The troll-rating system is broken

A couple of days ago, I posted what turned out to be a controversial diary. The diary paraphrased an article in Harper's, a magazine with impeccable progressive credentials, since it has published articles both demonstrating that the 2004 election was stolen and, in its latest issue, demanding Bush's impeachment.

I got so heavily troll-rated on this diary that I lost my super-user status, so that I can't even read some of my own comments anymore, ones defending my diary in a way that people who disagreed with it didn't like. The troll-rating system was used to censor my responses to critical posts, thus giving the impression that I was stumped at finding an answer to my critics, and censoring out information and links supporting my position.

The troll rating system is broken, if it prevents diarists from posting responses to comments on their diary.

My critics said several times that the debate I diaried about, whether HIV causes AIDS, has been closed. But this is not true. The only reason the impression exists that this debate has been closed is that the voice of people expressing a dissenting view has been suppressed in the corporate media, and dissenting views are systematically excluded from scientific journals through the peer review process, as my comments were suppressed at dKos with the troll-rating system. (Some readers of the diary gave some of my posts 4's to prevent them from being hidden, but the troll-raters where more zealous than the people countering this abuse of the troll-rating system, so that some of my comments remain hidden.)

The troll-rating system, with its "disappearing" of "objectionable" posts, needs to be fixed in one or both of the following ways:

1. Allow a poster whose comment has been given a super-troll rating of less than one to be able to read his or her own post, even if other non-trusted users cannot read it.

2. Disallow people from giving super-troll raitings to comments posted by the owner of a diary on his or her own diary. The dKos FAQ states that troll posts are "comments whose only purpose is to disrupt the discussion." It is unlikely that a diarist would want to disrupt a discussion which he himself initiated. (If the diarist is indeed a super-troll, his whole diary should be deleted.)

The present practice of allowing diarists to be super-troll rated in their own diary  serves no useful purpose, but presents malevolent trusted users with a very effective way of suppressing free and open debate, something which dKos—as opposed to right-wing blogs—is suposed to be all about.

•  post a tip jar here

  and I am sure you will get some love back....

  by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:21:34 PM PDT

  •  Not from me he won't

    The "controversial diary" he references here was, in my opinion, well past the line and deep into the "conspiracy theory" territory that Markos has said on more than one occasion isn't welcome at this site.

    However, I did tell him that if he were ever to write a retraction of that piece of crap diary, I would happily recommend it and give him 4s on every comment he made therein. I'm still waiting.

    by musing85 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:34:19 PM PDT

    •  my bad.....

      I wasn't around when that diary was posted and didn't realize what was going on over there.

      Thought it was just another case of the trolls being trolls, but apparently not.

      by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:35:35 PM PDT

      •  No bad

        Nobody can possibly keep up with all the diaries hereabouts, except maybe jotter and his/her crew. And they're special.

        by musing85 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:50:33 PM PDT

        •  Crew?

          I had the impression that jotter was using some sort of software to do the analysis.

          by silence on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:51:28 PM PDT

          •  aoeu

            That's a common misconception, jotter is using a pack of well fed gnomes.

            by TealVeal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:47:20 PM PDT

    •  Some conspiracy theories have merit

      In this case, the questioning of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is supported by a number of eminent scientists including a Nobel laureate.  To suppress debate and inquiry on these issues goes against the very core of the scientific method, and is as deplorable when you do it as when Bush-appointed hacks do it.  For shame.

      Not long ago, the first researchers to put forth the claim that bacteria caused ulcers were laughed at.  Before that, it was the tectonic plate theory.  Little more than a hundred years ago, it was universally believed in the field of physics that light could pass through space because of some kind of invisible, intangible "ether".  Going further back, the supposedly great scientist Aristotle had all kinds of wrong notions, including a lack of understanding of inertia and a belief that heavier things fell faster than lighter ones.

      Maybe it will turn out that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is correct (though I rather doubt it).  But if you look into it at all, you'll find that all the conventional ways scientists are supposed to demonstrate the existence of a virus pathogen have been skipped or whitewashed.  Then once the powers-that-be declared this theory to be correct, all funding was made contingent on accepting it blindly.  It's a shameful chapter in science, even if HIV/AIDS turns out to be right, as they (and you) nevertheless should allow other avenues to be explored, and for the hypothesis to be well challenged and tested.

      -Alan
      

      by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:04:55 PM PDT

      •  Is that site supposed to be credible?

        THe scientists' quotes are over 10 years old....much has happened since then.

        by coigue on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:54:21 PM PDT

      •  Nobelist Kary Mullis

        is an excellent in-vitro enzymologist, but has very little expertise on in-vivo virology.  He's not a credible expert in this particular case.

        by lazybum on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:34:21 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the suggestion!

    This should be interesting...

    by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

    •  just so you know....

      I seem to have lost my TU status as of a few minutes ago.

      I guess the 3 recommended diaries and hundreds of "4s" over the last week and a half just weren't enough.....

      by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:51:08 PM PDT

      •  talk about conspiracy theories

        I just got it back as I posted that last comment....

        hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

        by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:51:57 PM PDT

        •  Ghosts in the machine...

          BWAHAHAHAHAH!

          by wmtriallawyer on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:58:49 PM PDT

          •  Deus ex Machina...n/t

            by condoleaser on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:24:21 PM PDT

  •  Without regard to the merits of the diary ...

    ... the troll-rating of Alexander's comments are clear-cut examples of ratings abuse.

    If Markos wants to bar certains classes of conspiracy theory diaries, he has the power.

    In terms of the vitality of the discussant community, volunteer mob-action censorship is a slipperier slope than tin-foil hattery.

    by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:44:26 PM PDT

    •  He has said

      that conspiracy diaries are not welcome on this site. And it's the responsibility of the TUs and the rest of the community to respond appropriately when one gets posted. Unless Markos wants to spend a boatload of cash for a Scoop programmer to come up with the code to prevent certain types of diaries from being written, anyway. I stand by my troll ratings of Alexander's comments.

      by musing85 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:52:03 PM PDT

      •  I think you are confused. Maybe Kos will clarify.

        TU's can hammer comments, but the diaries stay up, and the users stay on-board. Kos has said he will enforce ... so let him enforce.

        Opinions can vary on what is objectionable content. It only takes a small knot of volunteer objectors -- possibly cranks of an opposing stripe -- to disrupt other users' expression in comment space ... but that does nothing to police diaries (except to stimulate production of metadiaries).

        Please reconsider.

        by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:05:53 PM PDT

        •  I'm not confused

          We can't rate diaries, but we can rate comments. And when the need arises, we can hide those that are inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise devoid of content (which is exactly what it says in the rating guidelines). If a user racks up enough zeroes, s/he loses the ability to comment, and, I believe, the ability to post further crappy diaries, at least until the admins can look into the matter.

          I can't speak for Markos, but if I were an admin looking around for diaries that needed banning or deleting, the hidden comments section would be the first place I'd start. It'd be a heck of a lot simpler than trying to read through all of the diaries that get posted here in a day.

          by musing85 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:16:39 PM PDT

          •  inflammatory, abusive, devoid of content?

            I just reviewed all of Alexander's comments on the diary. Most were entirely dispassionate, and only a couple rose to the level of "petulant".

            Naive, wrong-headed, dangerous to human life, yes ... but hardly inflammatory, abusive, or otherwise devoid of content.

            by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:26:35 PM PDT

            •  Naive, eh?

              Are you a molecular biologist or biochemist?  Kary Mullis is the latter--in fact, he won the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.  And he wrote:

              "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

              Who are you to call him naive?  Sure, there are plenty of other eminent scientists who disagree with him, and you're certainly free to side with them--but calling him "naive" seems a bit presumptuous on your part.

              -Alan
              

              by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:10:44 PM PDT

              •  The diarist admits no biochem subject knowledge.

                He is (in both the colloquial and the scientific sense) naive. He read an article that should never have been published, and was unfortunately impressed.

                Mullis -- like a few other Nobel laureates -- is a crackpot, and his nonstandard views on HIV/AIDS are of no serious interest.

                Neither are they germane to the topic of this meta-diary.

                by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:36:12 PM PDT

                •  How are you qualified...

                  to call Mullis a crackpot, or to assert that the case for HIV/AIDS is airtight?  (I will fully admit that I'm not qualified to do that, or the contrary.)

                  -Alan
                  

                  by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:47:08 PM PDT

                  •  How is that germane to this diary?

                    by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:58:34 PM PDT

                    •  You're the one who called him a crackpot

                      In this diary.  I only challenged you on it.

                      In any event, it is germane.  If the POV the diarist originally supported was actually in the same ballpark as "flat earth" (can you name any Nobel laureates, "crackpot" or otherwise, who believe the earth is flat?  I rather doubt it), there might be more justification for his having been trollrated.  But when you've got people like Mullis and Duesberg to point to, and publications like Harper's (and Mothering, which is where I first read about it), it's just not in the "flat earth" category, and to claim otherwise, as you did, is strawman all the way.

                      -Alan
                      

                      by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:09:03 PM PDT

                      •  U R Lost - trn bck B4 its 2 L8

                        by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:20:17 PM PDT

                        •  okayyyyyy....whatevah

                          by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 03:21:18 PM PDT

                  •  Do you think that Mullis'

                    concept of the science of HIV/AIDS has remained static since 1995? Because he has said nothing since then.

                    The science has moved on. The website you are working from takes a historical snapshot of opinion from various scientists to prove its own preconceived notions.

                    by coigue on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:41:34 PM PDT

                    •  I never saw...

                      anyone from the CW camp even address these issues.  Like people here, they seem to dismiss the concerns as "tinfoil hat" stuff, not worthy of response.  If you don't even allow or fund research into these questions, I don't see how they can have been addressed in the meantime.

                      -Alan
                      

                      by SlackerInc on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:36:03 PM PDT

                      •  Here ya go:

                        This is from 2000. It's a Nature paper that addresses the consern of Duesburg and others. As of July 2000, 5000 scientists (including Nobellaureates (as in, more than one) from 50 countries signed it.....

                        and you aren't allowed to say it's a conspiracy until you have read the whole thing AND looked at the signatures. There will be a test afterwards.

                        The paper:
                        http://www.nature.com/...

                        The signatures:
                        http://www.nature.com/...
                        

                        by coigue on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 03:32:38 PM PDT

                        •  Thanks

                          I appreciate your providing this, and I'm glad the issue has not been totally ignored by the scientific mainstream.  That said, they can hardly be said to have taken a dispassionate tone; and I did not find their presentation very compelling.  Nor did they provide Duesberg et al with a rebuttal (at least, none that was on the page or linked to it) as is often customary in scientific debates in journals that I've seen in the past.  

                          It still seemed to be in the mode of "we're the grownups who know the real deal, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool".  Still, I'm glad you passed that on and I'll keep it in mind.

                          -Alan

                          by SlackerInc on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:45:27 AM PDT

                          •  OK now we are getting somewhere

                            we've gone from a conspiracy theory to a patronizing
                            tone.

                            If Duesberg can't handle a patronizing tone, then he would have never made it as a scientists. Frankly, we're assholes ;)

                            Duesberg's work got published (to my recollection) in Science, and there were rebuttals. I can't spend my time looking them up, I am afraid, but I did look at some of the linked papers to the Nature paper, and they are linked to other papers.

                            by coigue on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:16:55 AM PDT

                        •  I found a rebuttal

                          Admittedly, this response is even less dispassionate than the declaration.  But the author's ire is clearly aroused by the same insulting, patronising tone I detected in my reading of the Durban Declaration.

                          Why can't these scientists engage in Internet debate?  If they have the overwhelming evidence on their side, one would think they would welcome such an opportunity.

                          I am glad to see that Nature published this letter, though I think they should link it to the declaration itself.

                          -Alan

                          by SlackerInc on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:55:26 AM PDT

                          •  Asking scientists to engage in

                            internet debate, is like asking lawyers to try cases on the internet.

                            We debate in scientific forum. It's tradition. It works. We go to conferences and give keynote speeches then get blasted by other scientists. Then the other side presents. Hundereds of experts attend. Then papers come out like that Nature paper I cited, and scientists sign on. (Although huge sign-on declarations are rare, there was another one on global climate change recently) There is rancor and personalities and resentments, yes, that can account for tone. However, 5000 scientists are not involved in that. Only a few are, and if the science was bad it would go nowhere.

                            You see, most scientists don't like the jerks among us. But we can see when the science is good.

                            As to this particular rebuttal: Mbeki has admitted and apologized for saying HIV does not equal AIDS. His slow response time allowed hundreds of thousands of people to continue their risky behavior and get AIDS. While Mbeki dug in his heels and dealt with having a controversial position,  Uganda executed a very cheap and very effective public education campaign to let people know how AIDS was contracted.

                            Uganda's AIDS rate went down, S Africas is now the highest in the world.

                            So I take exception to any website that used Mbeki as a hero with a cause. He is a spokesperson for AIDS awareness as Reagan was...

                            by coigue on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:28:49 AM PDT

                        •  A better rebuttal

                          The other one was more of an indignant reaction; this one is detailed in making individual counterpoints (which is what the HIV camp should do if they want to be more convincing):

                          http://amiga1.med.miami.edu/...

                          -Alan
                          

                          by SlackerInc on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:02:07 AM PDT

                          •  This is a better rebuttal.

                            I'll give this one some time, then get back to you.

                            -C

                            by coigue on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:36:14 AM PDT

                          •  I keep looking around for more

                            info and this is the most recent...in the year 2000. That includes references on the Heal website. And many links on that website are dead. i can't find any indication of when the site was last updated.

                            Don't you think that is odd?

                            Also, all of the authors of this paper are founders of groups that dispute AIDS/HIV links, even to the point of saying condoms don't prevent AIDS.

                            THere is one more Nature paper refuting the refuters published in 2001, but I don't have access to the paper. Nature requires a password, and I am not at work so I can't get the paper.

                            So that sucks. But that's how the journal makes money (that and ads). So it goes.

                            But Mbeki reversed his policy in 2002, and after that I think the deniers kind of lost some energy.

                            by coigue on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:49:37 AM PDT

                            •  They may have lost energy

                              But it doesn't mean they are wrong.  As I understand it, anyway, they aren't saying "HIV definitely does not cause AIDS" but that HIV does not definitely cause AIDS" (and as a scientist, I'm sure you see the distinction).  I think that's a reasonable angle to take, and any insistence on certainty without disputing the many points they make about not being able to grow live virus, etc., seem dogmatic to me rather than inquisitive as scientists should be.

                              -Alan
                              

                              by SlackerInc on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:34:55 PM PDT

                              •  I expect the points have been disputed

                                or at least addressed. Many times, the proof is in the literature that we don't have access to. What ensues is the best possible health policy. Condoms and education. Retroviral drugs have prevented transmission to fetuses by HIV+ moms.

                                I have faith that scientists are doing the right thing. THe pressure on Mbeki to finally have an AIDS policy based on HIV came from all over, science, and workers in the field. It appears to me (not having followed it at the time) that Duesburg didn't like how his research was responded to (in an era when we actually did not know, so more scientists were open-minded) and he took it to the public, thus bypassing usual scientific protocols...much like the intelligent designers - though at least he is actually a trained virologist.

                                The other context is that AIDS scientists and activists had to fight so hard for AIDS to be recognized and taken seriously that it was politicized, extremely politicized. So it is likely that the AIDS community (scientists, activists, health care workers, etc) felt that this was yet another attack just when they were getting their programs off the ground. So, sure, they might have closed up. Probably not to the extent that the AIDS deniers are saying though.

                                I also suspect that the dissent has quieted down because it is pretty much settled, scientifically and within the public.

                                 

                                by coigue on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:25:59 PM PDT

              •  Kari Mullis

                invented PCR, but hasn't published anything (that has made into the PubMed journal indexing) since 1995.

                > 10 years...that's a long time in science.
                 

                by coigue on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:18:08 PM PDT

                •  He's published a book of musings ...

                  ... about LSD, laughing gas, astral projections, missing time, and his objections to things like global warming theory and Avogadro's number.

                  by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:28:35 PM PDT

                  •  heh

                    by coigue on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:39:02 PM PDT

            •  Yes

              Conspiracy-theory crap like that is devoid of content by definition. I may not be an AIDS biologist or a virologist, but I know enough about science, and about the disease itself, to know that anybody who postulates that HIV is not the cause of the disease is literally talking out of his ass and not worth paying attention to. For the diarist to keep regurgitating the same worthless crap over and over again deserved a troll rating.

              And as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the subject.

              by musing85 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 05:54:47 PM PDT

•  Read the comments

  See nothing wrong with the troll ratings you received.

  by VirginiaBelle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:21:43 PM PDT

  •  this comment

    "Sorry, I wasn't expecting such a response (0.00 / 2)

    Otherwise I would have kept closer to my computer.
    And I don't mean to be snarky. I didn't realize that controversial diaries are expected to be real-time, but I guess they are. I wasn't anticipating that this diary would be controversial, since until I read the Harper's article, personally I had accepted the HIV = AIDS hypothesis, without being invested in it."

    deserves a troll rating?

    by Cedwyn on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:39:03 PM PDT

    •  question is: do you believe him?

      ...I wasn't anticipating that this diary would be controversial...

      I frankly have a hard time believing that--and if you don't believe him, it makes the comment and the diary seem a lot closer to trollish.

      Btw--wasn't there the other night, didn't sling any 0s, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

      by Hprof on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:50:06 PM PDT

      •  I hadn't read about AIDS for years...

        and I have a very high regard for Harper's. I live in a rural area, and know absolutely no one who has a personal worry about AIDS. I was simply thinking about Duesberg's arguments, so I was in "neutral scientific argumentation mode". I should have realized that many people at dKos approach this issue much more personally and emotionally.

        by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:05:29 PM PDT

        •  well, appreciate the concession

          but even in the course of making it, you do something that I could easily imagine pissing people off:  you create this false and insulting dichotomy where you're neutral and scientific, and your critics are responding "personally" and "emotionally."  

          Plenty of people in that thread clearly have a great deal more scientific knowledge about the subject than you (or I), and it was because of that knowledge that they dismissed your diary.

          by Hprof on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:15:10 PM PDT

      •  i believe it

        i wrote an aids diary a while back and i was surprised at he vehemence of the dissenting responses.  it's linked in a comment below.  

        by Cedwyn on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:19:45 PM PDT

        •  fair enough - I'm not saying

          I would have troll rated him.  But it does seem to me like a judgment call, and not a clear cut case of ratings abuse.

          by Hprof on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:36:19 PM PDT

  •  Read the dKos FAQ

    Rating comments
    0. (trusted users only) Troll posts. Comments whose only purpose is to disrupt the discussion. Do not troll-rate posts simply because you disagree with what the commenter is saying.

    In the case of my comments, it is troll-rating them that disrupts the discussion.

    by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:40:00 PM PDT

    •  well, in a sense

      Your whole diary was disruptive to the conversation, and that is the root of where the ratings came from, along with the fact that you didn't respond for awhile, which yes, matters.

      Frankly, there were very few comments down-rated, and for that to be enough for you to lose your TU status means that the status was shaky to begin with.

      by VirginiaBelle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:01:35 PM PDT

      •  Your last point is true enough n/t

        by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:06:40 PM PDT

      •  No, TU status can be lost in a couple of comments

        ... no matter how robust the positive rating history.

        That's part of why this form of censorship is dangerous to community ethos.

        by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:09:12 PM PDT

    •  thanks! i don't know about this diary, but

      i have seen a number of times people give a 1 or 2 simply because they may not agree with the other's point of view. now when a flame war starts, it can be just different points of view or it might reach the personal insult stage. in fact, it reached the personal insult stage when the 1 or 2 was given for comments that someone didn't like. i am not the diary policy, but think hard about the 1 or 2 rating also.

      by stodghie on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:23:25 PM PDT

      •  one of my favorites

        is "excuse me, but fuck you"

        that is productive how?

        But just like I rarely give out zero ratings, I rarely give out 1's and pretty much never give out 2's or 3's either.

        Share the love......

        by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:30:51 PM PDT

  •  I did read the comments

    It certainly isn't the type of discussion we usually have here, but it certainly wasn't a troll.

    Then all his comments got hidden and he couldn't even defend his own points.

    Maybe some people think "troll" means "something I severely disagree with," but I certainly don't.

    by dennisl on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:45:45 PM PDT

    •  There's a history to that theory

      Which essentially is that aids is a result of continued immoral behavior as opposed to a virus (HIV) that is transmitted. Thus, gay people who die from AIDS do it themselves through continued sin, not from a single transmission.

      I don't know whether the author knew this or not, but it's the kind of theory that is likely to be accused of troll-dom for that reason.

      by VirginiaBelle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:21:44 PM PDT

      •  I, for one, have never heard that

        If that is in fact the origin of the theory, well, it shouldn't be too much of a controversy for someone to point that out and we can all stop wasting our time with this.

        And that's what should have been done. And that would be the end of it.

        by dennisl on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:48:01 PM PDT

•  Here 'ya go ;)

  

  by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:24:57 PM PDT

  •  Damn...

    ...I was so hoping for a picture of a pootie with a violin from you...

    by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:28:55 PM PDT

    •  Aim to please! (tee-hee)

      

      by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:33:57 PM PDT

    •  Aim to please! (tee-hee)

      

      by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:34:18 PM PDT

      •  Yikes! it's a Pootie symphony! lol

        by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:34:54 PM PDT

        •  Laughing seriously out loud

          Pootie symphony - just made my new list of fun things!

          by SallyCat on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:36:59 PM PDT

        •  Dueling Pootie duet! n/t

          by seefleur on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:45:51 PM PDT

        •  Now all we need is a pootie with a banjo...

          ...and one with a washboard and it's pootie bluegrass...

          by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:50:28 PM PDT

          •  Deliverance

            

            by dougymi on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:44:31 PM PDT

            •  lol! lol! I'm roaring here :)

              roaring, AND snagging that pootie pic! :)

              by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:48:49 PM PDT

              •  You're welcome to it!

                You've given my wife and I so many grins, I only hope I can reciprocate sometimes! ;-)

                by dougymi on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:52:45 PM PDT

                •  Very gracious of you; thanks :)

                  by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:11:03 PM PDT

•  with all due respect...

  Replies which critique a rather asinine theory are not "trolls" but rather people who don't just jump into the first hypothesis they see head first and accept it as fact.

  by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:26:26 PM PDT

  •  He's...

    not referring to replies that critique the theory, but his replies to those replies.

    He's right in that the troll ratings are very much misused here many times.  I got troll rated once (fortunately a couple of others thought it was wrong and offset it) because I uprated someone who I thought was being unfairly rated.  I was downrated several times because people did not agree with my posts - even though they were civil and well thought out. That is abuse, and there is a lot of it here.

    That said, the solution is not to change how the rating system works, but for people to start using it fairly, and for those who see abuse happening to offset it.

    I'm not holding my breath.

    That said, I have not read the diary that the diarist is referring to, so I am not making any comment at all as to whether his troll ratings are warranted.

    by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:39:03 PM PDT

    •  I read his replies

      They were arrogant, belligerent and insenuated that anyone who doesn't agree with him is a lunatic drone for Bush, the CDC and shared the responsibility for all AIDS deaths.

      Free speech is one thing, being a jerk is totally different.

      by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:44:18 PM PDT

      •  Uhhh..

        
        Free speech is one thing, being a jerk is totally different.
        

        Disagree.  Free speech means the right to be a jerk as much as the right to be civil.

        I'm not saying that he has the right to be a jerk on Daily Kos, but then I'm saying that if he doesn't, "Free Speech" is a misnomer.

        by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:46:21 PM PDT

        •  true, bad wording

          Yeah, I used a bad word combination. What I actually mean that becuase he was downrated for being a jerk doesn't make him a free speech martyr.

          Its one thing when you're in a debate and people just want to shut you up by force. However when you have been doing nothing but being rude and belligerent, the people who don't want anything to do with you and don't appreciate your tone don't want to "silence the truth," but rather let you know that your abhorrent behavior is unwanted.

          by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:51:35 PM PDT

          •  Well placed comments

            and 1 ratings are sufficient.  Troll ratings exist to hide comments and anyone who has the option knows that full well.

            by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:56:22 PM PDT

        •  If he wants to be a jerk on a blog

          anytime he wants to, all day and all night if he wants to, then he can go start his own blog.

          "Free speech" means you have the right to express yourself, but there is no right to express yourself any way you want in any privately-owned forum you choose.

          by MJB on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:00:38 PM PDT

          •  I...

            didn't use the words "free speech".  I was just pointing out that you can't call it free speech if speech is being censored.

            There is no free speech on Dkos.  Kos does try to keep it as open as he can, and that's appreciated, but sometimes people do get banned.  In true free speech, that wouldn't happen except for in cases of immediate and credible threat of harm or illegal activities.

            I'm not complaining about it, I'm just stating a fact.

            by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:05:43 PM PDT

            •  Banned

              Users rarely get banned.

              Comments get deleted by troll ratings sometimes, but IIRC only kos deletes users and he does it by every so often going through the user ratings and deleting a few who have been repeatedly troll-rated.

              In other words, if you want to get banned, you have to do a lot more than post one poorly-received diary and a second diary whining about the ratings you received on the first diary.  Heh.

              by MJB on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:15:29 PM PDT

              •  Yes...

                but the point is, it does happen, and as such there's a central authority that decides who gets to speak.  I never said it was common, but I did say it happens.

                by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:17:04 PM PDT

          •  true, bad wording

            I was just trying to say that he's hardly the free speech martyr he claims to be. If he's being a jerk, he should expect that people will want to punish his behavior. Sure, he can be the jerkiest of jerks enytime his left foot itches to do so, but he shouldn't expect people to like it.

            by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:11:44 PM PDT

            •  That's not to say...

              he's not pointing out a legitimate problem.  I think he is.  He's just picking a particularly bad way of going about it.

              by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:13:13 PM PDT

  •  Misunderstanding?

    I didn't think he was accusing the commenters of being trolls, but that his comments in response were being troll rated.

    Now, it is true he seems to be buying a totally idiotic tin-foil flat earth theory. And many comments directed him to more reputable sources for facts and reality based info. However, most of his comments in response didn't really deserve "troll" ratings either. He was bound and determined to stick with his conspiracy theory, but from what I read he was being perfectly civil in his half of the discussion as well.

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:44:38 PM PDT

    •  not at all

      Once again, the tone of his comments comes out in this diary where he says that anyone who disagrees with him has been brainwashed by the "powers that be." I think for being a belligerent jerk who's only real defense of his tinhat theory is an endless string of personal smears, he deserves whetever ratings he gets.

      by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:47:40 PM PDT

      •  Then...

        it could be argued that those kinds of comments deserve a 1 for "unproductive".  OK, I can buy that.  They get downrated, but not hidden, and everyone's happy.  Maybe the diarist doesn't like 1s either, but it's a reasonable thing to do.

        I don't think the same can be said for zero ratings.  Those are just vindictive without a very good reason.  I don't think "I disagree" or "the poster is an ass" are good enough.

        But that's just me.

        by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:49:39 PM PDT

        •  ok, I'll buy that

          1 may be right on, but then again, methinks that he may have easily gone overboard in his over-zealous defence of his "theory" and thus the 0 ratings were a reply to his abuse.

          I'm sorry, I just have trouble feeling sorry for someone who is so beliegerent and arrogant.

          by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:55:30 PM PDT

          •  That's when it's most important

            to be vigilant and still rate fairly.  It's easy to make the right decisions when you're not feeling personally insulted, or when the poster is being civil.  It's more difficult to do the right thing when your nature is screaming "blast this guy to hell".

            But that's when it's most important to do the right thing, because if you give in to your baser instincts, not only are you no better than the person you're downrating, but you're also helping to bring the whole forum down with you.

            by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:01:18 PM PDT

        •  zero ratings

          If I have given out 5, that is alot.

          I just reserve them for the "very special" posts....

          by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:08:52 PM PDT

          •  Agreed.

            I think I have only given out zero ratings for two reasons:

            1.  poster was an obvious troll trying to disrupt things.
               
            2.  poster was advocating committing a felony and trying to use DKos to organize it.

            Otherwise, I'm pretty stingy with them.

            by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:10:31 PM PDT

            •  ha - I troll rated the same person

              in your 2nd point.  What a stupid idea/diary that one was - even so much that I (in all my laziness) couldn't let pass.

              by clammyc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

      •  Oh man

        handing out 0s and 1s for people saying people who disagree with them are 'brainwashed by the powers that be' is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.  You can't enter a debate on the 2004 elections, the Kennedy assassination, or any other debates against conventional wisdom without brainwashing charges being handed out like candy.

        by scionkirk on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:56:12 PM PDT

        •  that may be true

          but again, no matter how deep I look in the void where my heart is supposed to be, I can't find sympathy for belligerent jerks who argue like they belong on Hannity and O'Reilly.

          by analyst on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:00:27 PM PDT

        •  I wasn't saying that people are brainwashed

          I was saying that since there is still no explanation of the mechanism whereby HIV produces AIDS, the HIV=AIDS hypothesis is just that—a hypothesis—so that other alternative hypotheses should be considered, and rival hypotheses be assessed empirically.

          This is the point I kept repeating, and it really upset people. They really want to believe that HIV=AIDS is proven beyond a doubt.

          by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:21:38 PM PDT

          •  And you miss the point anyway.

            The whole point of being a scientist is that you take what is seen, come up with an explanation somehow, and test the hypothesis.  If it's well tested and explains things, then it becomes a theory.

            I know of very few true scientists that would not throw out a theory in a minute if their observations didn't match it or disproved it.

            The same is true for evolution and whatever.  You're sounding remarkably like an ID advocate.

            by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:25:30 PM PDT

          •  it upset people

            because of the fatal consequences of the notion that HIV doesn't cause AIDS that you are acting as a publicist for.

            and don't pretend that you aren't.  this is a gong you've rung before, and people are getting tired of it.

            by hind on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:35:48 PM PDT

            •  Upsetting people...

              isn't a good reason for removing comments, unless there's something more behind it.

              I upset people a lot, some people with my very existence. :)

              by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:51:47 PM PDT

    •  Idiotic flat earth theories...

      ...aren't usually supported by Nobel prizewinning biochemists.

      -Alan
      

      by SlackerInc on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:14:25 PM PDT

      •  Who haven't published

        in >10 years????

        Not credible. I wonder what Kari thinks now?

        It's not fair to attribute views to him that he hasn't espoused in many many years.

        by coigue on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 04:28:22 PM PDT

•  Your UID says you know how it works

  With a UID at 8272 - you've been around long enough to know how the ratings work....nothing has changed in months and months.

  Oh well...PhillyGal has the rest of it covered up thread...

  by SallyCat on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:29:07 PM PDT

•  help help

  i'm being repressed!

  by zenbowl on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:29:28 PM PDT

  •  Wtihout regard to the merits of the dairy ...

    ... ISTM diarists should have access to comments under their own diaries (and likewise, discussants should have access to their own comments, and subthreads thereto).

    by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:36:27 PM PDT

    •  Agreed.

      What is the point of hiding comments from the poster?  It seems stupid, and somewhat lazy on the part of the coders.

      I'm speaking as a coder, so that's my professional opinion, not an insult.

      by duskglow on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:41:14 PM PDT

•  it's a tough crowd

  Asking for sympathy here is about useless. I read your other diary and watched what happened. It's better to let them rant than to feed the fire. Trying to defend yourself is like trying to put out a forest fire with a waterballoon sometimes. I had to delete my 1st 2 diarys, but I learned from it. You want to post more you will need to grow a thicker skin, suckup some bad ratings, and just move on. Good luck.

  by OneCrankyDom on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:34:43 PM PDT

  •  Good advice! Diaries whining

    about one's troll ratings are like wearing a 'Kick Me' sign in real life! lol

    by PhillyGal on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:40:26 PM PDT

  •  No sympathy: his diaries go back to Mar '04

    He's been here a long time (almost 2 years since his first diary) and has literally dozens of diaries....

    Inflammatory diaries get smacked down...comments defending those diaries get smacked down as well.

    You UID at 74k+ says new - we may be a tough crowd but are generally consistent over time.

    by SallyCat on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:41:59 PM PDT

  •  I wasn't wining

    I was just saying that it makes no sense to hide a diarist's comments from himself. A couple of people above agreed. Fixing this shouldn't be difficult.

    by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:50:50 PM PDT

    •  The thing is

      unless I was seeing things, during a recent dustup that lost me my TU and the same feelingss over my loss of my own comments and replies to them, I was able to see them. I think I went to a comment of my own on a particular comment thread and hit "parent," which allowed me to see all the somments again, even my own.

      by Earl on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:56:24 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the suggestion

        I tried it on one comment, and nothing became unhidden. Maybe if I tried the right comment, it would work. Or else this was a bug that has been fixed.

        by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

•  unfortunately we can't troll-rate diaries yet [nt]

  by pb on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:36:54 PM PDT

  •  right--this diarist should count himself lucky

    that we can't.

    As for his actual suggestions--#1 I don't necessarily have a problem with, tho it doesn't strike me as an issue worth the effort of the technical fix; #2 strikes me as idiotic--in other words, a freeper could post a diary entitled "Kos Sucks!" and then repeat the same thing in an endless number of comments in his diary, and no one could troll rate him for it.

    by Hprof on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:41:36 PM PDT

    •  I concur.

      As for #1, it's certainly annoying when you're on the wrong side of it, but I think (theoretically) it's supposed to serve a purpose as well--probably "don't feed the trolls". Anyhow, any Trusted User can rate up improperly troll-rated posts, and the system is biased in their favor; in this case many chose to do just the opposte--give them more 0's. And I totally agree with you about #2, especially seeing as how diarists can still (a) post new comments, (b) update their diaries, and (c) delete their diaries.

      Now what I'd really like to see--an expansion of the recommended list. However, apparently kos doesn't see the need, and it is his site and all...

      by pb on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:48:11 PM PDT

    •  What would be the additional harm...

      of a freeper being able to post stupidities in his comments, if he already can do that in a diary?

      And a modification of my proposal #2 would be to allow troll-rating of a diarist's comments, but not make the comments disappear.

      by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:53:47 PM PDT

      •  Your premise seems to be

        that you can't be a troll in your own diary because it's yours.  I don't agree with that premise.  Even if I did, comments that aren't trollish in the context of the diary could be so in the larger context of this website.

        About my hypothetical: I think there would be plenty of additional harm in letting the troll taunt people in the comments; even if there weren't, the larger harm is that you're encouraging him to post a trollish diary in the first place, as a nest for his trollish comments.  And there's plenty of harm in that.
        

        by Hprof on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:01:04 PM PDT

        •  I recently saw somebody

          post a diary that was at least somewhat reasonable in tone, but as the discussion went along he got angrier and angrier.  Eventually, his comments consisted mostly of insults and obscenities.  That seems to present a strong case for allowing people to troll-rate someone in his/her own diary.  

          Also, troll-rating doesn't exist just to hide comments.  It exists to push down someone's mojo, possibly to the point of banning.  If a troll posts a truly vile diary and comments on it, people should be able to ban him by downrating his comments.  

          by dtj on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:51:04 PM PDT

•  hmmmmm

  I certainly don't think you intended to be offensive in your previous diary, though a lot of other users clearly interpreted it that way. That having been said, I think the position you advocated about HIV-AIDS is total bullshit. But I didn't troll-rate you for it because I thought the inadequacies of your position spoke for themselves.

  If anything, I'd like to see Daily Kos develop a system that lets user "de-recommend" diaries that are poorly-reasoned or not a good fit for the site. That to me seems like a better alternative than troll-rating diarists in their comments sections.

  by pine on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:39:17 PM PDT

  •  It's more a question for Harper's

    From the discussion in the diary, I concluded that Harper's was very irresponsible to print the article and its claims.

    But given that a mainstream respected magazine has published it, I think reporting that and discussing the article here is legitimate.

    by Elwood Dowd on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:44:03 PM PDT

•  HIV

  Sorry. I am a research biologist and I can tell you that the theory that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS is pretty damned solid. To the point where drugs designed based on the genetic sequence of HIV have turned AIDS from a disease that kills rapidly to one that can be survived for more than 20 years. That is an indication of a robust theory--predictions leading to results.

  HIV isn't the ONLY thing because it is seldom the agent that actually kills. But the same could be said of SCID. It isn't the genetic defect that kills in SCID, it is the fact that the individual can't mount an immune response to common bacteria and viruses and other organisms.

  I did not participate in the diary you mention, so I don't know if you deserved to be troll rated. And I do not necessarily fault you for posting a diary on the subject. But really, denying the link between HIV and AIDS has about the same backing as denying the link between smoking and cancer, between carbon dioxide and global warming, and denying evolution. It is making a controversy where there really isn't one.

  by mole333 on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:41:26 PM PDT

  •  The position I took in my diary...

    is that until an explanation is found for how HIV produces AIDS, one cannot know with certainty that HIV does produce AIDS. Of course, you can say that science doesn't seek explanations, only predictions. Some scientists believe the one; others the other. (If I was belligerent about anything in my posts, it was in my insistence that science seeks explanations.)

    One poster by the way said that he has been HIV-positive for twenty years, but never took any anti-HIV drugs. Unfortunately I can't refer you to that post, since it has been hidden from me with troll raitings. :-)

    by Alexander on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:34:03 PM PDT

    •  Explanation

      As far as I can tell there is as much explanation for how HIV causes AIDS as there is evidence for any causative agent causing a disease.

      People with AIDS are invariably HIV-positive (the reverse is NOT necessarily true). That is a strong corrrelation. Infection also demonstrably predates symptoms and the dynamics of the infection with HIV match the dyamics of the development of the syndrome in a manner that is much like ANY retroviral infection.

      The cells that die off in AIDS are the cells that HIV are known to infect. And, again, infection predates die off.

      The death of those cells, by ANY cause, leads to very similar disease succeptabilities that one sees in AIDS (e.g. severe Candida infections, which was one of the first ever observations that led to the discovery of AIDS). In fact the death of those cells in essence causes practically all the visible aspects of AIDS.

      The mechanism of the viral infection is well worked out and is pretty much like ANY retrovirus. HIV is not unique or even unusual in this way.

      About the only somewhat tentative link is exactly how infection actually kills off those particular cells. THAT is one place where I have heard different interesting hypotheses, but all presuppose HIV as the causative agent. Some hypothesize a direct viral killing, others hypothesize that the cells are killed off by the body's own reaction to the HIV infection. The latter is based  on how survival rates differ in individuals that mount a primarily Th1 vs. Th2 response to the virus. But HIV is central to both hypthoses.

      As to HIV-positive for 20 years without meds, I would have to know what he means by HIV-positive. For example, the first test essentially tests for antibodies, which simply shows exposure to the virus. The more definitive test detects actual viral presence. However, whatever his meaning, there are always outliers. The statistics still basically show that meds have turned a death sentence into a manageable, though not curable, disease. Those meds are, again, based on the molecular knowledge of the HIV virus. The loss of effectiveness of the meds over time are also explainable by the known variability of the HIV virus on a molecular level. The case is really quite solid.

      Details remain to be argued over. The overall link is about as solid as it gets.

      I knew someone who, based on a single observation, agrued against the double helix theory of DNA. My counter arguement was that if he was right, then the actual structure must be so similar to the double helix that the difference would almost certainly be irrelavent because almost the entire basis of molecular biology can be worked out from a double helix model. So any other theory would have to give all the same predictions and so would be in essence the same theory. Much the same can be said about the prion theory, which also still has its detractors. I think the same applies to the HIV theory. The predictive basis of HIV as the causative agent is so good that any alternative is still going to have to take HIV into account. If HIV is NOT the primary cause, it is still the most major factor.

      by mole333 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 06:55:08 AM PDT

      •  don't be taken in

        He's lying about the position he took in his diary.  See, e.g., http://www.dailykos.com/...

        What you call the "scientific method"...

        is the view of logical positivism. Logical positivism was debunked in the period from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Perhaps the name T. S. Kuhn, and the phrase "scientific revolutions", mean something to you?

        Kuhn's view is that the process of paradigm change in science--and clearly the proposition that HIV produces AIDS is a paradigm, since it guides and determines all AIDS research--is irrational....

        and

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Fuck Karl Popper

        Contemporary, mainstream philosphers of science consider him to be nothing more than the founder of a personality cult. Today, only dilletants and not very talented autodidacts pay any attention to his "ideas".

        He had well-developed (but quite misinformed) anti-science views long before he read the Harper's piece, and his comments on HIV/AIDS in his diary and throughout his comments make it highly implausible that he accepted the HIV/AIDS connection before reading that piece.

        by jqb on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 06:49:05 PM PDT

    •  Okay...

      So I skimmed your diary.

      Sorry, but there are so many missing facts, misunderstandings and fallacies. Your confuse easily transmitted disease epidemics with an "epidemic" like AIDS which is very difficult to transmit. The dynamics of the epidemics will be radically different.

      You ignore the many social differences between US/Europe and Africa that are part of the difference in epidemic dynamics and how in US/Eur. populations where the sexual activities are similar to those in Africa (migrants frequenting prostitutes without protection, for example) the dynamics are more similar to Africa. In otherwords, your ignore the social elements of the dynamics. Other social aspects that affect the dynamics even in different parts of Africa are rates of circumcision (circumcision correlates with lower infection rates), practices like dry intercourse (which increases rates), etc. And, of course, there is condom availability and usage rates.

      You don't seem to be aware that there are two different HIV viruses with different origins, different geographic ranges and different levels of virulence. You also seem unaware that even within these two different species there are many strains of HIV. So the two different species as well as the social factors above EASILY explain the different kinds of epidemic dynamics seen.

      You don't seem aware that the "kill the host rapidly" (in this case killing the T-cells that they reproduce in) is typical of a newly evolved virus or a virus that jumps species. The host-pathogen interaction has not fine tuned so the reactions of each to the other are greatly exaggerated. Very common. You also seem unaware that some viruses burst their host as a method to release the newly formed particles. Again, a common thing called lysis. Many viruses, HIV included, alternate between lytic and lysogenic (latent, integrated) phases of their cell cycle. This is very common even in such well-studied bacterial virues like M13.

      This is just a brief summary of the things that you are missing or misunderstanding. I don't necessarily blame you since it is clear you aren't a biologist. I am no HIV expert (though I was offered a job in an HIV lab in Seattle 8 years ago but came to NYC instead). But I am up on the basics and you are way off on those basics. Perhaps, and I didn't read the comments much, but perhaps Armando's reaction was because you are earnestly defending something that is so poorly informed.

      by mole333 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

      •  You have out-argued me

        As I mentioned in my original diary, I hadn't read about AIDS for years, until the Harper's piece. Thank you for filling me in a little bit on the many things I am missing.

        I don't know what reaction of Armando's you mean: his name doesn't come up in either of my diaries.

        Yes, the word "lysis" started coming back to me after I read some critical posts (that didn't mention it), from my reading of a bio textbook (Keeton) many years ago. As I mentioned somewhere, I got that argument (about it being silly to hypothesize that HIV destroys its host cells, since it needs them to replicate) straight from Duesberg. I must admit that I was puzzled when I first read that argument, since I had a vague memory of lysis. I must also admit that Duesberg's making that argument might mean that I should reappraise his credibility somewhat.

        You wrote in your preceding post:

        About the only somewhat tentative link is exactly how infection actually kills off those particular cells. THAT is one place where I have heard different interesting hypotheses, but all presuppose HIV as the causative agent. Some hypothesize a direct viral killing, others hypothesize that the cells are killed off by the body's own reaction to the HIV infection.

        This is exactly what I had in mind when I said that there is an explanatory gap. I don't know if you would agree with me that having two such radically different hypotheses for a central aspect of AIDS aetiology shows that an understanding of the mechanism of aids, as opposed to the accumulation of a great deal of data on empirical regularities exhibited by the disease, has not got very far. And I read this article, by Celia Farber, who also wrote the Harper's piece, which suggests that David Ho's theory (the second hypothesis you mention) has fallen into disrepute.

        Still, what you have said has convinced me that a great deal of evidence has been amassed in favor of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. FWIW, my guess as to the likelihood that it is true is 70%. (I would be much more suspicious of your claims if you were an AIDS researcher.)

        Nevertheless, I think that Farber performs a very valuable function with her reporting on the AIDS "establishment". Clearly, excesses do get committed in the fight against AIDS (not just in le Carré novels), and with so much money slushing around, the scientific community can use a little journalistic oversight.

        Anyway, I think that now is a good time for me to stop pushing this line of thinking, unless that is I do a lot more reading about HIV, which will probably be never.

        Thanks once more for your detailed posts, which have convinced me that much if not most mainstream AIDS research is respectable science.

        by Alexander on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:48:18 PM PDT

        •  Cool

          Whoops on the Armando reference. I was conflating your troll-rating rant with an Armando rant going on at the same time. Some of the complaints were similar so they ran together in my mind. Replace "Armando" with "people who troll rated you."

          As to explanatory gaps, well, yes there are gaps. There are always gaps. There are gaps in our understanding of something so well-studied and basic as gravity. In fact, some seemingly well known things do suddenly get overturned, like the discovery that ulcers are caused by bacterial infection.

          But the immune-system killing its own vs. the lytic may even be a false dichotomy. Truth is, in many cases there is a race between lysis and immune killing when a cell is infected by a virus. So both are possibilities and could both be happening. It is an active area of research and honestly here I am not quite up on the latest developments.

          Abuses in science? NEVER! Oh, yeah...that stem cell thing. Oh, and that Indonesian Archaeologist. And that Norwegian guy. And...

          Sadly scientists are not always honest and don't always have integrity. In other words they are people. What I can tell you is that almost every scientist I have known studying almost anything in either biology or atmospheric sciences (my wife's field) have been driven largely by a very strong desire for accurate and factual discovery. Discoveries that overturn accepted paradigms are GOLD in science, they make your career. So there would never be mass acceptance of a bad theory.

          Most abuses come from the need to publish. A researcher may be facing tenure or some other cirtical deadline and decide to fudge. I have never known anyone who did this of all the hundreds of scientists I have known. Then again, many bad papers get published where I do question  the conclusions of the author. But that isn't abuse, that is simply incompetance. And, again, scientists are human and hence there are incompetant scientists.

          AIDS is also an area where politics gets invo