clocker bob wrote:Have you? You don't think that there are people who work for corporations and attempt to cancel out unwanted discussions on the web? It's the opposite of viral marketing.

Obviously. Wikipedia entries for certain corporations get creeeeepy clean.

But that's Wikipedia, a major website with millions of hits.

Jesus, Antero, I used to think you were a cut above the other kneejerk assholes who swarm around my posts because they're obsessed with me, but I'm starting to wonder. My question above is legitimate. Stop and think next time.

You asked if a fellow was a corporate viral marketing spy because he came bearing information. Were this a health-related or education-related forum attached to some sort of major publication, then your concern might be warranted; that is to say, one could see the possibility of interference.

As is, you were needlessly hostile to someone who was providing actual research and thoughtful analysis of the subject, on a board that, going by its profile, is not a place any corporation would actually give a shit about.

Occam's Razor does not even need to be drawn to cut, here. That's not a legitimate question, that's paranoiac rudeness. Fuck the topic, you acted/continue to act like an asshole to a fellow whose only crime was having information and disagreeing with you.

Oh, and for the record- I went to JREF forum and read their threads on Autism. TobiasTheCommie is to autism over there what I am to 9/11 here. Here's a thread that was begun by JREF member Mephisto:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2038947

Mephisto began his thread with a paste. Here's the beginning of it:

autism thread 'vaccine nation' on JREF forum wrote:A Capitol Hill Mystery: Who Aided Drug Maker?

by Sheryl Gay Stolberg

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 — Lobbyists for Eli Lilly & Company, the pharmaceutical giant, did not have much luck when they made the rounds on Capitol Hill earlier this year, seeking protection from lawsuits over a preservative in vaccines. Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, tucked a provision into a bill that went nowhere. When lawmakers rebuffed a request to slip language into domestic security legislation, a Lilly spokesman said, the company gave up.

TobiasTheCommie was the second reply to the post. Still think Eli Lilly was a mystery to TobiasTheCommie before yesterday? Clocker Bob called him out, and CB was right.

TobiasTheCommie wrote:If you have any specific questions please ask.

clocker bob wrote:My question: you joined the forum on February 9, 2007, and you were armed and loaded with info on the autism question. Are you part of the Eli Lilly 'rapid response' team that goes around the web trying to put out any Thimerosal brushfires?

TobiasTheCommie wrote:I answered that already.

These are all articles i have written on my websites. Go and see, there is a date showing when i wrote them.

I have no idea who Eli Lilly is.

Caucasian, please.

Here's TobiasTheCommie boasting of his contributions to the EA Forum in a thread that Newberry made to alert JREF that there was an autism thread here:

tobiasthecommie at JREF wrote:k, i'm flooding it with data now.

Antero wrote: That's not a legitimate question, that's paranoiac rudeness.

Read my post before this- do you think it's funny when people with a freaking website named autismmyths.com lie to you about knowing 'who' Eli Lilly is? Anything rude about that?

Why don't you reply to my post following my response that you quoted, where I clearly lay out the case for not ruling out the vaccine link at this early date?

Antero wrote: Were this a health-related or education-related forum attached to some sort of major publication, then your concern might be warranted; that is to say, one could see the possibility of interference.

You're underestimating the tenacity of corporate efforts to defend their products against negative publicity. There's lots of money behind these strategies. You're aware of the Israeli Megaphone software, which alerts pro-Israel activists to articles on blogs or forums or at newspaper websites, so they can swarm on the comments sections or the threads to attack critics of Israel and post slanted information? Even a site with the traffic of the EA forum is a potential target. Another example was the fight over the 'net neutrality' legislation last year- the telecoms put up fake consumer activism web sites to distort the facts of that bill, and they sent armies of pro-NN blog and forum contributors onto the web to spin the bill. Daily Kos got hit, the Air America forums.

I'll tell you who else does this very agressively: the Cult of $cientology. If we start a thread on COS here, I would bet that before too long, a 'new member' or two with very positive experiences to relate about $cientology will appear.

TobiasTheCommie has a site called autismmyths.com- do you think it's beyond the realm of possibility that he has received a little friendly money from the pharm industry? That's a pretty awesome domain name for a private citizen to control.

I'll tell you who else does this very agressively: the Cult of $cientology. If we start a thread on COS here, I would bet that before too long, a 'new member' or two with very positive experiences to relate about $cientology will appear.

I won't say that this doesn't happen, because it does. However, I recently posted about Keith Henson's past and recent troubles on another message board, and I heard nary a peep out of the known CoS members of the board. Maybe I came off too balanced or something, because I even shit-talked Matt Stone and Trey Parker for turning CoS atrocities into a big joke. Maybe they're just getting more subversive -- I don't know.

I'll tell you who else does this very agressively: the Cult of $cientology. If we start a thread on COS here, I would bet that before too long, a 'new member' or two with very positive experiences to relate about $cientology will appear.

CB,

As an experiment, we should start a thread discussing autism, $cientologizzy, and Israel, and watch the robots swarm.

Do it!

OK!

This is a discussion forum. Most of us know little or nothing about the people we are conversing with. If a Scientologist or drug company shill or major label a&r dude join the discussion, who cares? Listen to what they have to say, and agree or disagree or ignore them.

On an Internet forum it's what people say that is most important, not who they are or where they came from. That's one thing I like about forums like this, you can talk about politics or religion or whatever with people from all over the world, with all kinds of different backgrounds. And you usually don't know (at least not right off the bat) their race or gender or social or economic status, religion, job, political preferences, etc.

newberry wrote:This is a discussion forum. Most of us know little or nothing about the people we are conversing with. If a Scientologist or drug company shill or major label a&r dude join the discussion, who cares? Listen to what they have to say, and agree or disagree or ignore them.

Did I say that his participation is not welcome here? It is. When I asked him about Eli Lilly, he could have said, "I'm well aware of Eli Lilly's connection to thimoseral and to Bill Frist and the rider in the Homeland Security Act", but instead he told a cute lie: "Who is Eli Lilly?" Don't front. Having an agenda is one thing, but hiding your agenda is different. That implies a willingness to deceive.

On an Internet forum it's what people say that is most important, not who they are or where they came from.

No, sorry, it's both. Here's an example: I have established myself as a conspiracy theorist on the forum. Anything new I post is seen through the prism of, "Oh, that's Bob, the conspiracy theorist". I don't get a clean slate for each new topic.

That's one thing I like about forums like this, you can talk about politics or religion or whatever with people from all over the world, with all kinds of different backgrounds. And you usually don't know (at least not right off the bat) their race or gender or social or economic status, religion, job, political preferences, etc.

That's a different argument. Race or gender don't mean anything to an autism discussion. Operating a website called autismmyths.com and having hundreds of autism posts on a different forum makes TobiasThe Commie a salesman. Again, nothing wrong with that, but also, nothing wrong with us knowing that.

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:Ok, i looked to see who Eli Lilly was.

That's cute. I started the thread at 5pm Thursday. You are telling me what- that you just happened to be Googling for 'autism' later that evening, somehow this thread appeared in the early results ( there's no way it would have ), you promptly went to the EA forum, got signed up, and appeared in this thread with reams of footnoted articles disputing the vaccine=autism connection?

Is that your story?

It is evident that you haven't even read my posts since i HAVE explained how i got here..

clocker bob wrote:

TobiasTheCommie wrote:I have no idea who Eli Lilly is.

And what is wrong with putting out Thimerosal bushfires if it is with proper scientific evidence?

Al B Stern: Do you believe that someone who has made five years of lectures on autism is serious when he pretends that he thinks Eli Lilly is a person??

Ehm, my lectures have nothing to do with the etiology, and has nothing to do with vaccinations.. Tell me why i would know about some company that has ZERO relation to autism what so ever.


And could you PLEASE stop with the personal attacks and instead argue against the data.