Don't moderators get screened or something or do they just fill the positions with any power hungry individual with a personal agenda willing to fill the position? Dquixote1217 is a great example. During a recent thread I challenged some information he posted, but not him personally. In response DQ went on a little tirade of insults then repeatedly blamed me for being insulting while he continued with the bad behavior himself. Now because I am posting opposing information that opposes HIS beliefs DQ is now threatening to ban me from the Cancer Support forum (see the copy of the PM sent by DQ below). I think CZ really needs to start screening the moderators or at least make them abide by the same rules as everyone else or the moderators should be permanently banned. I really thought that CZ was supposed to be public forums for the sharing of DIFFERENT ideas and information, not just what some power hungry moderator thinks should be allowed based on their personal belief system. Does DQ really think that he has all the answers and that whatever HE believes is the gospel? Heaven forbid that you expose anything he posts as being wrong as I found out the hard way!!!
What can be done to control these power hungry abusive moderators so that CZ will become a more friendly and fun place to post, or does someone need to build a different forum site where such abuses of power are going to be nipped in the bud immediately?
Fair warning: If you take one more shot at anyone in the Cancer Support Forum , whether it is myself or anyone else, you may be banned from the forum entirely.
Regardless of what other forum moderators allow, I do not allow the kind of slurs, name calling and contentiousness that you have too often engaged in.
This has nothing to do with Oleander and everything to do with your lack of proper behavior in a support forum.
Furthermore, while you generally have the freedom to post what you want in your own forum, there are limits - such as using your forum to pursue a personal vendetta against another CZ member.
There is a point one may reach where the conflict they create outweighs the contributions they make. I sincerely hope you don't reach that point, as I do feel you make some valuable contributions. If only you could make them without going off the wall whenever someone disagrees with you or you perceive that they have said something bad about you.
Hveragerthi, I totally agree, moderators as I understand it were supposed to be neutral.
I too have noticed bias creeping in, so under the circumstances I think we are in need for a change of moderators once more.
Yes, I see Mr. Power Trip hid my message because it showed that oleander would not work according to his own belief system that cancers are not caused by pathogens but rather inflammation. Problem is that there is not evidence that inflammation is an actual cause of cancer and inflammatory markers are not always increased with cancer. Yet it has been shown that some cancer cells contain extra genetic material in them, which also contributes to chemo and radiation resistant tumors. This extra genetic material is from the viruses that insert themselves in to the cell leading to the cancer formation. So I pointed out that since oleander works due to polysaccharides, which activate white blood cells AGAINST PATHOGENS, that if there is no pathogen induced cancers then the oleander has no basis to work. But the moderator is a oleander supporter so my right to free speech was suppressed to protect only HIS point of view.
And instead of providing evidence that there are other factors involved in oleander therapy he instead responds with personal insults in violation of TOS, but threatens me with baning for doing back what he was doing to me.
He was also upset with me because he stated in previous posts that he is against soy in part because it is heavily processed. So I pointed out that the oleander has to heavily processed to render it safe since it is full of very poisonous cardiac glycosides. Apparently I committed the ultimate sin by showing a contradiction in his reasoning. Well, it was not the first time. He has contradicted his own reasoning numerous times. But I also pointed out that there are all sorts of non-toxic immune stimulating polysaccharide sources that do not need to be processed at all to render them safe. Seaweeds, medicinal mushrooms, myrrh, echinacea, birch, schisandra, marshmallow root, lycii berries, nutritional yeast, astragalus, etc. Apparently presenting non-toxic alternatives to oleander is another cardinal sin.
Once again we see you trying to turn a support forum into a debate, complete with name calling and personal attacks. If you care to take this question to the Cancer Debate forum and civilly debate the issue I will be glad to debate the merits of oleander and your misconceptions about how it works. What I won't do is debate it here in a support forum any more than I would be drawn into a prolonged debate in the Cancer Support forum.
In case anyone misunderstands, my refusal to further debate the issue had nothing whatsoever to do with suppressing your point of view, nor did it have anything to do with me having no proof or indications that oleander worked due to other actions and factors besides immune enhancement or polysacharrides. Instead, I refuse to engage in prolonged debate on a support forum and I refuse to debate period when it comes to someone who wants to turn every disagreement into a personal conflict and mudslinging contest.
The webmaster support forum is also not the place to debate soy or cancer, no matter how determined you may be to do so. As a matter of fact, your initial post would have been more appropriate in the Webmaster Debate forum, but you seem to fail to make the distinction between support and debate.
Once again we see you trying to turn a support forum into a debate, complete with name calling and presonal attacks.
And again as I pointed out in my last post go back and count how man times you insulted and attacked me in your response. I see you even changed the title of the original post as another subtle attack to fit your needs. Just more proof of your power trip and how abusive you really are.
"Once again we see you trying to turn a support forum into a debate, complete with name calling and presonal attacks... What I won't do is debate it here in a support forum any more than I would be drawn into a prolonged debate in the Cancer Support forum."
"Webmaster Debate & Suggestions" is a support forum?
Tony has a long history with curezone and has it's best interests in mind. He resonates with the owner on most, if not all issues and is a model for both a polite and helpful forum host as well as an impartial moderator.
It amazes me as to how delusional some people can be. Again it was DQ who started the insults, and he has continued with the insults as well as lying about me. What world do you live in where this is considered polite and impartial? The world of Denial?
he has no agenda and when others post information that he may not agree with, he only examines the information, leaving the person out of it...unless provoked, then he will defend himself.
Apparently you did not read the thread where he started with the attacks because I debunked Mercola's false claims. I made no reference whatsoever to DQ in my response yet DQ came out swinging with the personal insults. That is not defending oneself, that is being the attacker. So if you want to keep living in the world of Denial go for it. There are people who prefer to rely on real facts and not assumptive facts as some here seem to lover doing.
If Tony was cloned to about 20 copies and released in the forums, the "tone" of curezone would improve overnight.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Try reading his posts to me and count the number of insults he made against me in his posts. Better get one of those clickers to keep count because there are a lot! He is not innocent by any means, and in my opinion is one of the nastiest people on CZ. He just keeps his attacks more subtle then tries to turn the blame on the victim.
This is of course a self-opinionated remark that not everyone would agree with, and made in the full knowledge that this would act as a challenge to DQ who disagrees with it. You KNEW this, but still went ahead anyway fully expecting DQ's riposte and resultant debate.
In the land of grown-ups we should be able to espouse our differing opinions on what causes what without recourse for deliberate challenges that "bait" opposing viewpoints.
Fist of all Chris that was not his personal forum, it was a public forum where different viewpoints can be presented. Secondly you should be refrain from assuming your facts. I had no idea when I posted that what DQs views were on the origins of cancer. I rarely read his posts. So there was NO intent to bait anyone. The viral origins of cancer have been known for over 100 years and are VERY well known worldwide. And if you read further in the thread I posted all sorts of proof of this fact
I also find it interesting that you are coming to DQs defense despite the fact that it was DQ that started the insults and has repeatedly done so. In addition he censored my post by hiding it because he disagreed with the point of view while leaving his insults in violation of TOS up. Then he dug around for an old post from a completely different forum not from CZ with my personal name and posted it here with the intent of embarrassing me, which I also feel is a violation of TOS. DQ is not innocent here by any means. He has been the perpetrator and I have been his repeated victim. People who really do not know what is going on should stay out of it or at least learn the REAL facts of what is going on before posting their opinions. Otherwise they are just throwing fuel on the fire!!!
Whatever the origins of cancer may be, rest-assured that if cancer was of a viral origin then the vaccination/innoculation brigade would have the answer by now and someone would have made a fortune.
What a load of crap. That is an unintelligent as claiming if there was a cure for cancer it would be on the market and the person would have made a fortune with it. We know the exact causes for a number of diseases they are still raising money for to find a cause and a cure. Disease is a money making machine, especially when it comes to diseases research. So they never want to make the causes of diseases widely known to the public. Why do you think that Peyton Rous, who discovered the first cancer virus did not receive the Nobel Prize for his work for 65 years? He should have been one of the richest and most famous people around. But if they admit knowing the cause then they have to admit they have the cure. So they play hide the cause games. I posted a great example of this numerous times. A while back Scientific American did an article on oncogenes. For those not familiar with the term oncogenes are the genes that cause cancer. You will hear about these quite a bit when they claim things like "we found the gene that causes breast cancer" or "_________ cancer". What the article pointed out though is that EVERY oncogene that had ever been discovered were viral genes and that NO human oncogenes have ever been discovered. Yet they tell people that if they have a family history of cancer that they are at risk of getting cancer themselves under this false assumption of human oncogenes. As a result women are getting prophylactic mastectomies (removal of the breast as a preventative since no cancer is present) and men are getting prophylactic prostectomies. Again the whole concept is money driven, it has NOTHIING to do with looking for a cause or cure since both already exist.
However, a very few cancers are thought to be caused by viruses, such as HPV or EBV.
More crap. Hepatitis viruses cause liver cancer. Simian virus type 40 causes brain, bone and other cancers. HPV viruses have been linked to cervical, breast, prostate, nasopharyngeal and skin cancers. It was recently linked to another cancer, but I do not recall which one. Leukemias and some lymphomas result from human T-cell leukemia/lymphoma viruses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Some cases of Kaposi's sarcoma are caused from human herpes virus type 8, but there are also bacterial forms. EBV has been shown to cause lymphomas. Is was EBV induced lymphoma that killed David the "Bubble Boy". Aflatoxins from the fungus Aspergillus niger causes liver cancer. And again if you read my other post on the subject I posted even more examples. Again the microbial origins of cancer have been known for over 100 years and is well known. Try researching the subject on Medline if you want to learn the facts rather than rely on assumptions.
Cancer is NEITHER bacterial or viral in nature.
you have your own opinions about cancers origins and DQ has his, but you should refrain from deliberately challenging and baiting DQ which only leads to disharmony and ill-feeling.
You need to keep your assumptions to yourself when you really have no idea what is going on so you are not re-victimizing the REAL victim and adding fuel to the fire!!! As I said there was no intention of challenging or baiting when I wrote about the well known microbial origins of cancer. I had no idea of his views on this because I rarely look at his posts since I don't believe in using oleander as a cancer treatment. But apparently since your incorrect views are in line with DQs you feel the need to go after me as the the supposed perpetrator rather than the real instigator, who is DQ.
Also, if you study DQ's posts in their entirety, you will find that they are not only informative, but humorous and courteous as well. He does not offer "diktats".
And if YOU would bother to have read his posts then you would have seen that DQ started the insults then repeatedly blamed me and has continued with the insults and blaming me pretending like he is the innocent victim. Again people who do not really know the facts in what is going on should really keep their nose out of it because it makes that person look foolish and as an antagonist as they fan the flames!!!
Instead of these type of histrionic/abusive posts, why don't you just personally contact the website owner and get clarification on things. That is the most sure fire way to get things dealt with, one way or another.
Why do you think I posted about DQ's abusive actions on the Webmaster forum?
As for the rest of your post why are you not making these suggestions to DQ since HE is the one that started the insults then hid my response because it showed a contradiction in his claims?
Ironic how the Trash Can Clique is all here supporting DQ's trashy actions.
Here's the thing. You have had problems with so many people on this site and have complained over and over in the Webmaster Forum about each and every one of them. You may have noticed the response time and time again?
I can only think of three. Two of them were from people who did nothing but attack others, very similar to your posting history. The other was again about an abusive moderator like DQ.
You missed the most important part. The Webmaster is not addressing your "claims." Why do you suppose that is? Why remain on a site where your "extreme value" is not seen by the owner? Why continue to piss into the wind?
You are assuming things again. It has nothing to do with me personally. I got a PM from the site owner and the response was that he did not micromanage the forums. In other words he is allowing the abuse by individual moderators since he has no personal interest in getting involved in any conflicts REGARDLESS of who is reporting the abuse. So get your facts straight before posting.
I hope someone has the time to dig up your conflicts with people where you personally attack them. It is way more than three.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. That is not what I said. But since you brought it up I would like to point out AGAIN since you apparently did not comprehend this fact the many times I pointed out that I have NEVER started personal attacks with anyone including DQ. I have only fought back when attacked first.