Post by ErniePost by ErniePost by Bob OfficerOn Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:12:47 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by ErniePost by george152Post by ErniePost by george152On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:53:56 +0800, Dan
Post by Danhttp://skep.li/18KVk7O
Anti-vaccination lobbyist Meryl Dorey drops AVO appeal
JANE HANSEN THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH SEPTEMBER 21, 2013 10:00PM
THE head of a controversial anti-vaccination group has again failed to
silence her critics by using Apprehended Violence Orders.
Meryl Dorey, of the Australian Vaccination Network, has withdrawn her
appeal to a court decision that threw an AVO out against Peter Bowditch.
It comes after her court loss last month against Stop the Australian
Vaccination Network (SAVN) campaigner Dan Buzzard.Ms Dorey wanted the
men banned from making online comments in "any derogatory manner".
"From the start, Ms Dorey had been misusing the AVO process to try to
achieve something for which it was not intended," said Mr
Bowditch,
who
is also a SAVN member.
Ms Dorey wrote on her blog about dropping her appeal: "If by silencing
my opposition, SAVN and the Australian Skeptics mean that I wanted to
stop them threatening, harassing and stalking me as they have done for
so long and prevent them from inciting others to do the same, then I
admit that's what I was trying to do."
I didn't have an opinion about vaccines for a long time but certain
things begin to sway me after a bit of reading.
There are suspicians that vaccines aren't so good as mainstream make
them out to be, which can be based a lot on propaganda.
It is a well known fact that the pharmaceutical business spends most
of its budget on promotion of their products, and this promotion has
been going on for generations. So people grow up with the thinking
that vaccines are good and life saving but the risks and downside is
downplayed -- all the better to sell more product.
Come on Carole. We know its you.
By now you must have a drawer full of sock puppets
she does, but she's also beyond any admonishment for it.
In the simplest terms, she is a whore.
Well, maybe 60 years ago but now just a sad old raddled harridan with
an empty head, vacuous thoughts and a link to the Internet to
demonstrate such
You got that right.
Nonetheless, I still see her as the figurative old tart, trying way
too hard with the same nonsense.
It's one thing to act silly, sublimating personal displeasure. It's
quite another for sternness with a drawer full of socks, repeating the
same script, ad nauseam.
The lack of real discussion makes this groups disfunctional. Rather
than address points which have been countered, she starts another act
misdirection or sometimes changing the subject completely.
Her actions are that of an attention whore. Maybe the best thing we
could do is make sure were address the issue and only the issues.
That's the more accurate term describing her: attention whore.
This ng has a great deal of dysfunction, but in the immediate sub-ng,
involving her and a handful of others, progress on discussion of real
issues is limited. It involves her nonsense for the most part.
I agree. We should address the issues and only the issues. But even that
provides her an opportunity to seek attention. Ignoring her altogether
via the filter bin is the more appropriate remedy, in my view.
I would also add that the issues with carole have been addressed
numerous times. There's nothing new there.
she repeats the same objections, to which there are the same replies,
over and over again. Same old repertoire.
she doesn't deserve to be continually addressed. she's locked into what
she believes, and she appears to be incapable of moving forward.
Continually addressing her nonsense is part of the dysfunction, which
distracts from any attempt at real discussion.
Two points. One: while the use of filters sounds good, her extensive
use of sock puppets makes that a bit awkward. If she were at all
honest, and presented herself as herself, anyone could filter her out
(or read her posts first), knowing who it is. Instead, we're left with
the job of continually adding new nyms to the list of what "Carole" means.
Second: there is a point to responding to her nonsense, even though it's
the same tired nonsense she's been spouting for years. Not everyone
reading this group is familiar with her history. There's a chance
someone would come here, read her posts, see no responses, and conclude
that she must have a point in there somewhere. After all, nobody is
saying she's wrong! I've seen that in other, more technical ngs, where
regulars will correct the same error, time and again, lest someone take
their silence as agreement.