a plan to destroy autism speaks

Post Reply New Topic

No. What I meant when I said "far lesser" is "way worse." And I meant "far lesser in terms of humanity."

I guess I should put it in words you understand more -- next time, I will make sure to take note of that.

ok that would make more sense because the illuminai are just a hypothetical organization so there existence would have to be prooved to say they are worse than nazi's or organized crime.the KKK has been replaced by neo nazi gangs like the aryan nation,aryan brotherhood and the nazi's low riders.im not saying that hate and bigotry is dead but the KKK as a group is of antiquity.however the neo hate groups that have replaced it are far more violent then the kkk was in there day

you have forgoten to compare autism speaks with the russian mafia,autism speaks must have a office in the brighton beach area of brooklyn.also georgian and ukrainian crime families are on the rise as well in brighton beach and jersey city,N.J

Also you forgot to compare autism speaks with bostons irish mob.wh***y bulger of south boston(southie) was one of the bloodiest mob bosses in us history

I am also a WP member and as such I can get involved with any thread I choose to.
There is no way of indicating "hat off" on a per post/thread basis and so when a moderator joins in as a member, he is just a member. This also means that because impartiality has clearly flown out the window (and really well done for spotting that) he will not be involved with any moderation that thread might require.
As for commenting officially - I can't officially speak as a moderator on any matter involving the funding of WP because the ToS says that moderators do not speak in an official capacity for WrongPlanet.net. That's it. Period.

Heh. You're determined to ramp this up into some conspiracy thing, aren't you? That's cute.
You want to make a big case that it's important for members to know in detail who is funding WP, you're making me personally responsible for providing that information and because I don't bow to your demands and "spill the beans", you imply that I'm hiding something.
Unfortunately for your little game plan, I am simply not interested enough to investigate the actual situation because... I don't care, and because you're as capable of finding out as anyone else.
But why are you asking me when theimperiousdork has been ranting for pages about the Autism Speaks connection? Don't you believe him?

Hard questions? Directed at me? Oh please.
I seem to have spent most of my time asking theimperiousdork for substance to back his allegations and your demands for answers really should be directed to him, because he appears to have them all.
It's quite curious that you're happy to ignore this and despite my telling you I don't speak officially for WP, you attempt to corner me as if I do.

I don't care if it does or it doesn't.
What I'm more interested in is people making hysterical accusations about anything which they then refuse to back with evidence.

Insolent? You're funny...
Oh wait - do you believe you're raising serious, realistic and debatable issues about Autism Speaks and I should therefore respect your evident intellectual capacity as someone serious?
I might, when I see any evidence of it existing but all I've seen so far is baseless, hysterical accusations.

As the person making the claims about Autism Speaks it's your job to back them with evidence. All I've been doing is trying to get you to do your job.
That's hardly ad hominem (thanks for the definition, BTW) and it's not my problem if your claims are made worthless because you won't back them.
And rebutting your points? You petulantly dismiss as lies the links ahogday provided with nothing to show how they're lies and consequently, I have to wonder if you understand what "rebuttal" means.

Indeed not. I have no axe to grind with Autism Speaks and any decisions I make about that organisation will be made on the basis of what it says and third-party statements about it - and not infantile, hysterical rantings.
But you do have a point to prove, yet you refuse to do so claiming that it's obvious and you don't need to.
That's ridiculous.

Because he's set himself up as the great accuser, the one with evidence so obvious it needn't be shown.
And really, if you actually wanted an answer you would have already asked Alex.
Yet here you are anyway.

So from what I see, you just don't care about knowing the answer to the question then, fair enough. That wasn't hard to do now wasn't it?

You could have saved us a bit of time by giving that straight answer to my question, but it seems you enjoy playing games just as much as I do.

The Illuminati killed Michael Jackson, but as far as I know he wasn't autistic.

The KKK lost interest in him when he ceased to be black.

Heh, still trying. Bless...
The only mistake I made was in responding at all to your attempted side-show.

You have only said that you believe they are influencing people to abort if autism were ever able to be proven prenatally and that you dislike some treatment methods that researchers have come up with. None of that is criminal. It is not criminal to develop treatments for a disorder, even if some of the treatments are not effective or are painful. I'm not in favor of using an iffy treatment, but without those early iffy treatments, many times there isn't an eventual effective treatment later on.

We don't have a test to detect autism in untero. We do however have a test to detect Downs and many women abort for Downs. Why aren't you all on that, which is going on today, instead of some future possibility that autism speaks may one day have something or other to do with?

As far as I know, autism speaks doesn't say that autism is vile. They have always seemed to simply state the obvious, that it is an unfortunate anomoly that effects some children and they want to help that. If someone chooses to abort (if it's ever even possible to detect it prenatally that is) then that is up to her, just like it's up to the woman to choose whether or not to give birth in any situation. I am not for abortion itself. I think it's usually a pretty bad choice but because the baby is inside the mothers body, it is her choice for whatever reason she may have.

Now you understand perfectly. Better luck next time.

So how is it a criminal organization?

For a while, I would like to put all your idiotic remarks in quote, but I would guess I would call them out instead like how you call me out.

Yes, that tone of yours, Cornflake, is insolent. I heard nothing from you but flak. And "baseless, hysterical accusations" you say? Please, Cornflake. For one, it is a waste of energy to find a solution for a variable that has already been defined as a constant. That is exactly what I was trying to prove. And you really believe in their lies? Oh, goodness, you people are so pathetic!

It is not my job to prove whether a wolf is wearing sheep's clothing, because it is obviously a wolf. Plainly stated, I think it more than enough to say that those fraudsters are innately evil. What was established in an evil intent will remain innately evil.

Then, again, I offered unsolicited opinion on those fraudsters. Whether you agree with them or not is your own affair. But then, again, resorting to bashing the one giving the opinion is, in your own words, "infantile" and "baseless."

Oh, I am "the great accuser" now, am I? Good one, Cornflake. That is ridiculous.

As for you, Delphiki, I have said ad nauseam on how those fraudsters are a criminal organisation. Do I need to summarise them for you, so you comprehend them? By the way, that one was for aghogday, not for you.

Yes please, boy I need to work on my comprehension skills.

With pleasure, thank you very much.

I can just put those arguments in bullets, for everyone's convenience.

- Their view on autism as a gruesome "disease" and the need to eradicate it
- Their stance on eliminating autism from the human genome and eradicating those who already have autism
- Their use of black propaganda and grand deception to defraud gullible people of their money
- Their questionable wealth
- The very nature of the organisation and its founders (from corporate America, mind you)
- How they actually influenced or bribed those who named them one of the "best" organisations in town
- Their silencing their critics through corporate gag tactics (lawsuits, cease-and-desist orders, etc.)

Need I say more?

None of those are evidence of criminal activity. It may be activity that you disagree with, but it is not criminal.