Re: Re: immunologist whistleblower on vaccines - Bill & Melinda Gates Fo

[Guest guest]

>

> Where did you finally post the interview?

Desh,

You can get it here http://tinyurl.com/4vsmxk - click on " download the

podcast " .

The interview begins 70 mins into the show.

Has this immunologist given an

> interview anywhere else?

>

Assuming she's still alive :-), not that I'm aware of. I think she's

seriously concerned about her safety so the more interviews she does the

less likely she'll be able to hide her identity. But I really have no idea

if she's going to do more interviews or not. did say he wanted to

have her back on.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Shouldn't this have the PARANOIA tag?

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> Maybe she's read " A Career in Microbiology Can Be Harmful To Your

> Health " http://www.greatdreams.com/microbiologists.htm

>

> It lists all the microbiologists who have died under mysterious

> circumstances. Looks like they're adding professions too. May want to

> check it against what your friends/family members do for a living!

>

>

>

> > Assuming she's still alive :-), not that I'm aware of. I think she's

> > seriously concerned about her safety so the more interviews she does

> the

> > less likely she'll be able to hide her identity. But I really have no

> idea

> > if she's going to do more interviews or not. did say he

> wanted to

> > have her back on.

> >

> > Suze

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There is quite a large gap between the acceptance that there are unscrupulous

business people and corporations, and even that the system is corrupt, and

people being murdered left and right in all sorts of contexts - 9/11 planned by

the Bush govt, scientists being killed systematically, AIDS unleashed on the

world by the U.S. etc. Most of these have appeared on this list at one point or

another (along with other ones) and the attitude seems to be - the only evidence

that's actually needed to make these views plausible is skepticism about the

motives of our current government. No real evidence ever needs to be provided.

All paranoia immediately accepted here.

Of course, if you think that a lot of these posts are crazy, then you're

immediately accused (by implication) of supporting the system.

It seems to me that over the last couple of years, this lists has degenerated

more and more into repeated posts about this kind of nonsense, with less and

less real nutritional information being provided. After all, the most important

thing is that this is all an occult conspiracy by the real, hidden, government,

right?

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> Is there such a tag? Really?

>

> Maybe it sounds paranoid to the uninitiated, but isn't such a far

> stretch from the conspiracies we talk about here - i.e. cholesterol

> con, raw milk vs. pasturized, the REAL causes of heart disease,

> diabetes, etc.

>

> When you start to dig more deeply, you find that the business world

> is full of people who use dirty methods to make sure they come out

> ahead. It varies in how far they are willing to go, but if you read

> a book like " Confessions of an Economic Hitman " or very much at all

> about Monsanto, you'll see big business is capable of quite a lot.

>

> We like to think of ourselves as civilized, but in other countries

> that aren't quite as well regulated, hiring hit men to go against the

> competition is a common practice, as my brother-in-law from Bahrain

> is quick to tell me. Who would you kill - the CEO who can be

> replaced or the competition's top scientist who may be the only one

> who knows the full story of the current " bleeding edge " whatever it

> is. Just one case in point.

>

>

> > >

> > > > Assuming she's still alive :-), not that I'm aware of. I think

> she's

> > > > seriously concerned about her safety so the more interviews she

> does

> > > the

> > > > less likely she'll be able to hide her identity. But I really

> have no

> > > idea

> > > > if she's going to do more interviews or not. did say

> he

> > > wanted to

> > > > have her back on.

> > > >

> > > > Suze

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You mistake me for someone who doesn't have a natural curiosity - that's far

from the truth. However, I guess, as the years go by I feel less and less

obligated to spend time researching every crazy conspiracy theory based simply

on the fact that it's not logically contradictory, and that there are evil

people in the world. So, no - I don't think that every conspiracy deserves a

" fair " hearing, whatever that may mean. I think that it's good to develop the

skills to filter out the nonsense, and concentrate on the more important things.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> Yeah, those 7 foot shape-changing space lizards!

>

> I think that stuff comes up regularly because there are people here

> who question and once you start questioning authority/accepted reality

> (Can I trust what the Doctor says?) it shakes up the house of cards

> and you have to at least explore the rest of the stuff, or at least

> some of us do.

>

> What is it that leads people to a group like this? Isn't it raw

> curiosity and the willingness to question authority? Wouldn't those

> same traits lead people to look into, and question other things as

> well? I've seriously looked into all kinds of crazy stuff -

> illuminati, etc. A lot of it after ahwile I decide is just craziness

> or mass delusion, but I'm happier with myself for giving it a fair

> evaluation than dismissing it just because it isn't mainstream.

> After all, low-salt, low-cholesterol is mass-delusion too. (When you

> stop being a sheep and following the crowd, you find a lot of choices

> in which direction to go.)

>

> I'd bet that part of the reason that these types of topics come up

> here more than nutrition sometimes is just that nobody is posting

> anything interesting about nutrition at the time, and those wheels

> keep spinning anyways.

>

> But don't worry, Implode, I don't think you're part of " The System "

> just because you don't share our curiosity in these things or

> willingness to explore conspiracy theories. Many people don't for

> their own reasons and I guess it can make them feel uncomfortable

> when others do. Maybe there SHOULD be a " CONSPIRACY " label!

>

>

> >

> > There is quite a large gap between the acceptance that there are

> unscrupulous business people and corporations, and even that the

> system is corrupt, and people being murdered left and right in all

> sorts of contexts - 9/11 planned by the Bush govt, scientists being

> killed systematically, AIDS unleashed on the world by the U.S. etc.

> Most of these have appeared on this list at one point or another

> (along with other ones) and the attitude seems to be - the only

> evidence that's actually needed to make these views plausible is

> skepticism about the motives of our current government. No real

> evidence ever needs to be provided. All paranoia immediately accepted

> here.

> >

> > Of course, if you think that a lot of these posts are crazy, then

> you're immediately accused (by implication) of supporting the system.

> >

> > It seems to me that over the last couple of years, this lists has

> degenerated more and more into repeated posts about this kind of

> nonsense, with less and less real nutritional information being

> provided. After all, the most important thing is that this is all an

> occult conspiracy by the real, hidden, government, right?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Certainly I have not ever advocated censorship here. Your reasoning is that if

disagree that all bad things are the result of deep, dark conspiracies, that I

advocate censorship? Post all you want about these wacko conspiracy theories,

and in the interest of free speech, I can comment on what you say.

I've also not implied that it isn't 'easy to believe' that there are

conspiracies everywhere. In fact, as I recall, Mel Gibson believes that Jews are

responsible for some of them.

You again seem to be arguing the premise that because some people conspire, and

because some people are evil, it is therefore plausible that practically

anything is a conspiracy despite a total lack of real evidence in many cases,

and despite the fact that some of these conspiracies just sound, well, plain

crazy.

I've never argued that there are no conspiracies. Of course, the fact that there

are, and the fact that people have had health problems, and the fact that it's

easy to believe that there are huge, occult, secret conspiracies controlling all

events on earth doesn't mean that the world really works that way. Certainly

it's good to consider dissenting views in most things, but it's not always

considered sane or ethical to do so. Let's consider a dissenting view, for

instance, to whether it was wrong for the Nazis to kill millions of innocent

people, or whether the earth isn't flat.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Cray Fish " <crayfishfeed@...>

> implode,

>

> I think anyone who's gone through some of the health problems that

> some of us on here have gone through find it easy to believe that

> conspiracies are everywhere. I always use this quote by Mel Gibson

> regarding the downplaying of conspiracy theories: " men conspire "

> that's what they do, especially when it comes to money. Not only

> that, but it doesn't take real thought-out conspiring/planning for

> people to get away with what they do. It's the nature of beauracracy

> and our busy, complicated world for the truth to get lost in the

> details of agendas, protocols , institutions, etc. You know the

> saying " buyer beware " ? This implies there is a responsiblity to not

> be naive and understand human nature when you are making a purchase.

> You can mitigate ill will and it's effects if you are aware of it.

>

>

> You mentioned the list degenerating. I think it would definitely be

> degenerating if you or anyone felt censored. Do you feel that way?

>

> Personally I don't like it if one viewpoint is dominating a

> discussion. I like to hear different sides so dissenting posts are

> important to me, hopefully done with tact and manners of course. I

> would like to think this group is capable of handling dissenting

> views as a whole. I think it is. It's from different viewpoints that

> the bigger picture emerges plus it would suck if we couldn't see past

> the conspiracies, real or imagined and we gave up our power to

> them.

>

> I worked for a non-profit organization and I was amazed at the power

> of letters to influence things and have accountability. Many groups

> take advantage of this and change the way we do things for better or

> worse. So I wouldn't want our power to be given away in the name of

> airing out various conspiracies we know of without an outlet for our

> angst in terms of doing something about it as well. I think this

> creates anxiety unconducive to healing to feel that life in America

> now is a no win situation. There are victories. When I think of how

> the weston price organization has grown and spread over the years, I

> am almost overwhelmed.

>

>

>

>

>

> > > >

> > > > There is quite a large gap between the acceptance that there

> are

> > > unscrupulous business people and corporations, and even that the

> > > system is corrupt, and people being murdered left and right in

> all

> > > sorts of contexts - 9/11 planned by the Bush govt, scientists

> being

> > > killed systematically, AIDS unleashed on the world by the U.S.

> etc.

> > > Most of these have appeared on this list at one point or another

> > > (along with other ones) and the attitude seems to be - the only

> > > evidence that's actually needed to make these views plausible is

> > > skepticism about the motives of our current government. No real

> > > evidence ever needs to be provided. All paranoia immediately

> accepted

> > > here.

> > > >

> > > > Of course, if you think that a lot of these posts are crazy,

> then

> > > you're immediately accused (by implication) of supporting the

> system.

> > > >

> > > > It seems to me that over the last couple of years, this lists

> has

> > > degenerated more and more into repeated posts about this kind of

> > > nonsense, with less and less real nutritional information being

> > > provided. After all, the most important thing is that this is all

> an

> > > occult conspiracy by the real, hidden, government, right?

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

*On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM, <implode7@...> wrote:

*

>

> *Let's consider a dissenting view, for instance, to whether it was wrong

> for the Nazis to kill millions of innocent people, or whether the earth

> isn't flat.

> *

>

*

*

....and I have to wonder, Gene, how many people heard the screams back when

the Nazis were " only " dragging a few dozen to the gas chambers. And if they

heard the screams and pleas for mercy and told people, I have to wonder how

many people thought it was paranoia and wanted to talk about something more

real.......

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Wasn't there a link in there in the beginning about scientists being

systematically murdered? Or am I reading these things so quickly at

this point that I'm hallucinating.

In any case, I wasn't doubting that money corrupts pharmaceutical

companies and their research. On the other hand, it does seem like a

good thing to me that some diseases have essentially been wiped out,

and there are some cases where it would seem rational to take a

vaccine. So the trick is to do the research and decide on the benefits

vs the risks.

Damn, that's true for lots of drugs also. I KNOW that Ibuprofen is bad

for me, but I'll take some if it means the difference between getting

in a workout and not, or just having some very annoying aches and

pains. The thing is to be informed.

But the rant about conspiracies wasn't about the very general case of

profit corrupting, and vaccines being pushed without the possible

dangers.

> --- Gene <implode7@...> wrote:

> > I think that it's good to develop the skills to filter out the

> > nonsense, and concentrate on the more important things.

>

> Gene, I agree. This post was originally about vaccines. Everything

> that's been mentioned in this thread has been around on the internet

> for years. So far, I haven't seen anything new.

>

> My take on vaccines is that some vaccines may actually reduce the risk

> of getting a particular disease in some people who take the vaccine.

> Some vaccines appear to better at this than others. But the problem

> is that drug companies in order to make more money keep inventing new

> vaccines for this, that, and the other. They also tend to downplay or

> ignore the side effects the vaccines cause and over-rate their

> effectiveness - all to enhance profits. Too many vaccines means more

> and more side effects affecting more and more people. Some of these

> side effects can be quite serious and even cause death in a few

> people. There also seems to be plenty of evidence that vaccines

> contribute to immune dysfunction problems like auto-immune diseases

> and allergies.

>

> It boils down to risk. Is the risk of getting disease X worth the

> risk of getting serious side effects from taking a vaccine that may or

> may not prevent you from getting the disease? My thinking is that in

> most cases more harm is caused by most vaccines than is prevented. If

> we suddenly have a plague that is killing millions every day, I might

> be willing to take a vaccine for it. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

>

> I think the drug companies are conspiring to take our money

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Classic reasoning. In other words, because SOME horrible things have

happened in human history, therefore every possible horrible

conspiracy must be taken seriously. And in addition, someone who

proposes that we actually think a little would have been someone who

would have ignored what the Nazis were doing, simply because some

people chose to look the other way then. I'm simply suggesting that

people develop the ability to discern reality from paranoia.

> *On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM, <implode7@...> wrote:

> *

> >

> > *Let's consider a dissenting view, for instance, to whether it was

> wrong

> > for the Nazis to kill millions of innocent people, or whether the

> earth

> > isn't flat.

> > *

> >

> *

>

> *

> ...and I have to wonder, Gene, how many people heard the screams

> back when

> the Nazis were " only " dragging a few dozen to the gas chambers. And

> if they

> heard the screams and pleas for mercy and told people, I have to

> wonder how

> many people thought it was paranoia and wanted to talk about

> something more

> real.......

> Sharon

>

>

[Guest guest]

I hear you, but you know something, Gene. You and I are on way different

ends of the spectrum when it comes to religious views, but still, I've

admired the way you can debate and be very rational. This is probably going

to come off really sappy....forgive me for that....but instead of mocking,

teach. There's something to be learned from the way you differentiate. I'm

a little bummed tonight. I withdrew my daughter from a debate group. Her

father is too busy, working remote. And me? I don't have a clue what good

debate techniques are. I have worked really hard at pouring through the

books, getting it down, and I'm toast. I wish it came naturally. I see

you...and Chris...and ....and ......it's amazing the way you guys

can discuss issues. But when you come in mocking....and doing what I see as

digs, man, it's a turn-off, but yet, I " see " some of what you're

saying.........

Now, in this situation, when I hear about lab-created babies gulping

water.... I want to weep. It goes against everything in me to think of a

baby in that situation.....

And why would those who actually think, ignore what the Nazis were doing?

That doesn't make sense in my world. Does classical reasoning eradicate

empathy or compassion?

Not throwing digs....I'm way, way out of my league here, but trying to " get "

what you see........

Sharon

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>wrote:

> Classic reasoning. In other words, because SOME horrible things have

> happened in human history, therefore every possible horrible

> conspiracy must be taken seriously. And in addition, someone who

> proposes that we actually think a little would have been someone who

> would have ignored what the Nazis were doing, simply because some

> people chose to look the other way then. I'm simply suggesting that

> people develop the ability to discern reality from paranoia.

>

>

> > *On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM,

<implode7@...<implode7%40comcast.net>>

> wrote:

> > *

> > >

> > > *Let's consider a dissenting view, for instance, to whether it was

> > wrong

> > > for the Nazis to kill millions of innocent people, or whether the

> > earth

> > > isn't flat.

> > > *

> > >

> > *

> >

> > *

> > ...and I have to wonder, Gene, how many people heard the screams

> > back when

> > the Nazis were " only " dragging a few dozen to the gas chambers. And

> > if they

> > heard the screams and pleas for mercy and told people, I have to

> > wonder how

> > many people thought it was paranoia and wanted to talk about

> > something more

> > real.......

> > Sharon

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

On Sep 29, 2008, at 9:06 PM, Sharon son wrote:

> I hear you, but you know something, Gene. You and I are on way

> different

> ends of the spectrum when it comes to religious views, but still, I've

> admired the way you can debate and be very rational. This is

> probably going

> to come off really sappy....forgive me for that....but instead of

> mocking,

> teach.

>

Maybe (and this is only partly sarcastic) because that's much more

difficult.

> There's something to be learned from the way you differentiate. I'm

> a little bummed tonight. I withdrew my daughter from a debate group.

> Her

> father is too busy, working remote. And me? I don't have a clue what

> good

> debate techniques are. I have worked really hard at pouring through

> the

> books, getting it down, and I'm toast.

>

I don't know what it is either. I was never a debater....I would say

that effective debating technique would be careful listening - what is

the person really saying, and what do those things imply....and then

trying to be as logical as possible in your responses, addressing

individual points and the big picture. Also trying to say whatever

you're saying as simply as possible.

I've never thought about this before, so my answer might be overly

simplistic. I do think that what most of the public sees as debating,

really isn't. The presidential debates are really far from being

debates...

> I wish it came naturally. I see

> you...and Chris...and ....and ......it's amazing the way

> you guys

> can discuss issues. But when you come in mocking....and doing what I

> see as

> digs, man, it's a turn-off, but yet, I " see " some of what you're

> saying.........

>

I suppose (another way of saying what I said above) I am better at

deconstructing other people's ideas than I am at coming up with my

own. And I find it easier to point out what I see as deficiencies by

using humor. Of course, in these contexts the 'humor' is seen as

'mocking', but I suppose that I lack patience with some of the stuff

I've seen here many times. I am not defending being impatient, simply

describing my behavior...

>

>

> Now, in this situation, when I hear about lab-created babies gulping

> water.... I want to weep. It goes against everything in me to think

> of a

> baby in that situation.....

>

> And why would those who actually think, ignore what the Nazis were

> doing?

> That doesn't make sense in my world. Does classical reasoning

> eradicate

> empathy or compassion?

>

No - but I think that we know historically that many people in Germany

refused to acknowledge what the Nazis were doing. From my

understanding of it, there was a half hearted attempt to cover the

mass killing, but probably it was less than the degree that the Bush

administration 'covers up' the huge numbers of Iraqi civilians killed.

If you're a compassionate person, you find the information rather

easily. In Germany though, I think that things were so horrible, and

people were so afraid, that the level of denial was very, very high.

>

>

> Not throwing digs....I'm way, way out of my league here, but trying

> to " get "

> what you see........

>

Thank you.

Gene

>

>

> Sharon

>

> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Gene Schwartz

> <implode7@...>wrote:

>

> > Classic reasoning. In other words, because SOME horrible things have

> > happened in human history, therefore every possible horrible

> > conspiracy must be taken seriously. And in addition, someone who

> > proposes that we actually think a little would have been someone who

> > would have ignored what the Nazis were doing, simply because some

> > people chose to look the other way then. I'm simply suggesting that

> > people develop the ability to discern reality from paranoia.

> >

> >

> > > *On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM,

> <implode7@...<implode7%40comcast.net>>

> > wrote:

> > > *

> > > >

> > > > *Let's consider a dissenting view, for instance, to whether it

> was

> > > wrong

> > > > for the Nazis to kill millions of innocent people, or whether

> the

> > > earth

> > > > isn't flat.

> > > > *

> > > >

> > > *

> > >

> > > *

> > > ...and I have to wonder, Gene, how many people heard the screams

> > > back when

> > > the Nazis were " only " dragging a few dozen to the gas chambers.

> And

> > > if they

> > > heard the screams and pleas for mercy and told people, I have to

> > > wonder how

> > > many people thought it was paranoia and wanted to talk about

> > > something more

> > > real.......

> > > Sharon

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

On Sep 30, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Cray Fish wrote:

>

> >> Certainly I have not ever advocated censorship here. Your

> reasoning is that if disagree that all bad things are the result of

> deep, dark conspiracies, that I advocate censorship?

>

> I think you have a reading comprehension problem. I was asking you

> how you felt. Do you feel censored? If you answered yes, then that

> should be discussed on here, perhaps with the moderator. I wouldn't

> want a person to feel censored. That was the point of my post.

>

Well, sometimes you just read behind the lines, and since I never

implied that I was being censored, it never occurred to me that this

was your meaning.

I didn't feel an overwhelming concern for my state of mind, and tried

to interpret whatever level of sarcasm was inherent in your post.

> The

> point of my post was that dissenting views are important be it yours

> or anyone else's. Remember I wrote " from viewpoints the bigger

> picture emerges " If people want to openly discuss conspiracy

> theories what is that to you?

>

If I want to comment on the proliferation of wacko conspiracy theories

being posted on this list, what is that to you?

> If you don't like it, don't read it.

>

Doesn't that reasoning also apply to your commentary on what I said?

On the one hand, you sarcastically express concern that I might feel

censored, but on the other you encourage me to shut up.

>

> You can't marginalize discussions on here, food touches every area of

> life: Politics, the workplace, religion, the environment. You can

> point out imbalances (if the posts are getting way too off track from

> nutrition) but people will more likely to welcome your posts if

> weren't drawing conclusions that they aren't making.

>

Sorry -lost you on this one. Apparently you're saying that people

would welcome my aversion towards huge conspiracy theories as an

explanation for everything, if I hadn't concluded that you were

expressing a particular point about censorship?

>

>

> >>>Post all you want about these wacko conspiracy theories, and in

> the interest of free speech, I can comment on what you say.

>

> I think you are being overly aggressive here which is actually not

> conducive to good, open discussion. Just make your points without

> being so over-emotional.

>

Just make your points without being so over emotional. Actually, I

don't think that this was an overly emotional sentiment at all, given

my interpretation of your particular brand of sarcasm. I'm still not

sure whether I accept your current 'interpretation' of what you meant.

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

>

>

> > I've also not implied that it isn't 'easy to believe' that there

> are conspiracies everywhere. In fact, as I recall, Mel Gibson

> believes that Jews are responsible for some of them.

>

> Jews are responsible, Christians are repsonsible, Hindus are

> responsible. etc., etc. Again the human nature thing.

>

Perhaps you don't remember the incident to which I am referring,

because this bit of trite nonsense gets us nowhere.

>

>

> > You again seem to be arguing the premise that because some people

> conspire, and because some people are evil, it is therefore plausible

> that practically anything is a conspiracy despite a total lack of

> real evidence in many cases, and despite the fact that some of these

> conspiracies just sound, well, plain crazy.

>

> Yes that's sort of right, anything can be a conspiracy theory. In

> life a person always has to think for themselves and not go

> unconscious in any thing. This doesn't mean lose your head and start

> accusing people of conspiring if they aren't conspiring, just don't

> go unconscious to human nature. Again " Buyer Beware " is the best way

> to put this b/c it takes out all the emotion. By the way a doctor in

> Pittsburgh came out on the news saying not to use cellphones. He

> literally said not to wait for more studies and 'evidence' b/c you

> would be harming yourself and your children. So what is evidence in

> the end? I don't think a person on this chat group would bring up

> anything they couldn't back up with " evidence " Who does that?

> Everyone has some basis for what they think.

>

This just seems incoherent to me, unless you're agreeing with what I

said, but supporting it as a way to approach issues. In other words,

given that people do conspire, therefore it is actually likely that

the Bush administration planned and executed 9/11, despite no actual

evidence that this occurred.

>

>

> > I've never argued that there are no conspiracies. Of course, the

> fact that there are, and the fact that people have had health

> problems, and the fact that it's easy to believe that there are huge,

> occult, secret conspiracies controlling all events on earth doesn't

> mean that the world really works that way. Certainly it's good to

> consider dissenting views in most things, but it's not always

> considered sane or ethical to do so. Let's consider a dissenting

> view, for instance, to whether it was wrong for the Nazis to kill

> millions of innocent people, or whether the earth isn't flat.

>

> The only point well made.

>

Well, at least I can walk away from this with a little self esteem.

> Yes lets consider it but to consider it

> would require someone to make a post about it but who would be the

> one to determine that this is an important thing to discuss and not

> just nonsense to be filtered out as you said this group should be

> doing?... you?

>

Oh, please. So, you're saying that everything,no matter how absurd

should be rationally discussed because otherwise I'm the one who is

deciding?

>

>

> I think what you are getting from my previous post is that conspircy

> theories are the dissenting views and you speaking against them is

> not allowing dissension.

>

If that is the case, then you are not allowing my dissension. I don't

have the power here to allow, or disallow anything, and btw - again

you are implying that I am advocating censorship, although you

(disingenuously?) argue that this is simply a reading comprehension

issue on my part.

> But actually you are the dissenter in this

> case b/c conspiracy theories are well supported on this group and as

> I wrote, counter point of views are very important. Even if they are

> yours and don't come out very well.

>

I don't see how you have truly addressed any single point that I've

made.

>

> >

> > -------------- Original message ----------------------

> > From: " Cray Fish " <crayfishfeed@...>

> > > implode,

> > >

> > > I think anyone who's gone through some of the health problems

> that

> > > some of us on here have gone through find it easy to believe that

> > > conspiracies are everywhere. I always use this quote by Mel

> Gibson

> > > regarding the downplaying of conspiracy theories: " men conspire "

> > > that's what they do, especially when it comes to money. Not only

> > > that, but it doesn't take real thought-out conspiring/planning

> for

> > > people to get away with what they do. It's the nature of

> beauracracy

> > > and our busy, complicated world for the truth to get lost in the

> > > details of agendas, protocols , institutions, etc. You know the

> > > saying " buyer beware " ? This implies there is a responsiblity to

> not

> > > be naive and understand human nature when you are making a

> purchase.

> > > You can mitigate ill will and it's effects if you are aware of it.

> > >

> > >

> > > You mentioned the list degenerating. I think it would definitely

> be

> > > degenerating if you or anyone felt censored. Do you feel that

> way?

> > >

> > > Personally I don't like it if one viewpoint is dominating a

> > > discussion. I like to hear different sides so dissenting posts

> are

> > > important to me, hopefully done with tact and manners of course.

> I

> > > would like to think this group is capable of handling dissenting

> > > views as a whole. I think it is. It's from different viewpoints

> that

> > > the bigger picture emerges plus it would suck if we couldn't see

> past

> > > the conspiracies, real or imagined and we gave up our power to

> > > them.

> > >

> > > I worked for a non-profit organization and I was amazed at the

> power

> > > of letters to influence things and have accountability. Many

> groups

> > > take advantage of this and change the way we do things for better

> or

> > > worse. So I wouldn't want our power to be given away in the name

> of

> > > airing out various conspiracies we know of without an outlet for

> our

> > > angst in terms of doing something about it as well. I think this

> > > creates anxiety unconducive to healing to feel that life in

> America

> > > now is a no win situation. There are victories. When I think of

> how

> > > the weston price organization has grown and spread over the

> years, I

> > > am almost overwhelmed.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is quite a large gap between the acceptance that

> there

> > > are

> > > > > unscrupulous business people and corporations, and even that

> the

> > > > > system is corrupt, and people being murdered left and right

> in

> > > all

> > > > > sorts of contexts - 9/11 planned by the Bush govt, scientists

> > > being

> > > > > killed systematically, AIDS unleashed on the world by the

> U.S.

> > > etc.

> > > > > Most of these have appeared on this list at one point or

> another

> > > > > (along with other ones) and the attitude seems to be - the

> only

> > > > > evidence that's actually needed to make these views plausible

> is

> > > > > skepticism about the motives of our current government. No

> real

> > > > > evidence ever needs to be provided. All paranoia immediately

> > > accepted

> > > > > here.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course, if you think that a lot of these posts are

> crazy,

> > > then

> > > > > you're immediately accused (by implication) of supporting the

> > > system.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It seems to me that over the last couple of years, this

> lists

> > > has

> > > > > degenerated more and more into repeated posts about this kind

> of

> > > > > nonsense, with less and less real nutritional information

> being

> > > > > provided. After all, the most important thing is that this is

> all

> > > an

> > > > > occult conspiracy by the real, hidden, government, right?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

whatever. seeing that you're not going to bother to read my response, and I see

no value in yours, let's just end it here.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Cray Fish " <crayfishfeed@...>

> Look I'll be honest with you, I am not going to read this whole

> thing, I don't have the energy or desire and it's so far off track

> right now it's just a waste of my time. You are not interested in

> anything but going off on tangential arguments. I'm up for discusion

> for exchange of info but not some timewasting endeavor of having you

> try to dissect one of my sentences or a part of my sentence outside

> the context of the post and my main intention (which I am just

> repeating over and over at this point.)

>

> The one thing I will reply to is this part: I wasn't being sarcastic

> when I asked you if you felt you were being censored. Maybe you

> should have asked me if I was before you presumed. You should have

> been able to determine my position from the intentions of my post. It

> was clear that I want to encourage a multi-sided representation on

> any give thread. You are saying that some threads shouldn't be made

> in the first place and to that I say that's not for you to determine

> by yourself. You said the post should have a paranoia tag, that the

> list is degenerating, that the posts had nonsense, that there should

> be a filtering of conspiracy theories. List your points of

> disagreements and the sources if you want, that's all you can do but

> stop attacking the list and if you can't disagree with a post without

> attacking it, ignore it. It's pretty simple.

>

>

>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is quite a large gap between the acceptance that

> > > there

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > unscrupulous business people and corporations, and even

> that

> > > the

> > > > > > > system is corrupt, and people being murdered left and

> right

> > > in

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > sorts of contexts - 9/11 planned by the Bush govt,

> scientists

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > killed systematically, AIDS unleashed on the world by the

> > > U.S.

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > Most of these have appeared on this list at one point or

> > > another

> > > > > > > (along with other ones) and the attitude seems to be - the

> > > only

> > > > > > > evidence that's actually needed to make these views

> plausible

> > > is

> > > > > > > skepticism about the motives of our current government. No

> > > real

> > > > > > > evidence ever needs to be provided. All paranoia

> immediately

> > > > > accepted

> > > > > > > here.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course, if you think that a lot of these posts are

> > > crazy,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > you're immediately accused (by implication) of supporting

> the

> > > > > system.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It seems to me that over the last couple of years, this

> > > lists

> > > > > has

> > > > > > > degenerated more and more into repeated posts about this

> kind

> > > of

> > > > > > > nonsense, with less and less real nutritional information

> > > being

> > > > > > > provided. After all, the most important thing is that

> this is

> > > all

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > occult conspiracy by the real, hidden, government, right?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

That's an interesting point - that (in general) those involved in

putting out products that they know aren't safe, and can possibly

result in death, would therefore plausibly be involved in actually

murdering people to advance their aims. It's actually, though, pretty

similar to saying that because the Bush administration are war

criminals, and are responsible for killing over a million Iraqis

(among others) based on lies, that it is plausible that they would

engage in acts that are actually recognized in our (warped) society as

outright murder (like planning 9/11).

I've never claimed that 'these people' are morally above killing in

our eyes. Certainly I believe that the Bush administration should be

tried as war criminals.

However, for reasons that I've already expressed, I do find it wildly

implausible that they actually plotted and carried out 9/11. For

similar reasons I don't believe that scientists are being

systematically murdered.

I'm well aware that this and other administrations have used illegal

surveillance of various types both to gather information on and

suppress dissent. I'm not sure how that makes murder conspiracies more

plausible. I also don't disagree that it's possible that this

individual person or not might have someone killed if they thought

that they could get away with it. But I think that is a long way from

there being a large scale conspiracy to do so.

> Gene-

>

> I am one on this list who tends to agree with you about political

> topics

> more often than not, I just don't have the screen time to enter into

> debate. It is particularly hard to follow your posts with all the

> arrows, and keep another eye on the work I should be doing instead of

> debating. . . .

>

> But as one with small children who has researched the vaccine issue

> quite

> a bit, it is not really a stretch that these folks could be

> murderers- if

> you read through the VAERS list at all, it becomes clear that vaccines

> kill, anyway, and that the companies know they do. Even more

> mainstream

> press has covered the iffy science in the IOM reports on vaccines

> (

> Kennedy's Salon.com article, for instance) and in the past it was

> possible to find online transcripts of committee meetings on vaccine

> safety with the administrative Drs. requesting anti-vax testimony

> struck

> from the record, etc. It is quite clear also that foundations such as

> the Gates and others set up by the vax industry which 'donate' vaxes

> are

> merely shuttling off vax lots that are questionable in production or

> expiring into the 3rd world. That's why they phased out thimerisol,

> rather than making it illegal right away- so they could dump their

> backstock into folks none of the oligarchy really cares about.

>

> I've stated before that my liberal and radical friends and I were

> followed by FBeye agents, had our pictures taken and phones tapped

> before

> and during the first Gulf War and during our campaigns to help the

> homeless. It happened fast enough that it was apparent that the big

> brother presence in Philly was extensive. Whenever I think that

> conspiracy theorists are just wack jobs I remember that time in my

> life.

> It was scary. And though I shouldn't admit it here, I could probably

> have a hit put out on someone if I wanted to. Why couldn't an

> ambitious

> pharma exec?

>

> Desh

> __________________________________________________________

> Are you Catholic and single? Click Here.

>

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oGxtETGk9lOWVNQeGZ7JX1jjiPFGr\

HmPr7Tn1lehUqad1Q6/

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

> I withdrew my daughter from a debate group. Her

> father is too busy, working remote. And me? I don't have a clue what good

> debate techniques are. I have worked really hard at pouring through the

> books, getting it down, and I'm toast. I wish it came naturally.

I never read any books on debate. Even when I was on the debate team

in college I never read any books. Our team simply trained under a man

who was quite good and took us through all the hoops as we practiced.

However, it was pretty easy, at least for me, to distinguish between

something that was a technique, i.e. designed to get a good score from

the judges, and something that was useful at actually getting at the

truth. A formal debate **competition** is NOT designed, by definition,

to get at the truth, anymore than a basketball game, as a competition

is going to speak to the truth of anything significant. However, that

doesn't mean there are not skills that can be learned and mastered

from those competitions that can help you in the real world get at the

the truth of a matter.

My own personal view is that much of what happens in direct debate

**competition**, by which I mean Lincoln/s style debate (which

is what one on one debate is formally called) or team debate (where

you have two people on each side) has little to do with real world

debate or truth for that matter, but can be helpful in developing

skills that can be used in the real world, but more on that in a

different thread.

My main point that I want to make is that debate " skills " never came

naturally for me. I'm not sure they come naturally for anybody. We

tend to think that way because we assume people who have the gift of

gab or enjoy argumentation are naturally good debaters, but nothing

could be further from the truth. In fact both those traits can be a

hindrance because people who have them don't think they need to do the

grind it out hard work of really learning how to debate in the good

sense of that term.

I had to learn to listen. I had to learn to read and listen with

**precision**. I had to learn to keep my emotions in check when people

were disagreeing with me and sometimes outright skewering and even

mocking me. I had to learn to make sure I engaged the best my opponent

had to offer, when my natural tendency is to find the worst

representative of a given position and then use that as the norm and

tear it down. Great **technique** little to do with the truth.

I had to learn to think clearly under fire. I had to learn that just

because someone disagreed with me didn't mean they didn't understand

what I was saying. Actually I learned this the way hard when I was in

college, because in a real world debate that was going on at the

college I was attending, which threatened the very direction and

mission of the college, I (and those who took my position) were often

dismissed as " just not understanding " and " would get with the program "

once we did. I still remember the day my adviser (who was on the other

side of the issue) finally understood that I did understand, and that

was the basis on which I was disagreeing, passionately so.

At any rate, I don't think any of that comes naturally for most folks,

although some may find an easier go of it than others. And there is no

question in my mind, having been on the lists for awhile, that there

are lot of people who could stand to learn a few things mentioned

above.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> I don't know what it is either. I was never a debater....I would say

> that effective debating technique would be careful listening - what is

> the person really saying, and what do those things imply....and then

> trying to be as logical as possible in your responses, addressing

> individual points and the big picture. Also trying to say whatever

> you're saying as simply as possible.

>

> I've never thought about this before, so my answer might be overly

> simplistic. I do think that what most of the public sees as debating,

> really isn't. The presidential debates are really far from being

> debates...

I think you made some good points, and I agree that what most people

see as debate is not debate, and the modern presidential " debate " is

anything but.....an actual debate.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist