Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On May 22, 5:33*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories.

Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied
from asshole to elbow.

Well finally Dogman has said one thing that is true
and we can all agree on.
And that is that per his own words above, he subscribes
to unscientific conspiracy
theories that he's studied from AH to elbow.

That's straw man #2376 by my count. You must be trying to use them up
before they expire, eh?

I study unscientific theories, not conspiracies.



And you're bragging about this? Studying unscientific
theories? You sure are one confused guy.



Let's see...why would someone always need to misrepresent his
opponent's position? Hmmmm.


Haven't misrepresented a thing. It's all there for
everyone to read in your own words. They should
also know that you claim:

HPV isn't a cause of cancer in women
No virus can cause cancer.
HIV isn't the cause of AIDS
AIDS is caused by poor diet, drug abuse and not enough sleep.
AIDS is virtually non-existent in the USA outside homosexual
men ,IV drug abusers and hemophiliacs


Anything else stupid we should add to your denial list?

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:50:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
That's straw man #2376 by my count. You must be trying to use them up
before they expire, eh?

I study unscientific theories, not conspiracies.

And you're bragging about this? Studying unscientific
theories? You sure are one confused guy.

I'm not the one who's confused, Trader, otherwise you wouldn't have to
use so many straw men.

I study lots of theories, scientific theories and not-so-scientific
theories. In the course of this study, I deem then unscientific or
scientific, primarily based on the theory's adherence to The
Scientific Method. Still confused? Good!

Let's see...why would someone always need to misrepresent his
opponent's position? Hmmmm.

Haven't misrepresented a thing. It's all there for
everyone to read in your own words.

These were my actual words:

Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories.

Then you intentionally changed my word "theories" to your word
"conspiracies."

What a devious little scumbag you are.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On 22/05/2012 6:27 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:09:14 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I bow down to you, oh rational one.

Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book!

If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write
less."

Ahem! You write much more than I do.

Tha's because I've already done the reading part, unlike you.

What, besides Duesberg, have you read?

Pretty much everything there is. I even gave you a list of some of the
books.

Can you recommend something on the other side.

No. You said I wasn't "important enough" to do that.

You're dodging.


So do your own work. With your vast scientific background, I'm sure
you know how to do that, right?

I do. But I want your recommendation.


Maybe I would read them sequentially.

You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while
applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood
test, and then it comes back HIV+. Then you'll read the book.

Not much chance of that.

--
-jw

On 22/05/2012 6:27 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:03:26 -0300, James Warren
wrote:


[...]
There is none so righteous as the self-righteous.

"We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who
understands the wise is wise already."
-G.C. Lichtenberg

Thank you.

Have you used up your annual allotment of smilies yet?

You are to smilies what Bayer is to aspirin.

Nah, I got a bucketfull.


--
-jw

On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:59:21 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Can you recommend something on the other side.

No. You said I wasn't "important enough" to do that.

You're dodging.

No, I'm just ignoring your requests to do your work for you.

So do your own work. With your vast scientific background, I'm sure
you know how to do that, right?

I do. But I want your recommendation.

No, you don't. You've pretty much proven that here.

Maybe I would read them sequentially.

You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while
applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood
test, and then it comes back HIV+. Then you'll read the book.

Not much chance of that.

You better hope so.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:00:15 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Have you used up your annual allotment of smilies yet?

You are to smilies what Bayer is to aspirin.

Nah, I got a bucketfull.

Did you play with dolls when you were young?

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On 22/05/2012 9:08 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:00:15 -0300, James
wrote:

[...]
Have you used up your annual allotment of smilies yet?

You are to smilies what Bayer is to aspirin.

Nah, I got a bucketfull.

Did you play with dolls when you were young?

Does your mother wear army boots?


--
-jw

On Tue, 22 May 2012 21:12:08 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Did you play with dolls when you were young?

Does your mother wear army boots?

Probably. She was an Army nurse in WW II.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On May 22, 8:07*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:59:21 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]

Can you recommend something on the other side.

No. You said I wasn't "important enough" to do that.

You're dodging.

No, I'm just ignoring your requests to do your work for you.

So do your own work. With your vast scientific background, I'm sure
you know how to do that, right?

I do. But I want your recommendation.

No, you don't. *You've pretty much proven that here.

Maybe I would read them sequentially.

You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while
applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood
test, and then it comes back HIV+. *Then you'll read the book.

Not much chance of that.

You better hope so.


Those that believe the AIDS denialist nonsense supported by
the book, how do they fare?

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists


A small sample of the long, sad, list of the dead:

Ken Anderlini

Ken Anderlini was a co-moderator of the "AIDS Myth Exposed" message
board on MSN. Anderlini died in April of 2007. Denialist David Crowe
from the "Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society" wrote an announcement of
his death, saying: "Over the past couple of years his health had
declined rapidly with a strange neurological disease for which nobody
could pinpoint the cause (except doctors who claimed it was HIV
related, of course)."


Sophie Brassard

Sophie Brassard, a Canadian, was the HIV-positive mother of two HIV-
positive, perinatally-infected sons. Citing the influence of HEAL,
Alive and Well, Duesberg and Mullis, she refused to allow her children
access to medical care when the became ill and fled the country with
them. She consequently lost custody and parental rights. She died of
AIDS on September 16, 2002, at age 37.

Jerry Colinard

Jerry Colinard, a board member of San Diego HEAL, died on July 4,
2009, at the age of 55, of AIDS. His webpage recalls that “Jerry
supported the HIV community and was honored by a San Diego agency,
‘Being Alive,’ for his commitment. However by 2001 he had rejected
traditional Western drug centered HIV medicine. He referred to himself
as an ‘AIDS dissident’ thereafter.”

Sylvie Cousseau

Sylvie Cousseau contributed to a list of testimonials from people who
tested HIV positive but embraced AIDS denial and rejected HIV
treatment. This list of testimonials features on several different
websites, including HEAL Toronto and the personal web pages of Rudolf
Werner, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the
University of Miami:
http://molbio.med.miami.edu/HIV-Aids/stories.htm
http://healtoronto.com/testimonials.html
http://www.garynull.com/documents/Co...eapOfFaith.htm

Sylvie Cousseau was the partner of Mark Griffiths. Sylvie died in 2001
at age 41.


Boyd Ed Graves

Boyd Graves was an HIV-positive lawyer who promoted the false view
that HIV was developed by the US National Cancer Institute as part of
a military programme to develop biological warfare agents for use
against targeted communities. He found an NCI "flowchart" which he
misinterpreted as demonstrating the existence of this programme, and
initiated several unsuccessful lawsuits against the US government.
While he believed that this manufactured HIV causes AIDS, he
questioned the science of antiretroviral therapy and instead promoted
as an "AIDS cure" a substance called "Tetracyl" or “Tetrasil” -- a
silver compound with no known medical benefits and no evidence to
support its use in HIV. According to an email circulated by his
supporters he died in June 2009, apparently of AIDS, after several
"Tetracyl" injections failed to reverse his illness. As far what we
are aware he never took antiretrovirals.

On May 22, 6:19*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:50:15 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

That's straw man #2376 by my count. You must be trying to use them up
before they expire, eh?

I study unscientific theories, not conspiracies.
And you're bragging about this? *Studying unscientific
theories? *You sure are one confused guy.

I'm not the one who's confused, Trader, otherwise you wouldn't have to
use so many straw men.

I study lots of theories, scientific theories and not-so-scientific
theories. In the course of this study, I deem then unscientific or
scientific, primarily based on the theory's adherence to The
Scientific Method. Still confused? *Good!

Let's see...why would someone always need to misrepresent his
opponent's position? Hmmmm.
Haven't misrepresented a thing. *It's all there for
everyone to read in your own words.

These were my actual words:

Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories.

Then you intentionally changed my word "theories" to your word
"conspiracies."

What a devious little scumbag you are.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

What a liar you are. You've chosen to now take
your words without the context of the preceeding
line that you were responding to. One more time
for everyone to see, here is the context:

James:
You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories.

Dogman:
Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied
from asshole to elbow.

Clearly you said that you subscribe to certain unscientific
theories. It couldn't be any clearer. And it explains
a lot.