SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

November 2013

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Nov 2013 23:54:09 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (262 lines)
Carrol,
You probably already know this, but Marijuana is probably the best 
thing you can take for most Glaucomas. Also, for high blood pressure!

You're of course entitled to your own views about WBAI, but let's 
base them on correct information, please. Doug Henwood and others in 
the 5 pm strip on WBAI were all given different time slots, as the 
then-program director noticed that Doug, especially -- and Ralph 
Schoenman and Mya Shone -- had hardly any live audience. (And by 
"hardly any" I'm talking about fewer than a few dozen listeners via 
the radio.) So they were being moved -- sure, it was tactless -- to 
MUCH BETTER TIMES for their shows, and a 5 pm news strip was to be 
aired in their old slot every day.

Doug balked. He threw a hissy fit (sort of like Tom Smith has done). 
He quit. He was not fired or forced off the air.

So now, in the slot that Doug was offered, WBAI airs Rick Wolff, and 
you can see what a great slot he's made it at noon every Saturday. 
Lots of listeners. (10x Doug's old audience, I think.).

I'll let it go there. I'll be glad to argue with you over your 
characterization of Gary Null and myself and others as "Denialists", 
but why waste each others' time? How come you're allowed to say that 
on this list, but Tom Smith is not allowed to denounce you as a "liberal".

Double standards. Either the moderators apply the same rules 
even-handedly, or it becomes a power struggle on this list. And none 
of us need that, especially now.

Mitchel



At 07:25 PM 11/6/2013, Carrol Cox wrote:
>I agree with Kamran. For good reason leftists are loathe to ban or suppress,
>but there have to be limits or our very virtues wreck us.
>
>The radio station that nurtures the likes of Gary Null first isolated Doug
>Henwood and in effect forced him off it. I've tangled viciously with him
>over the years, but a radio station that forces him off and keeps Null must
>be quite a mess.
>
>In most realms conspiracists are merely a nuisance. But Denialists of HIV
>kill. And perhaps worse: the Medical Profession is in fact close to corrupt,
>and efrforts to expose that corruption are crippled by the idiotic and
>vicious attacks of the like of Null. Several years ago, before I had even
>heard of Null, I realized there was something odd going on in "left" circles
>in NYC. At a Left Forum conference I got in conversation with a pleasant
>elderly lady (probably a bit younger than me), and mentioned that I suffered
>from macular degeneration. She informed me that all I had to do was take
>something or other and cure it; that the doctors were hopeless. That was
>more or less harmless, though if anyone believed it they were in for
>disappointment, but _some_ eye troubles _are_ treatable, and that treatment
>is available only from the MD's. I suffer from glaucoma also. That is
>potentially disastrous, because macular degeneration affects only direct
>vision (the retina), but glaucoma destroys the peripheral vision: together
>they would produce complete blaindness. My glaucoma is controlled by eye
>drops; my present retinal specialist added a second series of drops to the
>one drop a day I was alrady on: it is probably overkill, but considering the
>stakes?
>
>Scams flourish around eye care, and I think one treatment suggested (an
>expensive vitamin for six months) was a semi-scan, but simply ignoring
>'establishment' medicine is not the way to confront them.
>
>Carrol
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Science for the People Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kamran Nayeri
>Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 12:33 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Fwd: Prohibitionary ban from Science for the People List
>
>Dear All,
>
>I don't know if this first of the three messages sent by Mr. Smith was sent
>to you this morning. Please note how he ends it: "I have no use for your
>pathetic list. It is biased, conservative, and repressive. Stick it up your
>respective assholes."  Clearly, Mr. Smith did not join this list to build it
>as he never showed any respect for others who took a different view and he
>is already bad-mouthing SftP to others outside of this affair, including
>actiongreens (that Mitchel runs) and someone named Seth.
>
>
>In this light, as a member of this list I move to convert Mr. Smith's three
>month prohibitionary ban decided by the MC to BAN FROM THE LIST.  Not to do
>so undermines the goal of SftP list.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>Kamran
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Thomas Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM
>Subject: RE: Prohibitionary ban from Science for the People List
>To: Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask],
>[log in to unmask]
>Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>I do not remember any comments from either Mr. Fox or Ms. Smallhouse warning
>me or taking me to task for any of the comments reprinted below. It appears
>that neither of these people, nor you yourself, understand your
>responsibilities as moderators, nor the difference between the truth and a
>baldfaced lie-covering your tracks.
>
>
>
>I have no use for your pathetic list. It is biased, conservative, and
>repressive. Stick it up your respective assholes.
>
>
>
>thomas
>
>
>
>From: Kamran Nayeri [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 9:43 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Prohibitionary ban from Science for the People List
>
>
>
>Mr. Thomas Smith:
>
>
>
>On behalf of the SftP Moderating Council (MC), I want to inform you of our
>decision to put you on probationary ban from the list for a period of
>approximately three months, ending on January 31, 2014.  We will send you a
>notice when the time comes to rejoin the list on February 1, 2014 if you so
>chose with the understanding that similar conduct will result in your
>permanent ban from the list.
>
>
>
>A collegial and constructive mode of conduct is essential to the wellbeing
>of the list and fulfilling of its goal.
>
>
>
>Unfortunately, from time to time the purpose of the list and individuals who
>have joined are undermined by destructive conduct.
>
>
>
>In your recent posts, not only you have chosen to attack individuals who you
>disagreed with but also call them names.  Such behavior cannot be tolerated
>as it undermines the very purpose of the list and people who have joined it.
>What is worse, when two members of the MC-Herb Fox and Mandi Smallhorne-
>tried to draw your attention to the norms of conduct as specified by our
>Guidelines, you not only did not heed their request but also attacked them.
>
>
>
>Below you can find examples of your conduct:
>
>
>
>On October 25, responding to Herb Fox you wrote:
>
>"It is just another canard you are creating, Mr. Fox. You seem to me to be a
>pseudo-liberal, who would like people to believe he has an open mind, but
>whose only real claim to "liberalism" is that he tries to shut the Marxists
>up. This sort of hypocrisy infuriates me about you 'liberals.'"
>
>
>
>October 26 post written in response to a post by Mandi Smallhorne addressing
>Herb Fox's attempt to draw your attention to the list's Guidelines you
>wrote:
>
>"What a naughty boy am I for violating the bullshit-"liberal," in reality
>anti-communist and demagogic rules insisted upon by Mr. Fox."
>
>
>
>On October 26, in another post you called Mandi Smallhorne a liar:
>
>"Ahhh, a "quack buster"..
>
>This is rubbish, Mandi. Your action was thoroughly repressive, and thus have
>nothing to do with science, and if successful would have deprived a
>cash-starved WBAI and Pacifica not only a great voice for science, and you
>certainly don't understand it, but a powerful source of revenue..
>
>'.This is pure mendaciousness, like your other lies here.'"
>
>
>
>I append to the bottom of this note a copy of the Science for the People
>List Guidelines. This letter will be sent to all members of the list to
>notify them of this decision.
>
>
>
>I hope you will find this note in the spirit intended-to fulfill the
>Moderating Council's responsibility to safeguard the mission of the list.
>
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>
>For the Moderating Council,
>
>Kamran Nayeri
>
>November 5, 2013
>
>
>
>Moderating Council members are Sam E. Anderson, Eric Entemann, Herb Fox,
>Kamran Nayeri, Claudia Pine, Laurence Romsted and Mandi Smallhorne.
>
>
>
>Science for the People list guidelines:
>
>
>
>1.      The list's primary concern is to promote the interests of the world
>of the non-scientists (essentially the world's population) by promoting
>examples of science in the service of the people and exposing the use of
>science in ways that are destructive of the well-being of the world's
>population.
>2.      No-one who is interested in the substance of the discussion will be
>excluded.
>3.      No subject that is relevant to the list's primary concern will be
>excluded. Purely political posts that could and do take place in other fora
>should not be introduced.  If they are, the member will be warned once by a
>moderator that if they continue, they will be place on moderation.
>4.      Any and all members who indulge in ad hominem attacks will be placed
>on moderation for a period to be determined by the Moderating Council.
>Science for the People is a forum for open and thoughtful discussion. Should
>a member post on a topic with which other members disagree, no matter how
>intensely, members are expected to respond the content of the post, not the
>person who sent it.
>5.      When any member of the Moderating Council contributes to the list
>serve in that capacity, the post will clearly identify that he or she is
>speaking with the authority of the Moderating Council.
>6.      The Moderating Council will have the authority to declare a subject
>closed if it becomes clear that opposing views have been adequately aired
>and discussion is going nowhere.
>7.      The Moderating Council will confer with each other (at least a
>quorum of three) if a decision to place a member on moderation, or any other
>serious decision, is in play.
>8.      If queries arise about the decisions of the Moderating Council,
>members should feel completely free to discuss them.
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2