*2 new* letters, Myra McClue, Annette Whittemore

[Gerwyn]

I'm afraid my interpretation of Gerwyn's manners are dramatically different from the majority here.
I'm not the forelock-tugging type who bows down to those who demonstrate apparent superior knowledge - people who use a lot of technical language are capable of talking just as much rubbish as the next man. It doesn't impress me.

For what it's worth - which I now believe to be nothing whatsoever - I don't find Gerwyn's posts particularly helpful because he rarely makes any attempt to explain things a layman would understand. It seems to me it is more a demonstration of his superior knowledge, which he may or may not have.

When people start asking for my personal information it's time to go. I've been ill for over 15 years but I don't see why I should have to reveal any private facts to explain why I submit the posts I do.

I believe strongly in basic manners. I think Gerwyn - even allowing for his illness - could have made a lot more effort in that department. That's just my opinon. And the last one anyone will have to worry about on this Forum. I truly don't have the energy....


"I went to buy some camouflage trousers the other day but I couldn't
find any....."

I am glad that you now admit that your position is an interpretation.An interpretation is an internal construct and not objectively connected to an an outside event.This gives plenty of scope for the development of erroneous beliefs.

I think that anyone qualified in any scientific discipline has a lot more knowledge than someone who has not. You are of course entitled to your beliefs.To me yours posts appear to be the exact antithesis of good manners that you seem to demand from others.The tone has been invariably aggressive.That is my honest opinion

 

[jace]

KFG said

I'm afraid my interpretation of Gerwyn's manners are dramatically different from the majority here.
I'm not the forelock-tugging type who bows down to those who demonstrate apparent superior knowledge - people who use a lot of technical language are capable of talking just as much rubbish as the next man. It doesn't impress me.

I don't think any of us here are forelock tugging types. I know that there are a lot of people, me included, who really appreciate Gerwyn's explanations, but nothing is taken as true just because one man says so. We deserve more credit that seem to be given us in the quote above.

 

[Martlet]

When people start asking for my personal information it's time to go. I've been ill for over 15 years but I don't see why I should have to reveal any private facts to explain why I submit the posts I do.

You are quite right here. NO-ONE is permitted to question the motives for another's posts or the degree of their illness.

I believe strongly in basic manners. I think Gerwyn...

No matter what some think, my very slight admonishment of Gerwyn is not an excuse to discuss him and here you stepped so far out of bounds. I am only surprised I didn't notice it before.

Everyone: This started out as a very useful and fruitful discussion in which differing opinions were shared and fairly challenged. It has now deteriorated into what looks more like a slanging match than a conversation and I am now asking everyone concerned - and believe me, it is not just Gerwyn - to get back on track and stop the personal attacks, otherwise you will leave me with no option other than to close the thread. In retrospect, I am amazed that Gerwyn hasn't retaliated even more than he has. So, it's up to you - and those responsible know who you are. Please get back on track and discuss the topic, not each-other.

 

[Martlet]

Cort has made the point that the forum will not be taken over by those wishing to denigrate a bio-medical cause for CFS/ME because there are X number of members, and presumably, only a few pushing these views? What I am seeing is fewer and fewer people getting involved in threads infiltrated by those with 'other agendas'.

.......

yours losing a little faith right now

Adam

Again, a real voice of reason. But bearing in mind the limits on my time, please would you let me know when those with agendas post with their agendas? As noted above, I would hate to have to close a discussion which really is valuable but if need-be, I will and those who want a real conversation can start afresh and I can keep up and nab any infiltrators before it reaches this point.

PS - Alternatively, I could always go right through and edit out all the rude parts of all posts, then everyone would know who all the culprits are at a glance. With the exception of Gerwyn who, poor thing, has now become such a topic of conversation that I think he has suffered enough to excuse a few expletives.

 

[eric_s]

Would you care to evaluate Eric.s post towards me and honestly say that it was not offensive.

Please tell me what posting and i will apologize to you honestly even without a moderator's intervention, if i feel what i've said was offensive. I'm not aware of anything at this point.
I could, on the other hand, also point out remarks made by you that i found offensive. But it's ok, i don't have a problem with that.
The only thing that i really can't accept is people making up weird assumptions about my motives. That's going too far. I'm in this fight because i have CFS myself and if people accuse me of being dishonest and trying to hurt the cause, then i hope they are aware of the gravity of what they are saying. They never mention any concrete name in those postings, so i can't be sure they mean me though. But this is serious then.
Once again, i had never planned to get into arguments here. I do not intend to continue them for much longer neither.

Eric, read Doctor Yes's account of his encounter with "authority" and then swing over to oslersweb.com and have a look at the profile of Anthony Fauci, the AIDS
Czar.

Thanks. But to be honest, i don't think i want to do that. I have enough experience on my own and i don't have the time and will to do that. I don't think it will help any. My view is this: There is no use in pushing those old stories (not referring to Dr. Yes now) again and again. Right now there is research done into CFS and a lot of it and also a lot of good research. If you want to talk to people who don't know about CFS, mention these things. Mention the current research. Then they will understand that this is serious and that's what we want. If you go on talking about some old mistakes (and maybe even exaggerate them) then what will happen is that you in some way invite them to see CFS as something not to be taken seriously.
It's a bit like Barack Obama. He did not run as "the black candidate" and complain about what blacks had to go through and by doing so put himself into a victim's role. We should not see ourself in such a way neither and not allow anyone to do so. That's my opinion.

I find it really disengenuous when someone starts out challenging Gerwyn on the science and when they can't win that way, mano a mano in scientific debate, they start complaining about his "tone", "style", "manners" or punctuation.

I mentioned the punctuation. And you know why? Because as i have said many times before, we need credibility. If you want to tell doctors and scientists that they are all wrong, even though you have no tangible credentials yourself, they will not take you seriously. And this will hurt our cause. And if you do that and make mistakes in punctuation, grammar etc. even more so.
BUT if it's truly the case that Gerwyn suffers from a condition that makes it hard for him to avoid such mistakes, then i did not know that (i read that in another posting). Please say something like that earlier and i would not have made those remarks. In this case i apologize to you Gerwyn.

One more thing, i don't think i could not win. I don't have the will or energy to go on with that debate for ever but if you really challenge me, then i will finish it and win :tongue:
I'm still convinced of the things i've said.

 

[Navid]

Martlet,

If people are offended by other's posts, why can't they publicly say so? It seems unfair to complain privately and have you come in to admonish someone. Isn't it more appropriate for you to evaluate the validity of those complaints and comment accordingly?

How do the complaints you get compare to the repeated and heartfelt defenses that are on this thread and several others? And, more importantly, please consider the impact of your comment above on many of us - we think it is too strong and admonish and unfair to Gerwin.

Admonishing someone for "tone" and ignoring the much more significant issues being brought in response to your admonishment seems unfair and is dispiriti ng.

Then report their posts so we can take a look at them.

PS - Alternatively, I could always go right through and edit out all the rude parts of all posts, then everyone would know who all the culprits are at a glance. With the exception of Gerwyn who, poor thing, has now become such a topic of conversation that I think he has suffered enough to excuse a few expletives.

i did not report the offending posters in this thread because they were polite yet underhanded, destructive comments ....but i did not think they would be seen as such by moderators(my assumption, perhaps wrong)...especially given the way moderation went against gerwyn for his TONE and politeness....in contrast the offending posts were polite, written well and had a nice tone but their message and intent were negative.

i guess i don't understand how moderation works on this board. i have reported posts that were explicitly offenseve (a clip w/obama portrayed as a nazi-that had NOTHING to do w/CFID's/XMRV or health; a poster who continually posts snide, counterproductive remarks just to disrupt threads and have never seen action on these things.) with this in mind when i read the destructive posts on this thread, i thought that the group (particularly gerwyn) posting here could hold their own against the negativity...then the heavy handed moderation vs. gerwyn occurred....it's very inconsistent and not understandable to me.

martlet...rather than closing down this thread, i vote for (prefer) your alternative suggestion...delete/edit the offending posts. then it is clear what was really offensive. there was not any issue abt admonishing gerwyn in public, why should it be any different for the other posters... TRANSPARENCY is usually the best policy in my mind.

thanks:Retro smile:

 

[Martlet]

One more thing, i don't think i could not win. I don't have the will or energy to go on with that debate for ever but if you really challenge me, then i will finish it and win :tongue:

You see Eric, this is the problem. Discussions should not be about who wins the argument. I see you used Barack Obama as an example of not adopting a victim mentality and I agree with that (being one of his hardest campaigners) but there is also another example we can take from him, which is, as he so often says, "to disagree without being disagreeable." I hope we can now continue in that frame of mind so that people may gain something from this ongoing discussion.

 

[Martlet]

i thought that the group (particularly gerwyn) posting here could hold their own against the negativity...then the heavy handed moderation vs. gerwyn occurred....it's very inconsistent and not understandable to me.

There are very different views on moderation. Some people scream blue murder if anyone's posts are edited. Others PM like crazy because they don't see moderation that goes on in private. Others can't stand someone being warned in public. If we took every opinion on board, we would go crazy because the bottom line is that no moderator can please all of the people, all of the time. If people agree with the posts that were moderated, then they think the moderation unwarranted and heavy-handed. If they disagree with the poster, then they think he or she got exactly what they deserved. It goes with the territory and I am finished explaining. I have very little online time and am not going to get into endless discussion.

 

[Gerwyn]

Please tell me what posting and i will apologize to you honestly even without a moderator's intervention, if i feel what i've said was offensive. I'm not aware of anything at this point.
I could, on the other hand, also point out remarks made by you that i found offensive. But it's ok, i don't have a problem with that.
The only thing that i really can't accept is people making up weird assumptions about my motives. That's going too far. I'm in this fight because i have CFS myself and if people accuse me of being dishonest and trying to hurt the cause, then i hope they are aware of the gravity of what they are saying. They never mention any concrete name in those postings, so i can't be sure they mean me though. But this is serious then.
Once again, i had never planned to get into arguments here. I do not intend to continue them for much longer neither.

Thanks. But to be honest, i don't think i want to do that. I have enough experience on my own and i don't have the time and will to do that. I don't think it will help any. My view is this: There is no use in pushing those old stories (not referring to Dr. Yes now) again and again. Right now there is research done into CFS and a lot of it and also a lot of good research. If you want to talk to people who don't know about CFS, mention these things. Mention the current research. Then they will understand that this is serious and that's what we want. If you go on talking about some old mistakes (and maybe even exaggerate them) then what will happen is that you in some way invite them to see CFS as something not to be taken seriously.
It's a bit like Barack Obama. He did not run as "the black candidate" and complain about what blacks had to go through and by doing so put himself into a victim's role. We should not see ourself in such a way neither and not allow anyone to do so. That's my opinion.

I mentioned the punctuation. And you know why? Because as i have said many times before, we need credibility. If you want to tell doctors and scientists that they are all wrong, even though you have no tangible credentials yourself, they will not take you seriously. And this will hurt our cause. And if you do that and make mistakes in punctuation, grammar etc. even more so.
BUT if it's truly the case that Gerwyn suffers from a condition that makes it hard for him to avoid such mistakes, then i did not know that (i read that in another posting). Please say something like that earlier and i would not have made those remarks. In this case i apologize to you Gerwyn.

One more thing, i don't think i could not win. I don't have the will or energy to go on with that debate for ever but if you really challenge me, then i will finish it and win :tongue:
I'm still convinced of the things i've said.

I know that you are convinced you are right despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.That is the essence of my point.Your beliefs are just that beliefs and they are according to the science erroneous.You are attempting to challenge scientific opinion despite having no scientific background of your own.When I stated that the WPI methods for detecting XMRv were proven you challenged that despite that claim being accepted by the peer reviewer of the Science Journal who is an experienced retrovirologist.John Coffin who is regarded as the world,s foremost retrovirologist described the study of Lombardi et al as being"as good as it gets" yet you as a layman think that your lay opinion is somehow valid regarding this scientific endevor. I find that frankly astonishing.

 

[eric_s]

You see Eric, this is the problem. Discussions should not be about who wins the argument. I see you used Barack Obama as an example of not adopting a victim mentality and I agree with that (being one of his hardest campaigners) but there is also another example we can take from him, which is, as he so often says, "to disagree without being disagreeable." I hope we can now continue in that frame of mind so that people may gain something from this ongoing discussion.

Ok. Usually when i have a discussion, my goal is to try to get to the truth. But this here turned out a bit differently because i felt challenged by Gerwyn's response to my posting regarding Dr. Mikovits's letter to the CFSAC. That does not mean that i don't want the truth to prevail here.
I made the sentence about winning because someone made it look as if i had made my comment about punctuation because i was losing the argument. And as indicated by the smilies, it was meant in a joking way.
Probably it's more of a guys' thing ;-) If someone challenges you, you can't just back down.
About not being disagreeable, i hope i haven't been. But also there are different views on what is disagreeable, probably as many as there are people. I found some of the comments questioning my motives and suspecting me of being some sort of traitor exremely disagreeable. This is one thing you should never say to a person with CFS. And i will provide the necessary papers to prove my health status, if necessary. Anyway, i respect that here it's the moderators who will decide what is disagreeable. I don't have a problem with that, this is not my place here. But please don't forget that english is not my native language. It makes it a bit hard for me to argue and hit the right tone.
I have never had any bad intentions.

 

[eric_s]

I know that you are convinced you are right despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.That is the essence of my point.Your beliefs are just that beliefs and they are according to the science erroneous.You are attempting to challenge scientific opinion despite having no scientific background of your own.When I stated that the WPI methods for detecting XMRv were proven you challenged that despite that claim being accepted by the peer reviewer of the Science Journal who is an experienced retrovirologist.John Coffin who is regarded as the world,s foremost retrovirologist described the study of Lombardi et al as being"as good as it gets" yet you as a layman think that your lay opinion is somehow valid regarding this scientific endevor. I find that frankly astonishing.

You claim that a method is proven once it was described in a paper that has passed the reviewing process. I am quite sure that it is possible to find examples where this has happened before and later those findings and the method applied were proven wrong.
Also the european papers have passed reviewing processes, even though of a lesser quality, i agree. But still, that would mean that according to you they have to be regarded as proven methods. Now this means that here we have a case where two proven methods deliver contradicting results. Since something can't be true and wrong at the same time, it means you can't be right, considering a method as proven, once it was published after being reviewed.
But i want to end this discussion now. I will answer to you in the other thread and then that will be it from my part.

Eric

 

[Esther12]

About not being disagreeable, i hope i haven't been.

I did some psychological profile thing, and got rated at one out of a hundred for 'agreeableness'. I think that's a good thing (which is very disagreeable of me).

 

[Martlet]

I did some psychological profile thing, and got rated at one out of a hundred for 'agreeableness'. I think that's a good thing (which is very disagreeable of me).

We can all read test results. It takes a professional to interpret them.

 

[Adam]

You claim that a method is proven once it was described in a paper that has passed the reviewing process. I am quite sure that it is possible to find examples where this has happened before and later those findings and the method applied were proven wrong.
Also the european papers have passed reviewing processes, even though of a lesser quality, i agree. But still, that would mean that according to you they have to be regarded as proven methods. Now this means that here we have a case where two proven methods deliver contradicting results. Since something can't be true and wrong at the same time, it means you can't be right, considering a method as proven, once it was published after being reviewed.
But i want to end this discussion now. I will answer to you in the other thread and then that will be it from my part.

Eric

Eric. I think it may have helped to mention english was not your first language. Often this is evident because location states Germany or Portugal etc. and I imagine most members both respect the fact there is someone who is bilingual, but also take account of the likely nuances in language that might be overlooked where english is the second language.

 

[eric_s]

I did some psychological profile thing, and got rated at one out of a hundred for 'agreeableness'. I think that's a good thing (which is very disagreeable of me).

Don't be so modest. Everybody knows that in Germany 1 is the highest grade. It must have been a german test ;-)

 

[eric_s]

Eric. I think it may have helped to mention english was not your first language. Often this is evident because location states Germany or Portugal etc. and I imagine most members both respect the fact there is someone who is bilingual, but also take account of the likely nuances in language that might be overlooked where english is the second language.

Ok. I have stated it before, but of course most people don't know because they don't remember all the postings on this forum. As long as it's not declared in the profile, they won't know, you're right. It's not even my second language, i've only learnt it in school.

Eric

 

[Martlet]

Adam - I think English is Eric's first language. I speak several foreign languages, to varying degrees, and I haven't seen any issues with syntax. None of the slip-ups we all make in other people's languages. Don't let location throw you. I'm in the USA but am not American, as you know.

 

[Adam]

Syntax, Sweets, Biscuits, Cookies and Cuckoos in the nest

Adam - I think English is Eric's first language. I speak several foreign languages, to varying degrees, and I haven't seen any issues with syntax. None of the slip-ups we all make in other people's languages. Don't let location throw you. I'm in the USA but am not American, as you know.

Martlet. You are a such a smart cookie (sounds so much better than smart biscuit, doesn't it?), as your adopted neighbours would say.

 

[Gerwyn]

You claim that a method is proven once it was described in a paper that has passed the reviewing process. I am quite sure that it is possible to find examples where this has happened before and later those findings and the method applied were proven wrong.
Also the european papers have passed reviewing processes, even though of a lesser quality, i agree. But still, that would mean that according to you they have to be regarded as proven methods. Now this means that here we have a case where two proven methods deliver contradicting results. Since something can't be true and wrong at the same time, it means you can't be right, considering a method as proven, once it was published after being reviewed.
But i want to end this discussion now. I will answer to you in the other thread and then that will be it from my part.

Eric

No I stated that the methods were scientifically proven to a high level of probability.According to your argument the peer review process proves thet the Science methodology worked and the european methods failed because they did not find anything.The peer review studies the european studies actually recieved do not evaluate accuracy just reproducibility as I have told you many times before.Actually only one European study recieved any kind of peer review process.Your logic just gets you into a mess

 

[eric_s]

Adam - I think English is Eric's first language. I speak several foreign languages, to varying degrees, and I haven't seen any issues with syntax. None of the slip-ups we all make in other people's languages. Don't let location throw you. I'm in the USA but am not American, as you know.

Omg.. this is going pretty far now. Martlet, i will send you a scan of my passport, birth certificate, same for both of my parents if you like. If you agree in writing that you will not pass them on and delete them after looking at them. Will that be enough to convince you? If not, what do you need?