Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by JAS, Mar 31, 2010.
:tear: Touche, Fred!
My point is the science is debatable (from researcher point of view. If there were a consensus, we would not have the problem.) So if she wants to promote her ideas on the science, it is open game and she should be challenged with evidence to the contrary. And her inaccuracies should be exposed. If it is an inaccuracy about the science, we can do that. If it is an inaccuracy about WPI and Whittemores, they can do that.
But, no matter her views on the science, she should always deliver them in a professional manner. If she doesn't, then her boss or professors should know.
She implies that they already know. And that future employers are queuing round the block for her services.
"Bossman doesnt particularly give a crap (rule is basically "Dont go psycho and embarrass yourself."). Big Bossman and other higher-ups at my uni think its pretty cool (but have also given me the 'no psycho' rule, plus a 'dont make the school look psycho' rule).
"And quite the opposite of future employers being put off by ERV, Ive actually been contacted by HUGE names in the viral evolution world, who have all been extraordinarily encouraging. At least in the field of science, people you want to hire you arent going to be put off if Im 'too mean' to Creationists and Deniers."
Well then, if she continues, then move the efforts to new employer. If it doesn't work, sit back and enjoy the show as we see the drama play out to see who falls and who survives.
Just been pointed to this thread about the infamous ERV (I always seem behind the times here)!!
It is my first taste of her baloney, and not much shocks me, but the blatancy, and ruthlessness of her attacks are something to behold. I hope she doesn't kiss her kids with that mouth!!!
Here's what got me hot and bothered, and it is in regards to the WPI's letter to McClure: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/04...12.php?utm_source=combinedfeed&utm_medium=rss
Sorry, just been informed not to post these links. Message received.
Who by? Isn't this a democratic forum?
I think he's refering to the post I made saying can we please stop linking to Erv's blog, she's an attention seeking nobody whose only aim is to do us harm. Reading her blog can do no good for anyone, she makes hurtful remarks that personally effect members of this forum amongst others.
She makes inflammatory remarks to get publicity and it works, why else do you think she does it? If she spoke about real science she'd get no hits since she's a young 20 year old who's accomplished absolutely nothing. Ignore her, she's an awful person.
The choice to ignore her or not is an individual one as is the choice to read this thread. Information about her blog and updates on reporting her to the University in question are contained here and are used by people wishing to progress the matter officially. You don't have to participate but please don't tell others not to do so if it is their wish to take some action.
Every time you visit her site her hit count goes up. We don't want to do that. It would be better to copy and paste her garbage in your post. At least that way you might prevent some curious people from going and having a look to see what she wrote.
If you do copy it here though, be sure to put a warning first. There are some people who are really offended by her language.
Jesus, why the hostility? I asked politely if we could stop posting links to her blog, I didn't tell anyone to do anything.
No hostility. Also just a polite request.
I have not visited the ERV blog since the 'early days' of XMRV. I hope others refrain from giving her oxygen, but like Knackered I respect anyones right to fight her/try to campaign against her, whatever. I think maybe we are getting our wires crossed here and actually all agree on this that is a matter of conscience in situations like this.
Please don't let Erv cause tensions between us. I asked back in Oct. if people would put warnings up if they link to her and I fully support not linking to her at all.
I think the general 'unofficial policy' that has been established is quite right - encouraging the forum not to feed ERV and link to ERV, and adding a health warning to any mentions of ERV's blog on this forum. Discussion of ERV is very likely to be divisive and unproductive here. Those whose blood pressure can tolerate obnoxious and unpleasant views can keep tabs on such things and report back as they feel appropriate.
I do wonder, though, about how this community might best handle such battlefronts, because there are contrary voices on ERV's post, from ME/CFS campaigners, and those can sometimes be effective, indeed it's important that there are counter-balancing opinions posted there. So I feel it might be worthwhile to get organised about who is monitoring such sites as this, and have some of our most informed members presenting the counter arguments there in the right way. To be effective on that particular blog, comments have to be purely science-based and avoid getting dragged into discussions of the offensive comments; discussion of the latter seems to be highly counter-productive there from what I've seen, most of the posters are interested only in the science and unconcerned about being offensive.
So it's just a suggestion, to the community, to consider whether anybody wants to organise such responses here. Of course there may be groups already doing so behind the scenes for all I know, and you may feel this is too 'organised' an approach, but I think in general we can be more effective if we concentrate our efforts appropriately, so personally I do feel that some such organisation of our response would be appropriate, if only I could figure out how to do it...so over to you to suggest ways if you think there's any merit in what I'm suggesting...
She's started moderating her posts since the last time everyone posted on there, she says it's because she's been threatened .
It's so she can pick and choose which comments to publish.
Group Hugs Peeps
I love group hugs. Any excuse. I don't need an excuse.
I'm not so sure about that, tried posting science comments once or twice and no interest from her or anyone. Btw her science knowledge leaves a lot to be desired. Either that or she was deliberately lying (pretending to be ignorant) to get her mean points across. Meaning that trying to debate her on anything scientific would in all probability turn out to be a waste of time.
She started to pick and choose a while ago. I guess she doesn't like discussion, just the sound of her own voice. She's not going to make make a mark on this research, so I'm concentrating on the big boys instead. I would also like to point out, I think she is not interested in the science, just the politics. After all she picked a point of view on CFS before doing any research.
I'm joining the group hug, Adam.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.