>> ^heropsycho:

It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business



It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.

You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?

But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.

I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."

Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner

>> ^Porksandwich:

Have to confess I am not entirely sure how this website functions, unless someone else agrees with me that this video has ran it's course here before. I think it even hit top 15 then as well. Then what's stopping people from removing the video from the site, waiting for it to be purged and re-submitting said video for another vote up to the top 15?


If it was removed by the original poster they would 'lose' the votes that it collected, which are attributed to them, so there's no incentive to the original poster to do so, as their sift-rank is linked to the number of votes they posted have.

And if someone posted this earlier, we can link this to that one auto-magically anyway. I haven't been around for a while, but I haven't seen it and I've gladly upvoted.

This clip was hilarious.

Have to confess I am not entirely sure how this website functions, unless someone else agrees with me that this video has ran it's course here before. I think it even hit top 15 then as well. Then what's stopping people from removing the video from the site, waiting for it to be purged and re-submitting said video for another vote up to the top 15?

>> ^NetRunner:

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

I do have a problem with how dag chose to handle the bans. He handled them poorly, IMO. But the alternative would be worse. And this is a website, not city council. The decisions dag make don't affect me in the slightest outside of this website.

People voting to take away the privileges of others is doomed to be abused. Not by the trolls, but by the status quo. That means the majority of people who have similar perspectives on what is and what is not acceptable behavior will determine who is and who is not banned.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?
I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.
As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.


I don't think people are being so incivil we need to come up with some new busybody central planning tools to handle it. We've got hobbling for the members to use in case someone is being awfully incivil. And I think that'll always be up for determining case-by-case.

Writing it down as law makes it so everyone has to follow the same rule. You call me a pig fucker sometimes, and that's more than cool because we have a relationship that's suited for that kind of banter. But if I called BB2 that same name, she'd probably want dag to do something about it. In fact, I'm sure she would.

I think it really needs to not be a law what can be and cannot be said. We should give people the benefit of the doubt until they lose their privilege to do so by "careful" consideration by one of the admin. That way people who call each other douchebags or pig fuckers can continue to do so, and people will feel comfortable that their speech isn't being policed by a bunch of hall monitors.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?
If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?


It works how things work in every day situations. In sexual harassment training they tell you to tell the offender that what he or she is saying offends you. After that, if they persist, then you have a grievance. Same thing would apply here, no?

Hypothetically, I call you a Nazi, you should then tell me you think that's harassment. If I persist, then you could bring your grievance to an admin, showing that you warned me. I mean, this isn't complicated stuff. It's just basic communication.

I just don't want to see this place become so fucking tedious. It's a better site when it works more like a squabbling family than a clockwork draconian utopia.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

As a libertarian, sure, you are deeply committed to the idea that dag is and must be considered our king because he's got the divine right of property, and the rest of us are merely his subjects who only are allowed here at his consent.

But that's different from whether you like what the king's doing at any given time.
>> ^blankfist:
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?

I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.

As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.
>> ^blankfist:
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?

If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/04/18/senator-jon-kyl-purges-his-lie-about-planned-parenthood-from-official-records

ha and double ha!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/04/18/senator-jon-kyl-purges-his-lie-about-planned-parenthood-from-official-records

Ha!

I agree with him in general, but I wish he'd stop bringing up the appendix. They discovered the use for the appendix several years ago. It's a pocket where your body stores the 'good' bacteria you need to digest your food, when your body needs to purge because you're sick it provides the bacteria to re-colonise your digestive tract afterwards.

Like you want a God?
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^gwiz665:
I jsut want a separation between church and existence.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


You need to generalize a little more. Enforcing specific beliefs, philosophies or religions on others is a pox on humanity. It's been done under the guise of every major belief, philosophy and religion in human history.
Please notice that people who "who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state" are NOT the solution as you seem to embrace them. They ARE the problem.


I want a unicorn.

>> ^gwiz665:

I jsut want a separation between church and existence.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


You need to generalize a little more. Enforcing specific beliefs, philosophies or religions on others is a pox on humanity. It's been done under the guise of every major belief, philosophy and religion in human history.
Please notice that people who "who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state" are NOT the solution as you seem to embrace them. They ARE the problem.



I want a unicorn.

I jsut want a separation between church and existence.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


You need to generalize a little more. Enforcing specific beliefs, philosophies or religions on others is a pox on humanity. It's been done under the guise of every major belief, philosophy and religion in human history.
Please notice that people who "who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state" are NOT the solution as you seem to embrace them. They ARE the problem.

>> ^gwiz665:

I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.



You need to generalize a little more. Enforcing specific beliefs, philosophies or religions on others is a pox on humanity. It's been done under the guise of every major belief, philosophy and religion in human history.

Please notice that people who "who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state" are NOT the solution as you seem to embrace them. They ARE the problem.

>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.



Strong words for a talking penis.

Of course, you are correct. Greater evils do exist, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to this one. Christianity is sinister, in that it guises itself as a good thing "do unto others etc", but in reality it is a means for people to control other people - not just enslave them, but control their minds, make them willing slaves, and that to me is even more scary than just being oppressed.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.


I think there are greater threats to human kind than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in this world.

>> ^gwiz665:

I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:
I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.



I think there are greater threats to human kind than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in this world.