Interestingly, a fairly balanced piece of advice followed almost immediately in her Comment thread, as follows:

Posted by: Ahemmmm | May 1, 2008 2:30 PM

This seems to be a reasonable suggestion, but unlikely to be followed, as Tara’s earlier response to an email along the same lines from the same writer apparently showed:

However, it seems to me that I remember an email that was sent to you very early on in the discussions, that encouraged and advised you to take a neutral stand on the issue, and simply to be a real “moderator”, instead of pitting one side against another.

You responded to that email with a “Hell no, I will NOT BE NEUTRAL on this issue”.

As her response and the rest of the comment thread shows all too clearly, supporters of the paradigm such as Tara and her followers tend to assume as a premise of all their thinking that the paradigm must be right. In other words, the judgment is rendered before the case is tried, whether or not this or that small point may be granted.

Equally, the dissenters, having devoted a considerable amount of time to looking into the question themselves, and finding such a forest of paradox and inconsistency that even the Samurai sword of scientific logic cannot cut a path through it easily, are equally compromised by having made up their minds with certainty before any discussion occurs.

It is this certainty allows emotions on both sides to well up and overflow with resentment, rage and blind frustration at the pigheaded, one sided, unreasonable, obdurate, closeminded deafness of the obviously wrong debaters on the other side, without the ameliorating effect of a philosophically more sophisticated participant’s openmindedness in discussion, borne of doubt, which engenders a willingness to hear and listen to the other side’s points in case they have a point, and may prove one wrong after all.

This is why most Web discussions on blog comment threads are more or less unprofitable in changing the minds of participants.

(In our opinion, by the way, the two are not equivalent.

The paradigm supporters’ irritation with the dissidents’ gadfly objections to what otherwise seems to them biblical certainty arises from a) an unwarranted faith in received wisdom and officially sanctioned claims, and b) a gross lack of attention to the problems and inconsistencies of established wisdom in this matter.

Whereas the dissidents’ certainty that the paradigm defenders’ blockheaded blindness to these inconsistencies, and Ptolemeiac rationalizing in defense of the absurdities of the current ideology, is informed by far more thought about the issue and is thus more justified. After all, anyone who takes an unpopular position, which they know risks their reputation and is likely to incur scorn and derision, is bound to be spurred to more careful analysis, because they know that they will be tested at every turn, not to mention risk lethal financial and social sanctions.)

But what should Tara do? One action that can be taken is to ban ad hominem remarks, which is the policy of this site. At least then the points made by either side will not be obscured by furious rants and biting sarcasm, even though often phrased in rather amusing and imaginative terms by the dissenters, who always seem to have more imagination and wit than the defenders for some reason.

Exactly why this is is a matter for psychologists to pursue, but we venture to suggest that independent minds are usually better equipped than those who follow a party line, since they are by definition the more original thinkers. Party hacks can gain privileged positions merely by toeing the party line, which is usually a matter of memorizing and even studiously avoiding independent thought, as exampled by Tara Smith, Chris Noble and other notorious paradigm sycophants in the case of HIV/AIDS.

One distinguished blogger who has followed our policy of banning ad hominem comments and who seems to be sticking to such a sensible policy far more closely than we have is the estimable Dr Henry Bauer, the distinguished author of the best recent book on the HIV/AIDS issue (see the link provided on our main page) along with Rebecca Culshaw’s shorter and sharper fusillade along the same lines (se also linked here on the front page Blogroll).

Recently Dr Bauer rejected the ad hominem remarks of the notorious Chris Noble, much to his indignation, and had to explain to him what ad hominem means.

Dr Bauer’s blog, by the way, is becoming one of the best sites to visit to catch up with the latest irrationality he has detected in the HIV/AIDS mess (for its link, see our Blogroll on the main page).

Unfortunately this firm handed policy newly asserted by Professor Bauer in the face of Mr Noble’s spoiler has resulted in Bauer being attacked on the famously misleading HIV/AIDS disinformation site, AIDSTruth.org, for his supposed homophobia. Sadly, this ad hominem response. the accusation of homophobia, void as it is of relevant scientific logic or evidence for the HIV/AIDS faith, is now a common risk run by anyone who publicly dissents from the conventional wisdom, though for some reason we have not been accused of it here.

Precisely why scientists and others arguing that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and that patients should be preserved from deadly drugs administered on this basis should be counted as homophobic is a mystery that only anthropologists of science can address.

Compare the policy of Dr Bauer with the response of the notoriously comely Tara (see her own picture at the top left of every page of her combative blog, Aetiology, see our link list) to Michael Geiger’s harmless post above suggesting that paradigm defenders of the reflex kind seen on Aetiology threads are the true trolls. What possible good can the process of reposting the post she objects to with its text eviscerated of vowels do? Does it preserve the thread from being muddied by jocular but quite appropriate meta-discussion of the motives and qualifications of posters?

It is absurd.

But then, this is perfectly consistent with the absurdity and low intelligence of most of the paradigm defense offered by HIV/AIDS ideology supporters, even by the nubile and energetic Professor Smith.

In saying this about her defense and her arguments we are not, of course, being ad hominem, since we are otherwise fervent admirers of her image and her personality, of which we have no personal knowledge other than what is suggested by her lively blog and by her public service in providing some kind of platform for the dissenters, even if in her eyes they abuse the privilege somewhat.

It is a post that had been left on Tara Smith’s Aetiology Blog site, but was quickly disemvowelled (sic) and made unreadable by the blog host.

It was only up for a few minutes, and had been left by someone posting as Dr. Rethinkerus DoubleDockus. Upon disemvowelling, it was reposted by Tara as attributed to “Michael Geiger”, but not before some valiant dissident copied and pasted the original elsewhere.

As such, here it is, in all its splendor and glory,

The much too hot to handle by Tara Smith, The Banned, The Censored, The ONE, and The ONLY, The DISEMVOWELLED AETIOLOGY POST”

Well, alright now, boys and girls! On that pleasant note, perhaps it is time we move on with the subject of this blog. After all, it is a blog about the “Science of Aetiology”. Since Tara is seemingly not well enough to create an interesting post, perhaps we could help her out.

I therefore suggest a new topic of discussion, such as, let’s say,

”The Likely Viral Origin And Aetiology of Trolls, or Trollitus Incognitus Unawarenus Disease or TIUD”

To begin such a discussion, we must first of all uncover the full definition of “Trollitus”. As the definition of any disease is always dependent on its symptoms, we will first analyze the sysmptoms:

Some, if not even the majority of the mostly juvenile sufferers of Trollitis, seem to share many common symptoms and we will analyze these in depth. The leading symptom of Trollitus is that sufferers unwittingly project the image of trolls upon anyone who just so happens to disagree with them on a particular subject. As such, the disease seems to begin in the brain, and then extends to affecting eyesight, as the patients begin to see trolls everywhere but in the mirror. Everything they read seems to be filtered through visions of trolls and they become incapable of understanding what they are reading.

From the brain and eyes, it seems to extend down into the gut, which exhibits intense feelings of twisting, knotting, and discomfort to the sufferers. Relief is often found by lashing out at those they perceive to be trolls, without being aware that they themselves are, or have turned into one themselves. It progressively travels through the body and exhibits itself in the throats and mouths of sufferers, who tend to babble incoherently at their loved ones and associates endlessly but quite needlessly about trolls.

From there, it extends into the extremities. The mouth begins to angrily utter nonsense and ad hominems to the point of foaming. The feet slam upon the floor, and the fingers beat relentlessly on the keyboard or tap, slap, or beat upon the desk. And all the while, the heart is racing, the chest tightens, and breathing becomes restricted, which then affects oxygen levels in the brain, often resulting in noticeable dementia and brain wasting, with some dropping over dead rapidly, some slowly, but each and every sufferer is also found eventually even to die with a 100 percent mortality rate. Therefore, it is found that Trollitus, once acquired is always a highly deadly disease.

Some Trollitus Denialists ask, “Is Trollitus actually not merely due to over-emotionality and not even viral in origin? Is it actually viral, and what is the mechanism for such? Are the symptoms of Trollitus the definition of the disease, or is this the definition of juveniley inspired immaturity and growing pains that are based in beliefs, and as such, due to biased, bigoted intolerance?

The answer, is that Scientific Consensus, through analyzing many of the sufferers, has now been reached.
It has been determined by those of us who have been generously funded by taxpayers to study these cases, that, as the symptoms are quite obviously physical in nature, there absolutely must be physical origins such as a virus or retrovirus at work. Period. End of discussion.

As an epidemic of Trollitus is sweeping through the masses, with a substantial number of cases particularly found in those in the field of virology, this points out again to a viral origin. As such, it is of the utmost importance to demand more funding, as wll as early intervention and rapid rollout of treatment for this disease by the government. AZT has been found to quickly quiet the minds of sufferers, who within just a few months of treatment, do eventually refrain from babbling about seeing trolls.

As it is obviously viral in origin, and as the sufferers are easily and early diagnosed as the ones who have visions of seeing trolls everywhere, these are the ones who must be quarantined and put onto immediate antiviral and antiretroviral treatments, just to keep civilized society and government officials safe.

The Trollitus Denialists must be shut up, removed from our government and universities and labs, and must be kept from interfering with our “Great Work”, as public health, safety, and all of our lives hang in the balance.

As even just a few days of suffering with this disease is proven to be highly contagious, and as it has been shown that Trollitus has become associated with heart attacks, liver failure, immune system dysfunction, inflammations, palpitations, brain wasting, and 30 associated diseases, it is crucial that sufferers are given early treatment.

As such, we will be rounding up all of those, particularly the posters on the Aetiology Blog site, who have repetitively projected and used the word “Troll” upon others. We will be quarantining them and treating them with the lifelong AZT and ARVs that for some strange reason are being rejected by the gay and black HIV positive communities.

As such, the government will now increase funding for research, and will pay for the full treatment and hospitalizations, which will have the added benefit of keeping the remaining scientific population at work, and will keep pharmaceutical business and employees at work.

But further increased funding will be needed, as there is currently no cure, no vaccination, and none in sight for a thousand years.

Dr. Rethinkerus Doubledockus

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/05/on_hiatus.php#comment-873331.