Flu jab and viral illness

[mattleonard]

I think daven's point related to the thread not your posts, ie. the thread is about vaccinations, and yet you seen keen to keep pointing out that it's not something you want to discuss.

[JFKvsNixon]

I think daven's point related to the thread not your posts, ie. the thread is about vaccinations, and yet you seen keen to keep pointing out that it's not something you want to discuss.

 

Onewheeldave is stuck in a quandary in this thread.

 

If he says that vaccinations are part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy, he looses face because to do so would be un-logical in the face of the evidence. If he does admit to the good done by the pharmaceuticals and the inoculations, then he contradicts his previous statements about the pharmaceuticals evil intentions.

[onewheeldave]

I think daven's point related to the thread not your posts, ie. the thread is about vaccinations, and yet you seen keen to keep pointing out that it's not something you want to discuss.

 

Do you?

 

Personally, as Daven quoted my post, and put a particular section in bold, that his question related to me.

 

ie. the thread is about vaccinations, and yet you seen keen to keep pointing out that it's not something you want to discuss.

The main reason I point out that it's not something I want to discuss, is, due to past experience on this board, I'm aware that the local circling NTs/sceptics/'rationalists () are VERY prone to attacking claims/views that I've not actually made.

 

So, when I smell the precursors of that slipping in, I like to get a definitive statement in, clearly stating that I'm not making the claim they accuse me of, or point out that I'm not interested in the issues around that claim.

 

Again, it's definitely a autism/NT comm block of a type well known to arise often between autistic/NT, or, indeed, between any 2 people who think and see the world in very different ways.

 

I try my best to tackle it, however, progress can only happen if the cause is accepted by both sides, who then co-operate to remove the communication block. That requires an understanding of autism and it's very real consequences on communication tween autistic and NT.

 

Unfortunately, said NTs refuse to believe that I possess those autistic traits that, in conjunction with the NT traits, trash communication- instead, presumably, they see me as a malingerer. Despite the fact that I'm happy to, (and indeed, have offered to one person on this thread) show them the medical documentation showing I'm diagnosed (officially, by an expert medical practitioner whose speciality is autism).

 

I know a lot about autism, cos I've been (unknowingly) autistic all my life. A lot of the things I know about it, are, even in principle, unknowable by NTs- in the same way that there's lots about being NT, that I can never understand either.

 

Main difference is, I can easily accept that I can't know what it's like to be NT, yet, almost without exception, every NT I've talked to sine my diagnosis, has seemed to have a really big problem with accepting that they cannot know what it's like to be autistic.

 

The ones who 'knew' an autistic person once, are often the worse.

 

The exceptions (who could accept that they can't 'understand' or know what it's like to be autistic) were all parents of autistic children, and generally ones who'd suffered greatly from the prejudice that is routinely inflicted on autistics by the main establishment systems (educational, medical, mental health, workplace etc).

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 22:32 ----------

 

Onewheeldave is stuck in a quandary in this thread.

 

If he says that vaccinations are part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy, he looses face because to do so would be un-logical in the face of the evidence. If he does admit to the good done by the pharmaceuticals and the inoculations, then he contradicts his previous statements about the pharmaceuticals evil intentions.

 

I'm hardly stuck in a quandry

 

You really are GAGGING for that discussion aren't you? You're actually trying to run it by attributing specifc arguments to me on a subject that I could not make any clearer that I'm not interested in.

 

!!!!!ALERT!!!!!! just realised I need to state- by saying I'm not interested in discussing flu vaccs I'm not saying that I may not, at some future point, discuss flu vaccines.

 

I say that cos some of the opposition here will likely accuse me of some kind of moral 'backtrack'. So- to be clear, I reserve to right to, in the future, change my decision to not discuss the flu vaccine.

 

That will only happen if someone here comes up with something concerning flu vaccs that hasn't/is being 'discussed' in the pointless and circular ego-swelling, pseudo-rational way that it has/is been done to death.

 

So I won't be, and would advise others, to, not hold my/their breathe

Edited November 18, 2015 by onewheeldave

[MLAR]

Do you?

 

Personally, as Daven quoted my post, and put a particular section in bold, that his question related to me.

 

The main reason I point out that it's not something I want to discuss, is, due to past experience on this board, I'm aware that the local circling NTs/sceptics/'rationalists () are VERY prone to attacking claims/views that I've not actually made.

 

So, when I smell the precursors of that slipping in, I like to get a definitive statement in, clearly stating that I'm not making the claim they accuse me of, or point out that I'm not interested in the issues around that claim.

 

Again, it's definitely a autism/NT comm block of a type well known to arise often between autistic/NT, or, indeed, between any 2 people who think and see the world in very different ways.

 

I try my best to tackle it, however, progress can only happen if the cause is accepted by both sides, who then co-operate to remove the communication block. That requires an understanding of autism and it's very real consequences on communication tween autistic and NT.

 

Unfortunately, said NTs refuse to believe that I possess those autistic traits that, in conjunction with the NT traits, trash communication- instead, presumably, they see me as a malingerer. Despite the fact that I'm happy to, (and indeed, have offered to one person on this thread) show them the medical documentation showing I'm diagnosed (officially, by an expert medical practitioner whose speciality is autism).

 

I know a lot about autism, cos I've been (unknowingly) autistic all my life. A lot of the things I know about it, are, even in principle, unknowable by NTs- in the same way that there's lots about being NT, that I can never understand either.

 

Main difference is, I can easily accept that I can't know what it's like to be NT, yet, almost without exception, every NT I've talked to sine my diagnosis, has seemed to have a really big problem with accepting that they cannot know what it's like to be autistic.

 

The ones who 'knew' an autistic person once, are often the worse.

 

The exceptions (who could accept that they can't 'understand' or know what it's like to be autistic) were all parents of autistic children, and generally ones who'd suffered greatly from the prejudice that is routinely inflicted on autistics by the main establishment systems (educational, medical, mental health, workplace etc).

 

---------- Post added 18-11-2015 at 22:32 ----------

 

 

I'm hardly stuck in a quandry

 

You really are GAGGING for that discussion aren't you? You're actually trying to run it by attributing specifc arguments to me on a subject that I could not make any clearer that I'm not interested in.

 

!!!!!ALERT!!!!!! just realised I need to state- by saying I'm not interested in discussing flu vaccs I'm not saying that I may not, at some future point, discuss flu vaccines.

 

I say that cos some of the opposition here will likely accuse me of some kind of moral 'backtrack'. So- to be clear, I reserve to right to, in the future, change my decision to not discuss the flu vaccine.

 

That will only happen if someone here comes up with something concerning flu vaccs that hasn't/is being 'discussed' in the pointless and circular ego-swelling, pseudo-rational way that it has/is been done to death.

 

So I won't be, and would advise others, to, not hold my/their breathe

 

So, to summarise.

 

You have nothing useful to add to a discussion thread about the flu vaccine.

 

... and you have taken roughly 500 words to let us all know that:rolleyes:

[onewheeldave]

So, to summarise.

 

You have nothing useful to add to a discussion thread about the flu vaccine.

 

... and you have taken roughly 500 words to let us all know that:rolleyes:

 

Almost. I've let you know (again) I'm not interested in discussing the efficacy/otherwise of the flu vaccine, some of the reasons why, a bit about autism etc. I'll take your word about it being approx 500 words.

 

I'll point out that, similarly, your above post also doesn't add to the old 'flu discussion' as it's purely a dig at mine, and, if you're going to criticize me on the grounds that my post doesn't, then pot..kettle....&...black.

 

Is my word count on this one OK with you?

[mattleonard]

So why do you keep posting on a thread about that very subject ?

 

onewheeldave, I'll spell it out. it's very obvious from the context (not least your own posts) that "about that very subject" in Daven's sentence above is referring to the thread. You keep claiming that it is referring to your posts, despite a) you having made very clear that you have no interest in posting about vaccinations, and b) the other posters making very clear that your lack of interest in posting about vaccinations is what they are finding so irritating.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 11:20 ----------

 

Almost. I've let you know (again) I'm not interested in discussing the efficacy/otherwise of the flu vaccine, some of the reasons why, a bit about autism etc. I'll take your word about it being approx 500 words.

 

I'll point out that, similarly, your above post also doesn't add to the old 'flu discussion' as it's purely a dig at mine, and, if you're going to criticize me on the grounds that my post doesn't, then pot..kettle....&...black.

 

The difference is that at no point has MLAR expressed that he isn't interested in discussing the flu vaccine. You have. So it's reasonable to assume that it's possible that MLAR's presence on the thread may be due to an interest in discussing flu vaccines.

[Daven]

I think daven's point related to the thread not your posts, ie. the thread is about vaccinations, and yet you seen keen to keep pointing out that it's not something you want to discuss.

 

You are correct - thank you for clarifying it for us all:)

Onewheeldave - now is the time to admit you were mistaken and bow out gracefully.

[onewheeldave]

onewheeldave, I'll spell it out. it's very obvious from the context (not least your own posts) that "about that very subject" in Daven's sentence above is referring to the thread. You keep claiming that it is referring to your posts, despite a) you having made very clear that you have no interest in posting about vaccinations, and b) the other posters making very clear that your lack of interest in posting about vaccinations is what they are finding so irritating.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 11:20 ----------

 

 

The difference is that at no point has MLAR expressed that he isn't interested in discussing the flu vaccine. You have. So it's reasonable to assume that it's possible that MLAR's presence on the thread may be due to an interest in discussing flu vaccines.

 

Am I allowed to reply to this? Clearly it's not about the flu vacc, and, if I do reply to it, my reply will also not be about the flu vaccine- which, according to what you wrote above, will surely further irritate the other posters further?

 

Not sure why you're finding it hard to grasp that my responses to MLAR et al. have been exactly that- responses to their posts, especially those of their posts which address some of my posts.

 

I'll also point out (for the 2nd time) that MLAR and the other posters have also made many posts themselves that DO NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS the flu vaccine and it's efficacy/otherwise-

 

for example

 

So, to summarise.

 

You have nothing useful to add to a discussion thread about the flu vaccine.

 

... and you have taken roughly 500 words to let us all know that:rolleyes:

 

and, including your posts above, which also DO NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS the flu vaccine and it's efficacy/otherwise

 

So why is everyone on your team fine to post comments that do not directly address...(etc), most of which, recently, have been critisisms of my posts that do not....(etc), while maintaining that I'm being somehow dubious/wrong for doing what they themselves are doing?

 

 

Also, if MLAR does want to discuss the flu vaccine, why doesn't he discuss it with someone who also does want to discuss it, rather than someone who doesn't? JFK seemed very keen on discussing it, could not MLAR and JFK not discuss it, and then anyone else who also does want to discuss it could join in.

 

Like I said earlier, I'd happily join in a flu-vaccine discussion myself, if it got to the point where someone came up with a point that hasn't been done-to-death, refuted, de-refuted, re-refuted etc on a thousand threads on hundreds of other discussion boards.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 13:31 ----------

 

You are correct - thank you for clarifying it for us all:)

Onewheeldave - now is the time to admit you were mistaken and bow out gracefully.

 

I'll 'bow out' when, and if, I want, thanks

[mattleonard]

Am I allowed to reply to this?

 

Yes, of course.

 

I'll also point out (for the 2nd time) that MLAR and the other posters have also made many posts themselves that DO NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS the flu vaccine and it's efficacy/otherwise e.g.

 

including your post above, which also DOES NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS the flu vaccine and it's efficacy/otherwise

 

No-one at all has disputed this.

 

Hopefully this won't need further clarification... The title of this thread is "Flu jab and viral illness". From what I can tell the vast majority of people who have posted on this thread want to discuss "Flu jab and viral illness". One person has made very clear that they have no interest at all in discussing "Flu jab and viral illness". Many of the others have tried, generally very politely, to respond to that person, with the result that, yes, they have made posts which are not directly about "Flu jab and viral illness". But if the person who doesn't want to discuss "Flu jab and viral illness" stopped posting other things, then the rest of us would be able to get on with discussing "Flu jab and viral illness".

[Obelix]

Like I said earlier, I'd happily join in a flu-vaccine discussion myself, if it got to the point where someone came up with a point that hasn't been done-to-death, refuted, de-refuted, re-refuted etc on a thousand threads on hundreds of other discussion boards.

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 13:31 ----------

 

 

I'll 'bow out' when, and if, I want, thanks

 

Post #93 was your first, in which you discussed the vaccine.. curiously there is a reply to an earlier post of yours (#98) but the earlier post is missing. As are some of your comments above, so presumably then are being removed for some reason?

 

Regardless it's generally a good idea to stay on topic. This thread got entirely derailed when you decided to start jumping in on one of your favourite drums to beat, that is dishonest Big Pharma. That's when it went off the rails and we started another tedious round of bickering.

 

Now we are quite certain that the study you posted doesn't show dishonesty, we are quite certain you don't want to discuss flu (despite your comments as noted above) so can we get back to the subject? That's Flu jabs etc...