategy for dealing with Andrew Weil. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ Hi, Brian. PeteyB, a/k/a Pontificating Blowhard, has posted this screed a thousand times. > Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they > would be daft not to use whatever they can. [quoted text clipped - 181 lines] > > read more » > Has this not always gone on in media to some extent. I'd have thought they > would be daft not to use whatever they can. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Brian Brian, you may have a longer history with Usenet than I do. I agree that industry cares greatly what the public thinks. It's about mind share. This medium is a channel for the medical players to protect their markets. If they can't affect public opinion, they can't hope to survive. I predict they are going to devolve anyway, it's just a matter of time. > -- > Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. > graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them > Email: bria...@blueyonder.co.uk > Brian, you may have a longer history with Usenet than I do. I agree > that industry cares greatly what the public thinks. It's about mind > share. This medium is a channel for the medical players to protect > their markets. If they can't affect public opinion, they can't hope > to survive. I predict they are going to devolve anyway, it's just a > matter of time. Peter, I think you are right on the money. Industry does care, and they do care where people are getting the information that they want disseminated; since usenet was invented for the sharing of ideas, as more and more consumers have come to the newsgroups to share ideas, and get information, as with the internet, it would appear that there is a need to control the ideas presented and insult anyone that shares a different idea than what industry wants presented. And they certainly don't want alternative healthcare ideas to be disseminated any further than they are now. > Peter, I think you are right on the money. Industry does care, and > they do care [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ideas to be disseminated any further > than they are now. Which is, of course, why they're concentrating on Usenet (which is losing readership) and not blogs (which are gaining readership) or medical schools (which are incorporating "integrative medicine" into their curricula. Brilliant of them! | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ On May 4, 2:06 pm, Butterflies1...@gmail.com wrote: > > Brian, you may have a longer history with Usenet than I do. I agree > > that industry cares greatly what the public thinks. It's about mind [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ideas to be disseminated any further > than they are now. Right, it's just another "channel" for marketing and/or "information," depending on how you see it. Brian, Not everyone that comes here and looks through the posts knows that some folks are pretending to be something they can't be. We have quite a crew of suspects here in this forum. My guess is that they're much more prevalent for the drug companies where folks discuss other than the 'standard' kinds of cures and treatments. Chris > Not everyone that comes here and looks through the posts knows that > some folks are pretending to be something they can't be. We have > quite a crew of suspects here in this forum. My guess is that they're > much more prevalent for the drug companies where folks discuss other > than the 'standard' kinds of cures and treatments. I have often wondered if there aren't individuals or companies scanning the newsgroups looking at people's symptoms that post, and then designing medical research that goes against whatever they have written here? >> Not everyone that comes here and looks through the posts knows that >> some folks are pretending to be something they can't be. We have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > research that goes > against whatever they have written here? That's a BRILLIANT idea! You should patent it. You have one year from the present disclosure. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ On May 3, 5:40 pm, mainframetech <flam...@optonline.net> wrote: > Not everyone that comes here and looks through the posts knows that > some folks are pretending to be something they can't be. We have > quite a crew of suspects here in this forum. My guess is that they're > much more prevalent for the drug companies where folks discuss other > than the 'standard' kinds of cures and treatments. I have often wondered if there aren't individuals or companies scanning the newsgroups looking at people's symptoms that post, and then designing medical research that goes against whatever they have written here? HAWKI: yousurely are more intelligent to even suggest this...let alone believe it happens?? seeing black helicopters?? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message