Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Help ! Quackwatch Skeptics Bankrupt ?

Comments

  • #2
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Is there some reason you copy-paste the same content into multiple websites all round the world


  • #3
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    bonkey wrote:
    Is there some reason you copy-paste the same content into multiple websites all round the world

    Good 'skeptical' thinking: getting straight to the main point of the whole story. What do you mean exactly ?

    "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people"
    < John F. Kennedy >


  • #4
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    I exactly mean that you have copied and pasted this article to multiple sites, and I asked why.


  • #5
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    WRT the first one, Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch has been having legal trouble for many years with Tim Bolen, a man who claims to be a "Consumer Advocate" and who runs a luridly-colored website. Barrett has posted a response to Bolen's past allegations here:

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html

    From his website, it seems that Bolen does hold not any medical or scientific qualifications, but he nonetheless claims to be a "Health Freedom Fighter" who exposes medical and scientific corruption within 'Big Pharma' and the medical profession. Amongst much else, he claims that Quackwatch was set up by the "pharmaceutical industry". Curiously, on his about page, he lists ""war" and the tools and history of war" as two of his four hobbies.


  • #6
    Myksyk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,550 ✭✭✭Myksyk


    Am I the only one who finds the OP's posts in general to be incoherent, bordering on the incomprehensible? I think he amounts to a spamming troll.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    bonkey wrote:
    I exactly mean that you have copied and pasted this article to multiple sites, and I asked why.

    Does the article only exist out of copy and paste ? Which multiple sites ? And if that pink elephant does exist, do you have a problem with that ? Why ?


  • #8
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    robindch wrote:
    WRT the first one, Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch has been having legal trouble for many years with Tim Bolen, a man who claims to be a "Consumer Advocate" and who runs a luridly-colored website. Barrett has posted a response to Bolen's past allegations here:

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html

    From his website, it seems that Bolen does hold not any medical or scientific qualifications, but he nonetheless claims to be a "Health Freedom Fighter" who exposes medical and scientific corruption within 'Big Pharma' and the medical profession. Amongst much else, he claims that Quackwatch was set up by the "pharmaceutical industry". Curiously, on his about page, he lists ""war" and the tools and history of war" as two of his four hobbies.

    See pressrelease:
    During this case, Barrett had to reveal that he had failed his psychiatric medical board tests and was never board certified for the decades he practiced.


  • #9
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    FE30033 wrote:
    Does the article only exist out of copy and paste ? Which multiple sites?

    Welcome back FE, how is Jomanda?

    Bonkey is wondering why exactly you are posting an article onto a discussion board with no comments of your own or suggesting on what you would like to discuss.

    What exactly are we supposed to be discussing? This is after all a discussion forum.

    Do you have a question?


  • #10
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    Myksyk wrote:
    Am I the only one who finds the OP's posts in general to be incoherent, bordering on the incomprehensible? I think he amounts to a spamming troll.

    What is spam ?
    "Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services"

    I did think that this was a discussion-forum, that skeptics had open minds to anything skeptical-related. But maybe the skeptics make some distinqtion between what they want to hear and not ? Censorship means blocking away reality, and trying to live in a pink elephant world, and maybe trying to force that world upon others so that when more people join that world it seems okay ?


  • #11
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    FE30033 wrote:
    What is spam ?
    "Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services"

    I did think that this was a discussion-forum, that skeptics had open minds to anything skeptical-related. But maybe the skeptics make some distinqtion between what they want to hear and not ? Censorship means blocking away reality, and trying to live in a pink elephant world, and maybe trying to force that world upon others so that when more people join that world it seems okay ?

    QUACKWATCH FOUNDER BARRET -Vs- ILENA ROSENTHAL
    http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BarrettVsRosenthal.htm
    http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quackwatchwatch.htm
    20 Nov. 2006 - Quackwatch / Stephen Barrett (who works closely with Junk Science.com whose first funding came from the Tobacco-, and now from the Pharma-, Med Device-, Cell Phone-, Oil -, Chemical Industries) and his many interwoven front groups attempt to infiltrate any health related group to force their propaganda. For years, they have waged vicious campaigns against thousands who have different beliefs than they for merely posting the words of another. To silence critics by intimidating them with expensive, energy consuming litigation. When these so-called 'quackbusters' lose in court, they up their attacks and attempt to fill the world wide web, blogs with more attacks, their viewpoint, frequently by anonymous posters, hiding behind fake names and multiple aliases, claiming expertise of hundreds of different ongoing medical controversies. Goal ? To control information, messages with which they disagree, on all media, television, radio, internet, newspapers
    # QUACKWATCH ATTEMPTS TO USE WIKIPEDIA AS ANOTHER FRONT GROUP FOR THE BREASTIMPLANT-INDUSTRY
    http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/wikipedia.htm
    But at the California Supreme Court all 3 plaintiffs (having a history of intimidate talk show hosts, blog owners and of suing, of threatening critics with long, expensive litigation, lawsuits) lost, all 7 justices voted unanimous in favour of Ilena Rosenthal.
    # QUACKBUSTERS CRUSHED BY SUPREME COURT
    http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/blog.htm


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FE3003 wrote:
    I did think that this was a discussion-forum
    Yes, you're correct. So, please feel free to discuss something and not serial block-quote.

    thanks,

    - robin (moderator)


  • #13
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    Wicknight wrote:
    Welcome back FE, how is Jomanda?

    Bonkey is wondering why exactly you are posting an article onto a discussion board with no comments of your own or suggesting on what you would like to discuss.

    What exactly are we supposed to be discussing? This is after all a discussion forum.

    Do you have a question?

    Off-topic. But anyhow, can't Bonkey speak for him/herself ? Where do you see no comment ? What kind of comment did you have in mind ? Up to your standards ? Are you saying that you are not able to determine a point of view, a discussion point, an opinion yourself out of the whole article ? I think the article has many discussionpoints, you saying 'it is not so' does not mean discussionpoint are mentioned. It just says something about you, and your focus-point: the pink-elephant. Be my quest to make any discussion-point you like out of the whole article, and if you can't handle that, maybe you have a question ?


  • #14
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    robindch wrote:
    Yes, you're correct. So, please feel free to discuss something and not serial block-quote.

    thanks,

    - robin (moderator)

    Doesn't the article mention a whole lot of discussionpoints ? Are serial block-quotes a problem ? Why ? Will they be deleted ? As I do remember another subject with exact the same way of posting, which you refuse to delete on request ?


  • #15
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FE3003 wrote:
    Doesn't the article mention a whole lot of discussionpoints?
    Why don't you try discussing them one by one instead of all at once? 1,400 words and 37 links is a lot to get through, especially when many of the links are either broken or in Dutch.


  • #16
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    robindch wrote:
    Why don't you try discussing them one by one instead of all at once? 1,400 words and 37 links is a lot to get through, especially when many of the links are either broken or in Dutch.

    Broken linkS ? Pink Elephant ? I count one by which other links were posted 'or'. It's a good thing, webpage-translaters, don't you think ?


  • #17
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I don't believe this discussion is going anywhere -- topic closed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement