User talk:PalMD/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1Whats wrong with it? Tmtoulouse 09:58, 22 May 2007 (CDT) I want to add a talk tag to it....PalMD 10:13, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Discussion From CP Regarding Credentials[edit]

This still exists at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive3#Question but I'm not sure if it will last. If someone wants to dig up a permalink, that would be great. I have included it because it contains so many of Andy's tactics.

Here is your permalink On wikis, thre is always a link on the left that says "permalink" that you can use. After clicking on it, it is often useful to also click on the section you want in the TOC. Any "diff" page, by the way, is also a permalink, and is useful to show a user actually entering certain text. Also, by the way, I thinnk once Andy archives something, he tends not to mess with it. But still, permalinks will last as long as the wiki is on line. humanbe in 13:41, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok, Im a very patient person, but what is "sex talk"?!?!? I mean, the biology of reproduction when presented as I did it, respectfully and morally, is useful, important, and APOLITICAL. I would not venture to insert my politics anywhere on this site. My politics, when I either agree or disagree with something here, are irrelevant. I am only interested in diseminating (dont censor that word please) useful information in a respectful way.

Are you a physician? A PhD credentialed in this field? If so, then state your credentials. If not, then forget about it here.--Aschlafly 14:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


I am a medical doctor, born, trained, and practicing in the US, a clinical assistant professor of medicine at a major university. If you wish to know more, I can hunt down my Curriculum Vitae for you. I have no political affiliations, not that it would be anyone's business unless I am editing political articles. I am not registered or donating to any PACs or political parties. I treat sexually transmitted diseases daily, in patients of all faiths, but also in many born-again christians, as no one is inherently immune. I treat all my patients with respect and give them the knowledge to take care of themselves properly. I would be happy to help edit any articles on medicine or sexuality (if presented truthfully and respectfully). I am not interested in vandalism, trolling, or posting opinions anonymously. Any questions? Palmd001 15:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, your comments about your background are a surprise. Where did you do your residency, and in which field? Feel free to improve our entry on the HPV vaccine, which you should know all about. Additional scientific entries on the damage caused by sexually transmitted diseases would be welcome. Let's see how that goes.

A surprise? I think many of the contributors here are well-educated. I trained in Internal Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. Northwestern is non-sectarian, but founded as a Methodist college. It's reputation is unimpeachable. I would be happy to look over the HPV Vaccine article. This is a very interesting topic. I do not have a strong opinion yet as to whether it should be added as a mandatory vaccine, as the there is significant medical disagreement here (as opposed to moral, which there is also). I suspect it will be useful for it to become mandatory at some point, but that is simply my opinion. That being said, if I contribute an edit, it will be factual, but it may or may not conform to what you would wish it to say. As this is your site, it is your right to censor it. I have edited my STD article to include symptoms, and will add information about consequences of STDs. I will have you note that I included accurate information about both abstinence and condom use. Palmd001 15:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Internal medicine is not a field of specialty for sexually transmitted diseases (Untrue). So I don't see anything that would qualify you to speak about prevention. This is not the place for public-school type sex education claims and speculation.
Let's address this as follows. Post a link of any article you have published on sexually transmitted diseases, and I'll look at it. If you haven't published any articles in this field, then send a link of any article in this field that has acknowledged your contribution in anyway. Since authorship and acknowledgments are usually to large groups of people, this would not deprive you of anonymity. But if authorship and acknowledgments are the empty set for you in this field, then perhaps your interest is akin to that of sex ed teachers, and this site is not going to become a place for that.--Aschlafly 15:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

You are misinformed about the nature of Internal Medicine. STDs are part of the usual scope of internal medicine practice, and all internists are considered qualified to comment, diagnose, and treat them, just as much as we would diabetes or hypertension. Please refer to the sectino in Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine, the main reference for my field. I do not do a lot of publishing but I do have a few articles on hepatitis C I could dig up for you, but it is irrelevant. If you do not acknowledge my expertise in my own field, you probably should not trust your own internest. Please feel free to email me at my private email address if you wish. I can provide it to you privately, but I do not wish to post it here. I have to admit, you got my hackles up a little with that one, as you are a bit over your head here.


Oh, and please...have this...I have not attempted to particularly mask my identity, so if you want to figure it out, you probably can, but why bother, unless you wish to harass me. Palmd001 16:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)Wright TL, Hollander H, Pu X, Held MJ, Lipson P, Quan S, Polito A, Thaler MM, Bacchetti P, et al. Hepatitis C in HIV-infected patients with and without AIDS: Prevalence and Relationship to Patient Survival. Hepatology, 20: 1152-5, 1994. Palmd001 16:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No offense should be taken, and none was intended. As I made as clear as possible, this site is not the place for sex ed. speculation. You're not a specialist in this field, apparently, but you want to opine about it. That's fine, but don't post your opinions here on this topic. There is no reason to be offended. I feel the same way about the sex ed so-called experts (sometimes called sexperts) who like to talk sex with teenagers in our public schools. For some reason the topic of sex attracts many teacher wannabees. How many of them would like to teach our kids a good math course instead?
This is encyclopedia, not a sex ed reference manual. I don't mean to cut you off at this point, but I have do some other things now. Feel free to respond, but it's unlikely I'll spend more time on this narrow topic today.--Aschlafly 16:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll take a look at it. --Aschlafly 16:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, i have no interest in talking to children about sex ed, I am not a "sexpert" but I AM an expert in sexually transmitted diseases and I think I have faithfully presented my bona fides. If you cannot accept this, you have a big problem with this site, but as I said, it's yours to do as you wish. BTW, if math were my expertise, I would be happy to contribute, but my speciality is medicine, which is why I have chosen to contribute there. I made very useful edits in HPV Vaccine for you, and posted a non-prurient STD article for you that any parent should be proud to read in order to inform their family as they see fit. I think that you think that I have an agenda that I really do not have.
Palmd001, I looked at your edit to the HPV vaccine. What you added was a liberal claim lacking in any scientific support, a claim that had previously been removed from the entry! Dr. Richard Schlegel, Chair, Georgetown University Medical Center's Department of Pathology, an HPV researched, is quoted in the Washington Post saying the opposite of you stated here. If you wish to discuss this further, don't discuss it here but on the HPV vaccine talk page, where I post Schlegel's comments and link.
Please don't post your speculations and opinions about sex in entries here.--Aschlafly 18:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Have I been banned from this discussion? It appears you have no respect for this expert, despite my proferring of my bona fides. I am perfectly willing to engage in a clean, rational discussion, but you apparently have no interest in truth, be it God's or someone else's. God created intelligent beings to use their intelligence, not to swear vows and bow to false gods such as yourself. Re read your Bible, my friend, and good luck. My God have mercy on your poor, ignorant soul.

Peter Palmd001 21:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

BTW, you have misunderstood Dr. Schlegel I think, but Ill report, you decide. See the transcript: [1]

Palmd001 22:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The experiment, redux[edit]

  • In general, the quality of entries here is much higher than on Wikipedia. Try using the "Random page" entry on Wikipedia and you'll be astounded by the high percentage of junk that is returned.--Aschlafly 09:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, my experiment... WP:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_models
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_European_Formula_Two_season
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_America
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_College_of_Engineering
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Bolton

CP:

  1. http://www.conservapedia.com/Achilles
  2. http://www.conservapedia.com/Delian_League
  3. http://www.conservapedia.com/Renaissance_Man
  4. http://www.conservapedia.com/Swahili
  5. http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_Exploration_H

Most of the CP articles were a couple of sentences long.--PalMD-Talk 21:56, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi[edit]

Good to se you back. --Helios 12:48, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


Gender and Sexuality[edit]

Any time you feel up to working on gender identity, gender identity disorder, homosexuality, bisexuality and suchlike, just let me know here, or drop me an email. I'm not confident enough to take the lead yet, but I'm perfectly happy to take part in the discussion. No rush or anything, just putting it out there. --Kels 13:11, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm something of a headshrinker myself and could help as well. Diabhal 18:22, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

already done that for you :)[edit]

Essay:PalMD's Response for Motivations for the Theory of Evolution (the first article on the new RW!)humanbe in 15:05, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Anti-american coward who hates his country and its troops. You're probably a terrorist[edit]

I am also a commie nazi!--TimS 15:56, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

E-mail[edit]

Did you get my e-mail today? Tmtoulouse 21:36, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Hey Pal! I got your e-mail; will go over it in a bit, promises to be interesting. On an unrelated note, I heard that you were being led to believe, by a certain CP sysop, that I had turned on our secret RW group. You should know that's not true: I told this sysop that I had, but was in contact with Toulouse the whole time about it. 'Twas fun, but my double-agentry didn't end up leading anywhere :-/. Just wanted you to know. Also, thanks for standing up for me (and lawyers everywhere) to said sysop. You rock, as always.-AmesG 00:51, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Showing my Hand[edit]

"Hi TK. I just wanted to let you know that as an editor at another site I would enjoy having you to debate on various matters. If you would be so kind, please feel free to invite other CP sysops to our little page for the same treatment you've received, which I think you'll agree, has been no less than cordial. Feel free to ban this sock, I don't have any more use for it here and I will not vandalize CP (as I never did.) Hope to see you and some of the more open-minded among you. SBrown 11:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)"

Just a little thing I put up over there. Sort of tests the "our vandal our friend" policy, but we'll see. Most interesting, they have yet to notice a rationalwiki.com page. [2] Flippin-shhh 10:54, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

See the note I put near the top of my user page on this topic, sort of. humanbe in 22:35, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

UXBs[edit]

I answered you on Helios' page humanbe in 16:24, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


reparative therapy[edit]

I like it...much better than fighting with RobS. Added a few things on the talk page. Diabhal 23:16, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

F you[edit]

You're an ass. Go to hell. You know what I'm talking about. DocSock 11:19, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd ask you to elaborate but I'm not so sure that's a good idea.--PalMD-Talk 11:20, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Dawkins[edit]

Sorry, I don't have an account there. Tell you what I'll do though - I'll raise you one, and recall my 'agents' from Conservapedia (yes, I do have agents, who aren't sockpuppets), and bring them here. Muahahah! --Wikinterpreterwoo!

You evil BASTARD!!! Wow, meatpuppetry...I like it.--PalMD-Talk 11:28, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Sorry I'm limited to the meatpuppetry ... the bank foreclosed on my internet-death-laser. I'll try and think of more recruiting sites. --Wikinterpreterwoo!

NOMA[edit]

Up for defending NOMA? Etaroced 18:27, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Your choice cheddar or cheddar. Etaroced 19:34, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Secret AMA/Gov't pact[edit]

I don't have the background to really understand what(someone spammed the link) this Aschlafly article is all about, but I don't remember seeing it mentioned before and it looks like something you might be interested in. --jtltalk 19:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I added it to our article on him, under Publications. Please feel free to add commentary on it (whatever it is) to the article! humanbe in 19:48, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

ape UBX[edit]

I am not a monkey! *proceeds to shit in hand and fling in doc's direction* GodlessLiberal 19:48, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Wanna do a vaccine debate[edit]

You're invited to Vaccine Debate. You can add other vaccine related topics too. HeartGold tx 23:27, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

re that thing you write[edit]

in relation to your jobwords, did you notice on cp that as soon as stuff criticising them and their beliefs that everything was removed without explanation? I'd be interested in collaborating on an article about them/it, but I think we'd need a bigger boat. αιρδισΗταλκ 08:22, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I was trying to be unclear - about the young woman you had to care for recently and her parents. αιρδισΗταλκ 09:32, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Duh..sorry, just woke up. If we do it, I know of a few people who will come here quickly...--PalMD-yada yada 09:34, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

That's the problem. Given what I've heard/read would it be worth it given how much hassle and stress it could be? I don't know. Maybe backburner it for a while until we've a bigger site here. αιρδισΗταλκ 09:37, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Prob right...no one has commented on my blog yet, given that no one goes there.--PalMD-yada yada 09:54, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Thought you would get a kick out of this[edit]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Gene_expression. Seems that Ed has issue with a well documented molecular mechanism. This might be one for the main page, if the sysops do not have the background to understand the article then it is to be redirected into something else, for fear of alluding to evolution.--TimS 08:55, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I believe you are correct about the larger words causing the issue with their acceptance of the article. I have to laugh at them due to their limited world view on science and refusal to try to understand something before claiming it as false. Ed seems to have no formal training in science but yet feels the need to jump on my edits:). It is a surprise that I am not banned yet. The newest thing is their fictional technology article. They listed bioengineering as a fictional technology, I provided a link so they can see a few examples. I wonder if any of them use insulin? I would hate to rely on something that is made from a fictional technology.--TimS 09:11, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hell, corn (Maize to you heathen foreigners) and dogs are both the result of long-term primitive bioengineering. --Gulik 16:57, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Doesn't some simple form of nanotech already exist? I know there have been simple machines (hinges, etc.) made at a molecular level. I'd wager the CAVE counts as simulated reality, too. --Kels 17:19, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hey, isnt the "maize" line mine?????--PalMD-yada yada 20:12, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I didn't say it was false, merely abstruse. Please target a lower "reading level" for some introductory articles before feeding us red meat. :-) --Ed Poor 18:26, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry just got back from lunch[edit]

Anything specific on the VaccineDebate page you want me to work out or just a nice overview of the claims and the science that debunks the opponents?--TimS 13:31, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Ugh, wish it was a different topic. Heart of gold is correct that the RA27/3 vaccine was sourced from cells grown from one aborted fetus from 1974. I can post on that account but what Heart of Gold is not understanding is that with the current technology we are still growing cell lines collected in the 70's, so no more aborted fetus material is used. It is a partial truth that we used aborted fetuses to make the vaccine. I will try to clarify on the talk page.--TimS 14:09, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Just posted a response: http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:HeartOfGold/VaccineDebate#Fetus_Issue --TimS 14:40, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

No problem, I wish it would have been different (no fetus material used at all) but at least some clarification on the cell lines and a basic understanding as to what is currently being used can help people understand that we are not killing babies.--TimS 14:54, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

To hear some "Culture of Life"rs talk, you'd think they believed Liberal Scientists can't achieve sexual gratification without killing babies. (Not saying it's true of HG, of course, but there's some really scary fanatics out there.) And hey, at least that one fetus, out of millions, didn't die in vain. (Yes, I'm a fairly coldblooded person, at least where it comes to clumps of stem-cells.) --16:55, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

The rot beginneth ...[edit]

I saw you've been seeding Richard Dawkins' forum with that deceit link. I've been thinking about this, and your previous efforts to bring RW to the wider notice: wouldn't places like this be better, so we can drag in our enemies? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

Theory of evolution[edit]

That was me, trying to confuse you.Bohdan 19:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

However, please do refer to me as "Oh Anonymous One".Bohdan 19:23, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Let me see[edit]

Let me see if I can clean the bread crumbs up:)--TimS 14:29, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Damn, All I did was scatter them a little more. Too bad they do not have a line item veto to wipe things from history, like Bush wants.--TimS 14:33, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Need any help? ----Linus(plot evil tech) 14:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

See this...archived for space.--PalMD-yada yada 22:26, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I think this is supposed to be showing me an example of "cabalism", but I'm not sure. Despite its non-sensical, long-winded nature, I'll leave it per talk page policy. But I reserve the right to editorialize brutally.--PalMD-yada yada 21:05, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

  • Goats eat breadcrumbs, eh? Like my fucking asterisk? I am the rulzer, but I don't know wiki from a hole in the ground! humanbe in 21:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

How to Archive[edit]

I answered on my talk page, I hope it makes sense. humanbe in 21:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I archived what we were talking about. What are you trying to "put in a box"? If I can't help, I can try to find out how. humanbe in 23:21, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Doctor, didn't we have an understanding?[edit]

  • Why does everyone here refuse to follow their own rules? Why don't you accede to my reasonable demands? Why are you all so confused about how to follow rules? Make me a sysop! Bet you thought this was someone else. humanbe in 22:21, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Award[edit]

AdamSteve.jpg The Adam and Steve Award
For acts of liberalism so amazing, that they are unbelievable!

Awarded to Doc Pete with love.
ENJOY!
Display it with pride partner!


Aww...ain't that sweet. Thanks, um..whoever you are for, um...whatever that is.--PalMD-yada yada 11:55, 2 June 2007 (CDT)