On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 gnigh at agora.rdrop.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.980927131545.25508A-100000 at dingo.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> Leonard Pattenden <ddlpatte at mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Len, I have no desire at all to continue feeding your fascination with this
I guess that means you do not want to enter into any debate just like last
time, but put forward more rhetoric and run with your tail between your
legs. I also see you once again removed the Cc too, somethings don't
change do they?
Val said the first step was for those wishing to debate their work to
> critique it. This is more than pointing to a few articles and saying "done."
> Step by step, point out the problems with their work. It is a tedious process,
> but you all keep blabbing about how easy it is to poke their stuff full of
> holes. Do it in a thorough, referenced document. That is what Val said (in his
> note *to you*) was the first step. No one has done it yet.
That is where you are wrong and you fully know this. Let us examine the
situation, since you have deleted it all completely. Steve Harris wrote an
excellent piece which put your nose out of joint. The piece showed the
SPECTRA papers that the Perth Group use as their anchor for viral
isolation does not show a virus was isolated at all!
The point Steve made was that he was open to debate this, *DEBATE* (not
write an article), with the Perth Group. You wanted it to be an article
and then had the gall to tell scientists that criticism of people's work
can only be done in peer reviewed journals, several people and myself
pointed out the stupidity of this as firstly, it negates the discussion of
conferences and presentations and secondly Continuum is a magazine, not a
peer reviewed journal (Continuum being the place where the Perth Group
publish their articles on non-isolation).
Now Val agreed to debate *anywhere* and to show "where we have gone
wrong", nothing about tediously wading through some quagmire you describe.
It seems once again you are trying to call the shots on what we must do
and how we must do it.
I put forward my arguement with the NG misc.health.aids. It is clear I was
addressing the Continuum articles on how to isolate a virus (and that HIV
has not been isolated). You have deleted this, it was present in the
previous post and was referenced. I have shown the Virology 230 papers
were not about "non-isolation" or it's "impossibility". It was about
microvesicle contamination. In fact one group claimed 95% removal of these
contaminating microvesicles in that paper. Simple cross referencing showed
a beautiful picture of HIV *all by itself*. Once again all this data was
in the previous post. My position and stance in the debate is well
established. As too is Steve Harris's position. Val is aware of it. He
knows where we are anytime he has a comment to make to either of us.
> The point of my interjecting is that you have done a nice job of selective
> quotation yourself. You posted a note I wrote in the exchange of some time
> ago, then posted your own reply, though didn't bother to post my reply to
> you. Nice thorough chronology. Selective citation: it seems you've accused
> others of that as well.
Ah, Greg, it was about Val, not you. Have you got a case of paranoia? I
was merely showing Val has the criticisms. The papers speak for themselves
- any intelligent person can read them and interpret exactly what is said.
Further, I retrieved the dejanews thread and invited anyone to visit it.
Albeit, I put a space there so it fits on two line and it doesn't work as
is. Anyperson with some brains can find the actual threads. Anyone could
have seen your masterful rejoinders in all there superfluous glory, if
they desired. If you feel you came across as a twit, perhaps you should
start addressing the science and not be so much of a twit. In fact, if I
did anyone a disservice it was Steve Harris, whose excellent commentaries
were completely removed from the exchange, then I'd have to include
Holzman as well, I think Marnix put in some good words too. Hell, I've
left out and misrepresented a whole group of people! However, only you
have come for a cry about it.
Yes, the message in the middle. That was pretty relevant to Val having
received the criticisms wasn't it? You kept deleting him from the loop.
But oh no! You didn't include my response *shock*, you are misrepresenting
me. Do I get to cry now? Grow up and address the science.
Have a day!