A new forum rule
I just quote the begining of your excellent post (and a big thank you for all the physical and intellectual energy you must have invested in it, what with the crummy editor we have in place and what with your bad health):
Originally Posted by parvofighter
I do not have the energy or will this moment to rehash, and Parvo was quite clear, to the point, and very well supported by evidence, as indeed was his first post, so I have just two points now:
(1) There is a reasonable implementation of a new forum rule on the Masm32-forum (about programming in assembly) that I frequent and where there sometimes are enflamed discussions (between physically healthy people) and it comes to this
____(Proposed, possibly needs a bit tweaking)____
Members of this forum may be temporally or forever banned to post on the forums after 10 members have made the request by PM to the Administrator to stop a member from posting, as his or her posts are needlessly enflaming, uninformed, irrational or unreasonable, or are at variance with the bio-medical views as to the causes of ME/CFS most members of this forum have.
I have given my own reasons for a rule like this before (in part, but that is enough), and want to add or iterate only that it is in the personal interests of Reeves and Wessely etc. to try to break up a forum of patients with ME like the Phoenix Forums, and that it is - at present - very easy for them, or their cronies, to enter a forum of patients who must post anonymously for fear of being legally persecuted or sectioned by these gentlemen or their willing executioners, and start experimenting with what best riles and enflames or what arguments, tricks, rhetorics, and deviousness in favour of KCL/CDC-like positions work best against patients with ME.
As I said, a rule like this exists on the Masm32-forums, simply to avoid flame-wars as they are called, and keep posters within the bounds of reason or politeness. The responsible man for it there is the owner of that forum - as indeed should be, for his head is on the block legally.
On this forum it can be made part of the Report Post button; it can be given its own Poll, anonymous or not (there are pros and cons with either alternative); and also it gives a tool and procedure to (temporally) remove members (from posting on the forums) if there is sufficient support for this by other members.
Consider it as pub's rule against being too drunk to be permitted to be a regular customer, for the moment or forever....
It seems to works well on the Masm32-forums, where it also was needed to save that forum from getting blown to pieces by flame-wars, as they are called (which, to obviate a possible doublespeak "objection", can also be faught with innuendo, insinuation, mock respect for the ill, and doublespeak).
(2) Discussing (with) the unknown quantity it="Esther12"
I am not willing to discuss anything with Esther12 on this forum. The forums - rightly so - hamper my preferred styles.
I am willing to discuss with it if it discloses its real identity and academic degrees or the lack of them, also backed up by plausible proof (such as an own website, with a CV that lists age, academic degrees, general outlook, publications and the like, and to such an extent that it is rationally doubtful that most of it is made up).
Then it and me can have a little academic or not so academic discussion, only moderated by me. (I will be very fair in my moderation, but since I may be dealing, directly, indirectly, or because of mental issues I can't judge properly here and now, with KCL-staff there will be some limits, e.g. as regards images, terms, and the amount of BS or references I am willing to read.)
My own vote would be that Esther12 goes elsewhere on the internet to sow doubt, as it itself proudly called what it is doing; or visits the KCL to promote a discussion with it on it's own website.
As it is, I am not willing to discuss or engage with someone who, since I began to read this forum, I neither like, nor trust, nor believe, and whose tactics of discussion and rhetorical ways I believe I recognise.
Finally, to repeat: I am not willing to discuss with it if it doesn't disclose its real e-mail, its real academic qualifications, and something like a website that backs these claims up, also with fair rational probability at least.
I am not going to spend time and trouble on a mere lame griefing functionally anonymous internet-troll - and should remind the owner of the forum (in case my saying this is considered unnecessarily rude) that these types enter in almost any lively forum at some point, simply because there are people who have this kind of hang-up and internet-anonymity is the virtually perfect cloak to protect and insulate from the criticisms of those they upset, on purpose or because they really are in need of good psychiatric bio-medically effective medication.
P.S. And as to another possible doublespeak gambit, namely that I am "not fair" or "prejudiced", on the ground that I want to exclude members whose
...posts are needlessly enflaming, uninformed, irrational or unreasonable, or are at variance with the bio-medical views as to the causes of ME/CFS most members of this forum have.
e.g. since "there is no FULL PROOF" and "one must be openminded" or because I "want this forum to speak according to my own agenda", or whatever: There are DECADES worth of kilotons of KCL/CDC BULLSHIT out there on the internet.
A patients group of people with ME that I support, supports a bio-medical approach to it, since that is MY point of view since 32 years: I have a real physical disease, and do not want to hear over and again that I don't know what I am talking about, or "should consider all expressed views fairly", especially not by a totally anonymous person who pretends to be "fair and reasonable", but who refuses to read the scientific evidence.
Those who disagree with me (or Parvo or etc.) can go elsewhere, start their own forum - say "CFS without bio-medical prejudice" - or can debate me on my site - but only after full disclosure of at least some places where they do run at least some personal risk, instead of hiding in utter anonymity while pretending to warble the sweet song of reason on tunes set by KCL-composers.
This shows how widespread the trouble with trolls, griefers and lamers is, and note all of the following is both relevant and composed wholly apart from this forum or this occassion: