4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
the below article was posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
by:
“Speech is best countered by more speech”
Peter Lipson:
I documented the preliminary report of my adventures on the Forbes comment section, on my blog:
http://t.co/n1IzlVmZEu
Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski
reddit.it/1d8am2
Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer
http://reddit.it/1d8am2
Doctor, And Their Critics (page 1)
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1d8am2
4/27/2013:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-1/
Once THAT was cleared up, and I posted a comment, one lilady decided to interject Wikipedia into the mix, on Forbes
lilady 4 days ago
“Ha Didymus Thomas…You opened your huge tin of Spam, months ago!”
“And, you “Didymous Judas Thomas” and your sock puppets were banned by Wikipedia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
“You and Randy Hinton are sounding suspiciously alike.”
“So, Randy Hinton, will you be debating a real surgical oncologist?”
“Or are you one of DJT’s sockies?”
I replied to lilady’s comment and ASSumption re:
“You and Randy Hinton are sounding suspiciously alike”
Didymus Thomas 4 days ago
As former President Ronald Reagan used to say:
“Well, there you go again.”
Let me make this perfectly clear and unambiguous as I can.
1. I am NOT Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.
2. I am NOT AstroTurfWatch.
3. I am NOT Eric Merola, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.
4. I am NOT Randy Hinton, I have never met him, this article is the first place I have seen his name.
lilady returned and restated her ASSumption, whilst providing NO information in support of her claim re any of my “alleged” “sock puppets”
lilady 4 days ago
“But you ARE Didymus Judas Thomas, who, along with his/her sock puppets, are banned from Wikipedia:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
“So, Randy Hinton…why don’t you post at the blog I linked to?”
I replied to lilady’s “day old fish:”
Didymus Thomas 3 days ago
1. Do you have a point ?
2. Do you have a relationship with Wikipedia?
3. Why is it that on the Wikipedia “Brainstem Glioma” Prognosis page it has “needs citations,” when I can do an Internet search and find reliable independent sources for that information?
4. Do you really want to get into a debate about WP, or do you want to handle one issue at a time?
5. “The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of
“the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘
I added the above point “5.,” since it aptly described the “lilady” I was dealing with
lilady rejoined:
lilady 3 days ago
“I have no connection with Wikipedia and you and your sock puppets have been banned from the site.”
“Your posts only indicate that you and your sockies’ Spam are ignorant in basic science and cancer treatment.”
I responded to lilady’s continued ASSumptions, since, if anything, if either of us were
“…ignorant in basic science and cancer treatment”
I felt that the honor should be bestowed upon a lilady
Didymus Thomas 3 days ago
1. lilady, please explain what you did bit (sic – “not”) understand re Randy Hinton’s comment:
“I will not waste my time with a CHAT on line where you people alway’s control the conversation”
2. The fact that you were not able to offer a coherent response to point 3 of my reply says it all
3. WP claims to have a neutral policy:
“The principles upon which this ‘policy’ is based cannot be superseded by ‘other policies’”
Yet, even WP apologist, Guy Chapman is unable to explain why, when WP claims ‘other policies’ are supposedly “co-equal” with the neutral policy, that none of those ‘other policies’ also indicate that:
“The principles upon which this ‘policy’ is based cannot be superseded by ‘other policies’”
4. As former President George Herbert Walker Bush said: “Read … my … lips”
I detailed the exploits of lilady on Forbes and “Orac” and the “Oracolytes” blog, on my blog:
Orac, a lilady, the Oracolytes: “The
redd.it/1dgqa1
Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film
http://redd.it/1dgqa1
Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dgqa1
Their Critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/orac-a-lilady-the-oracolytes-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Seeing as how lilady did NOT have a response for my reply; what a surprise, and since another commentor had posted:
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
which came as quite a surprise to me, since there had only been
3,875 views
Not so much
I wanted to assist Mr. Ogon in reaching his goal
Waiting for the 10,000
I wonder if Wikipedia believes in “Sunshine” and “Blue Sky,” because when they ban people who question their “gatekeeper’s” “infallibility,” it means that the banned individual is NOT able to post their comments on the Wikipedia ban appeal section where it can be seen
If Wikipedia were really NOT afraid of “Sunshine” and “Blue Sky,” then they should change their ban appeal process so that the banned individual has access to the ban appeal process on Wikipedia
On my blog I posted:
redd.it/1djmit
“The Skeptics:”
http://redd.it/1djmit
Your problem is,
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1djmit
Wikipedia IS censored
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored
In the above article I refer to Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman (guychapman on Forbes, also known as @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK); because when you post garbage, sometimes you need 2 or more Twitter accounts to do it at the same time
Mr. Chapman has a “blahg” on a United Kingdom (UK) site:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
When I was attempting to get Wikipedia to prove that they really are “neutral” and that they actually abide by:
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
To show how “BIASED” Wikipedia is, all one has to do is read the below comments:
I pointed out that the e-mail address provided on Wikipedia for blocked individual’s to use, did NOT work, because there is NO “@” in it:
arbcom-appeals.en.lists.wikimedia.org
and should be changed to:
arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org
here is the response I received:
On 2/1/13 wikiXXX.@.XXXX.XXX
Anthony (AGK) BASC
On 3 February 2013 06:56, Didymxs Thomas
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy. We have told you already that we do not accept the validity of your complaint; that will not change, and you will not be unblocked at this time.”
“I wish you luck with your future endeavours outwith Wikipedia.”
“Yours,”
“Anthony (AGK)”
“BASC”
So, advising Wikipedia that the e-mail address they provide on their site will NOT work because it has no “@” sign, means:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
>
> “Looking into your situation, the community were united that
> your contributions were biased.”
>
> WP editors seem to be biased:
>
> “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to
> release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
>
> Bullshit?
You remind me of THIS “Guy” Chapman (@SceptiGuy) and his “bullshit”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 12:42pm – 14 Mar 13:
(Surely Guy Chapman is NOT the same individual as JZG|Guy?)
Thank you “Guy”
Your 15 seconds of “Fame” starts
NOW !!!
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
to view this change
“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at
> worst a quack…”. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012
>
> The world?
(Surely, Guy Chapman is NOT the same individual as Guy?)
(Surely, JZG|Guy is NOT the same individual as Guy?)
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?
>
> “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it,
> which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least
> promising.” Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 24 December 2012, Monday
>
> Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it? Ignores independent research
> done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which
> specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications
> re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, &
> includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being
> published in China 12/17/2012?
What, exactly, do you NOT understand about THIS?
>
>“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the
> general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
> WP:NPOV “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note [3])
>
(Surely, Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, JZG|Guy, guychapman, and Guy are NOT all the same individual?)
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
to view this change.
> Arbitrator views and discussion
>
> On Friday, January 25, 2013, Steve Pereira wrote:
>
> Hello Didymus Judas Thomas
>
> The Arbitration Committee look into conduct disputes where the community
> are unable to resolve them. Looking into your situation, the
> community were united that your contributions were biased:
>
What do you NOT understand about THIS?
>“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the
> general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
> WP:NPOV “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note [3])
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
>
> There is also concern that you wish to promote antineoplaston therapy in
> the article, a cancer therapy that is unproven in independent trials and
> yet is very expensive.
>
> Steve/SilkTork
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Didymos Thomas
What do you NOT understand about THIS?
>“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the
> general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
> WP:NPOV “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note [3])
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
>
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
…and there had only been
3,799 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 