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.