AIDS & Conspiracy Stuff??

[jester]

At 02:11 PM 06/11/1997 BST, you wrote:
>jester at snet.net writes:
>> Very interesting piece, to say the least.  I've got to admit, some of it was
>> way above my head, though I was able to grasp much.  It's not too
>> far-fetched to suggest that the cumulative effects of exposure to all kinds
>> of artificial nastiness are the principal players in the errosion of the
>> body's ability to fend off disease of all sorts.  I must say I hesitate to
>> say that there is no HIV - AIDS connection, but I would confess that your
>> article does much to footnote, in the least, the "official" statements by
>> the CDC and Surgeon General among others.
>
>  . . .
>
>It does nto take much knowledge of science or recent developments in
>AIDS research to understand that HIV is clearly implicated as the
>cause of AIDS and that this `theory' about toxins is claptrap. If it
>was way above your head then your judgements on the matter ought to be
>formed by asking people over whose heads it does not go. In the
>meantime can you stop polluting a list on Thomas Pynchon with crass
>conspiracy theories which belong elsewhere (belong elsewhere not
>because they are conspiracy theories but because they are *crass* -
>Pynchon's conspiracies are at least inspired).
>
>
>Andrew Dinn
>-----------
>And though Earthliness forget you,
>To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
>To the rushing water speak:  I am.
>
>
Andrew,

I did nothing to deserve such a nasty response.  I was making an honest and
sincere response to reading Jules' article, and commenting on a thread which
found it's origin on the almighty AndrewDinn-L discussion list.  Rather than
criticize me for my interest and inquisitiveness, you could have rationally
and sincerely pointed out some references which I could research in order to
learn more on the subject.  I am not an ignorant bastard or idiot.  I am
able to grasp most scientific writing and have a better than moderate
understanding of a variety of theories and hypothesi related to the physical
sciences.  I did not blanketly accept Jules' article -- infact, I said there
was some of it I hesitated at, and I also stated that I would need some TIME
to pour over the data and references before making a truly informed
decision.  Is this wrong?  Is it wrong to be open-minded and willing to
discuss alternative "truths?"  I admit that the AIDS document appears far
out of Jules' field, and I would certainly hesitate at calling him an expert
--  but why should his voice be silenced?  He's not an imbecile.  He's not
incompetent.  In the most, he's rude at times, and at others, as you say
"crass," but he's not stupid, and I'd rather not be a facist and just
silence him without giving his writing rational thought.  I apologize for
being curious and open-minded.  I apologize for not being a quiet little
member of the Preterite or a silent conforming member of the Elite.

Conspiracy theory IS related to Pynchon, as well.  And what makes his
fictional conspiracies "inspired," while other POSSIBLY "real" conspiracies
are suddenly labeled "crass."  You should note that in SOME literary
circles, Thomas Pynchon's writing is considered "crass."  

I'm not flaming you, Andrew.  And I'm certainly not out to make an "enemy"
on this list.  I just feel that your post in reply to my VERY SINCERY QUERY
(I asked for information from those "in the know") was extremely unfair.  I
expected more from you, someone whom I have always respected on this list.
Honestly, you hurt my feelings in this matter.  Technology or not -- there
are people on the other ends of this email.  Please remember that.

JJ "Jester"