Study: "Sexual Matters Don’t Sway Mothers on HPV Vaccine"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Sexual Matters Don’t Sway Mothers on HPV Vaccine

August 21, 2008 By Randy Dotinga, Contributing Writer Health Behavior News Service

The opinions of women about sexual matters do not play a significant role in their decisions about whether girls in their care should receive a vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus, according to a new survey.

The findings counteract assumptions that some mothers refuse to let their daughters be receive the HPV vaccination because they oppose sex before marriage, said study lead author Susan Rosenthal, director of the Division of Adolescent and Behavioral Health at University of Texas Medical Branch.

“Although there is a small minority of parents who object to the vaccine because of their beliefs about sexuality and the fact that it prevents a sexually transmitted infection, to most parents the mode of transmission is not what’s important,” she said.

In the new study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, researchers surveyed 153 mothers and guardians of daughters ages 11 to 17 who visited a pediatric clinic in Galveston, Texas, in 2007 and 2008. ....“The families who are struggling with what to do about this vaccine are focused on issues like safety” instead of sexual morality, Rosenthal said. “They want us to have more experience with it and have it used by more people.”

....

[Fridays Child]

1. Absolutely.

In an era of prescription drug disasters, a sold out FDA, and the pharmaceutical lobby's financial stranglehold on Congress, I'm pretty hesitant to saddle my daughter with the possibity of dangerous side effects, or injury, from an under-tested and over-hyped vaccine. Maybe it'll turn out to be okay but I've lost all trust in agencies and leaders who are supposed to protect us from predatory corporations.

[madaboutharry]

3. I agree. As of now,

there is not enough information. The FDA can not be trusted.

[Hannah Bell]

2. yep. the doubt is driven by the failures of regulation, the perception

of dishonesty & mercenary motives.

[trotsky]

4. This of course doesn't contradict the fact that anti-Gardasil rhetoric...

is pushed by the right wing. The opinions of parents are of course different - the nation is not made up of prudes. But the prudes on the right are helping drive the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that cause these parents to question vaccine safety.

Eagle Forum: http://www.eagleforum.org/blog/labels/Vaccines.html and http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/vaccine/HPV/2008/02-27-08.html
AL Eagle Forum: http://www.alabamaeagle.org/news.asp?record_no=12055§ion=297
Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=EF07H25#EF07H25
Coalition for Marriage: http://www.coalitionformarriage.org/media/1438/testimony%20re%20hpv%20vaccine.pdf
Heartland Institute: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151
Judicial Watch: http://www.judicialwatch.org/6428.shtml
Family Rights Coalition: http://www.miparents.org/modules/piCal/index.php?action=View&event_id=0000000014

[Celebration]

5. messenger vs. message

I find myself agreeing with Lou Dobbs on things like NAFTA and other pro global trade treaties. You think I should change my mind on that just because I disagree with him on some other issue?

[trotsky]

6. Doesn't change the facts.

I said nothing about you or anyone else agreeing with these right-wing extremists.

[Celebration]

9. The facts are

That it is indeed some right wing sources questioning Gardasil. But they are in good company, aren't they? Because a new editorial in that right wing rag New England Journal of Medicine voices these same concerns.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. OP plainly disproves your hypothesis that right wing drives concern r/e Gardasil deaths,injuries

You have a hypothesis, that is all. You believe that you have proved your hypothesis,
but just because in your own mine you think you are right, does not prove a fact.


Gardasil has been been tied to sudden sickness and death in some girls. This started once girls were getting vaccinated.

People are MORE concerned about their daughters health, and they have read about the injuries
and deaths of previously healthy girls.

The OP stands.

[trotsky]

11. You continue to misuse VAERS statistics.

Sorry but everything you say based on that misuse is noise.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. VAERS is not in the OP

straw man.

[trotsky]

13. Didn't say it was.

You referred to VAERS-supported claims in the previous post.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. grasping at straw -men again, I see. Anything to distract from the OP.

I guess next it will be that something is related to something that somebody said was related
to something that was said and that will be your damning evidence.

Straw man distraction.

[trotsky]

15. *sigh*

OK, first off, your OP says that parents themselves aren't using sexual activity of their daughters as the reason they are declining the vaccine.

That does NOT, in and of itself, do anything to disprove my assertion that much of the FUD concerning Gardasil is COMING FROM the right-wing. Please tell me you understand this. The groups putting out the misinformation with the most fervor are motivated by the sex aspects. The parents who view the misinformation may not be. Do you see the difference?

Secondly, in your post #7, you state:

Gardasil has been been tied to sudden sickness and death in some girls. This started once girls were getting vaccinated.

You are referring to VAERS reports when you make this statement, are you not? Do you have a different source showing deaths and "sudden sickness" (which I think we can agree has to be more than redness, swelling, discomfort, or fainting) have been directly attributed to Gardasil?

Please, let's try to keep this civil.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. you keep trying to change the topic to something it isn't

why not start your own thread. Maybe someone will visit it.

[beam me up scottie]

20. No, it really doesn't. Did you read the article? Are you aware that they only surveyed 153 mothers?

researchers surveyed 153 mothers and guardians of daughters ages 11 to 17 who visited a pediatric clinic in Galveston, Texas, in 2007 and 2008.

[Hannah Bell]

24. "sample"

[beam me up scottie]

26. And?

[trotsky]

27. Nice catch, bmus. I totally skipped over that.

If the OP title were accurate, it would say:

Sexual Matters Don’t Sway A Sampling of Mothers on HPV Vaccine at One Particular Clinic in Texas

And this is supposed to disprove a nationwide campaign against Gardasil by right-wingers who are acting out of moralistic, anti-sexuality attitudes?

[beam me up scottie]

29. It always amazes me that people will post articles that directly contradict their premise.

Spammers don't read much.

[Hannah Bell]

35. doesn't directly contradict the premise at all.

premise: unwillingness to vaccinate driven by concerns other than sexual "prudery."

[beam me up scottie]

36. doesn't "directly", eh?

:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

38. "directly" = your word. as in:

"It always amazes me that people will post articles that directly contradict their premise."


i further note you label those who disagree with you as "spammers".

[beam me up scottie]

40. He posted an article and claimed it proved trotsky wrong. And it didn't.

Perhaps he should slow down and read the article next time.

[Hannah Bell]

42. fine & legitimate, no need to name-call to make the point.

though i note t's cite of phyllis schafly et al has no relevance to the motivations of posters here, nor does the fact of schlafly's opposition have any bearing on the merit or demerit of the vaccine.

& while the texas clinic study doesn't "prove" the motivations of mothers across the us (being as it's not a statistically valid sample), it is a sample, & suggestive.

[beam me up scottie]

43. On DU, we frequently mention right wing lunatics and what their agenda is.

It helps educate other DUers so they can confront the lunatics' followers.

And no, I am not implying that anyone in this forum is a follower of lunatics, I just think it's important to know what kind of propaganda is being peddled.

[Hannah Bell]

45. This is a health/science forum. The facts are the proper focus,

not the imagined motivations or personality quirks of posters.

[beam me up scottie]

48. So then you'll apologize to trotsky for calling him a liar ?

IIRC, your words were:

"yes, you're allowed to have an opinion. but "concern for women's health" is emotional smoke, to hide the facts."

And I expect you to ask the mods to delete all of your other personal attacks.

[Hannah Bell]

51. there's nothing calling anyone a liar.

"'concern for women's health' is emotional smoke, to hide the facts."

speaks to the difference between emotion-laden generalization & scientific data.

[Hannah Bell]

54. btw, i'm not googling anyone's prior posts. i'm addressing current posts,

as they arise. it's my belief that the quality of this discussion would improve if people stopped calling each other names, directly or by insinuation. That includes prudes, pharma-shills - all of it.

But I directly observed someone post a credible article & immediately be personally attacked while the content of the article was ignored.

I don't her answering posts by these same posters that way.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I pasted excerpts FROM THE FUCKING ARTICLE and the OP'S OWN WORDS in my posts.

Perhaps you missed that the first five times.

Too busy nitpicking our posts because you have nothing of substance in rebuttal?

[Hannah Bell]

60. we seem to be talking about different cases. you weren't involved

in the case i mentioned:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41556&mesg_id=41984

[beam me up scottie]

55. Yes, there is. Let's look at it in context:

trotsky's post regarding concern for women's health:

What it comes down to is, what price do you put on women's health and any given woman's life?

Your reply:

yes, you're allowed to have an opinion. but "concern for women's health" is emotional smoke, to hide the facts.

Coyness doesn't become you.

[Hannah Bell]

61. that's not context. context would be to link the thread.

there's no assertion the poster is a liar. The implication (not assertion) is that the poster was blowing generalized emotional smoke to deflect from discussing the issues in the OP.

[beam me up scottie]

63. So it's okay for you to imply that trotsky was "blowing generalized emotional smoke"?

Your hypocrisy is growing worse with each post.

Better keep digging.

[Hannah Bell]

67. op

"New York Times 5 Page Article on fast rise of Gardasil

The Evidence Gap: Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Fast Rise
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: August 19, 2008

In two years, cervical cancer has gone from obscure killer confined mostly to poor nations to the West’s disease of the moment.

...The lightning-fast transition from newly minted vaccine to must-have injection in the United States and Europe represents a triumph of what the manufacturers call education and their critics call marketing. The vaccines, which offer some protection against infection from sexually transmitted viruses, are far more expensive than earlier vaccines against other diseases — Gardasil’s list price is $360 for the three-dose series, and the total cost is typically $400 to nearly $1,000 with markup and office visits (and often only partially covered by health insurance)."


The OP continues, all of it pasted directly from the NYT, a reputable paper. No comment from the poster but "Remember the next paragraph when your doctor or nurse recommends this vaccine".


T's response:

"I don't think you'll find anyone on this forum who thinks Merck...or ANY pharmaceutical always behaves perfectly and in consumers' best interests. THAT WOULD BE A STRAWMAN OF YOUR OWN CREATION.

However, THE VERY REAL FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT A LOT OF THE ANTI-GARDASIL RHETORIC IS DRIVEN BY PRUDISH RIGHT-WINGERS who think that giving a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus is the same as telling girls to have sex.

What it comes down to is, WHAT PRICE DO YOU PUT ON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND ANY GIVEN WOMAN'S LIFE? It is not surprising at all that some experts disagree. The MEDIA, of course, in its FAUX NEWS-LIKE "fair and balanced" manner DECIDES that THE FEW WHO HAVE QUESTIONS ARE EQUAL TO THE MANY WHO VIEW THIS VACCINE AS A WONDERFUL BREAKTHROUGH for womens' health."


1. Implies OP is creating the strawman "Merck behaves perfectly."

2. States as fact the unproven assertion that "a lot" of "anti-gardasil rhetoric" is driven by prudish r-wingers (implicitly linking OP's stance with r-wing prudes)

3. Introduces "what price on a woman's life," an appeal to the emotions (which side-steps the fact that "a price" is put on lives all the time - in medicine, business, war, etc.).

It also shifts focus from the issues raised in the OP, which are various, but one is "the price" that Merck itself has put on its vaccine (& thus, "women's lives"), & whether the price is justified or inflate, & whether there's a justified case for universal vaccination, & whether Merck has acted unethically to inflate its bottom line.

4. Says the "faux-news-like" "media" (broad-brush, implicitly linking the NYT with fox) elevates the concerns of "the few" (unproven) to the same import as the views of "the many" (unproven, & implicit rationale is that majority rules in science, & once there's a consensus, questioning should end - something that's been shown wrong time after time.)


It's my opinion the post was smoke & assassination by implication, to deflect the issues raised in the OP.

[beam me up scottie]

69. So you do think it's okay for you to imply that trotsky was "blowing generalized emotional smoke".

[Hannah Bell]

71. i think i described his deflecting action. not his character, not his

motivation, not his person. & did not call him a liar.

I could have said it more directly, e.g. "irrelevant, specious, stick to the op".

but there's no violation of civility.

"strawman of your own creation"

"persecution complex"

"obsessive"

a few the op received...


& now i'm done arguing the point. you have a right to your opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

72. I wouldn't have pushed the issue if you hadn't accused me of violating the rules.

In your opinion.

[Hannah Bell]

75. this, you mean?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41857&mesg_id=42027

[Hannah Bell]

77. or this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41857&mesg_id=42019

[beam me up scottie]

84. 16 anti-Merck threads in this forum should make anyone question motive.

11 on the first page alone.

And then there's comments like this: "Gardasil came on the heels of 27,000 heart attacks or sudden deaths from Merck's other wonder drug

another "wonder drug" by Merck and where the truth was withheld from the public
as Merck raked in blood money."

And the fact that this person has repeatedly accused other posters of stalking him when they ask for proof of his claims in more that one thread.

Nope, no agenda there.

[Hannah Bell]

90. That may be. People have opinions.

What's over the line is to insult them for their opinions, rather than debating them on the facts.


Furthermore, there's a distinction between insulting schlafly or pharmacorps (ok, to my mind, they're public figures), & insulting posters because you "imagine" they're the shills of schlafly or pharmacorps (not acceptable, to my mind).

[beam me up scottie]

80. School's in: Prove that I called anyone a spammer.

I'll wait.

[Hannah Bell]

87. ,

beam me up scottie (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-21-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. No, it really doesn't. Did you read the article? Are you aware that they only surveyed 153 mothers?
researchers surveyed 153 mothers and guardians of daughters ages 11 to 17 who visited a pediatric clinic in Galveston, Texas, in 2007 and 2008.


27. Nice catch, bmus. I totally skipped over that.
Edited on Thu Aug-21-08 12:27 PM by trotsky
If the OP title were accurate, it would say:

Sexual Matters Don’t Sway A Sampling of Mothers on HPV Vaccine at One Particular Clinic in Texas

And this is supposed to disprove a nationwide campaign against Gardasil by right-wingers who are acting out of moralistic, anti-sexuality attitudes
beam me up scottie (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-21-08 12:23 PM


Response to Reply #27

29. It always amazes me that people will post articles that directly contradict their premise.

Spammers don't read much.

[beam me up scottie]

93. You're kidding, right? "Spammers don't read much." is a statement.

Please point out exactly when and where I called anyone in this forum a spammer.

[trotsky]

44. I'll try once again to explain this.

The two items here are not mutually incompatible:

A) Right-wing prudes (none of them being here in this forum as far as I'm aware of) can be responsible for propagating bogus information about Gardasil. (Which may or may NOT itself contain references to sexuality.)

B) Parents could view this bogus information and decide not to vaccinate.

Do you see now how they are unrelated, and more importantly, the truth of B doesn't affect the truth of A?

[Hannah Bell]

47. Here's what I saw: OP is credible source, reviewing problems w/ gardasil.

Response: "It's driven by religious prudes."

OP has no mention of religion, opposition to sex, etc.

Do you understand how your introduction of "religious prudery" is irrelevant to the issues raised in the OP, & thus looks like an attempt to smear by association?

[trotsky]

52. Perhaps you could quote me accurately.

What I said was:

"This of course doesn't contradict the fact that anti-Gardasil rhetoric is pushed by the right wing."

And I do not, nor will I ever, apologize for calling the right-wing religious nuts "prudes." There are none here, are there?

So will you answer my question now about how the two points aren't mutually exclusive?

Or will you continue to avoid it, and attack things I didn't say?

[Hannah Bell]

56. the paraphrase is accurate. furthermore, you regulary push this line

while ignoring legitimate scientific points brought up.

[trotsky]

68. You don't put a paraphrase in quotes.

It is despicable enough that you have to distort what I say, but now you try to defend your actions by further attacks on me.

Still awaiting a civil response.

[Hannah Bell]

73. sue me. the paraphrase fairly represented what you said.

i haven't attacked you or treated you uncivilly. i've simply noted your behavior.

[trotsky]

74. You can keep asserting, but the paraphrase was incorrect.

*I* know what I meant, and that's not it.

Do you have an answer for me yet? Or are you incapable of admitting I might be right?

[Hannah Bell]

76. i've said what i meant, & i'm done.

[trotsky]

82. So it's the latter, then.

So be it. Nice chatting with you.

[cosmik debris]

92. Some how I doubt that.

But it would be nice.

[Hannah Bell]

17. "prudes" are driving the conversation, but it's not working?

"In a multinomial, multivariable logistic regression model, those mothers who had

less than a high school degree,

had a history of a sexually tranmitted infection,

supervised their daughter more when she was with peers,

and whose daughter would not mind three shots

were more likely to be favorable about their daughter being vaccinated.

The following variables were not related to their attitudes about getting the vaccine:

mothers' and daughters' ages, race/ethnicity,

mothers' self-reported history of HPV disease and age of sexual initiation,

daughters' dating status and anticipated age of sexual initiation,

the number of sexual topics discussed and level of comfort,

mother's sexual values, and the family environment.




"Prudes" being a word connoting negative value judgement.

[trotsky]

19. If you want to keep conflating two issues, be my guest.

But I won't be playing the game. Thanks and have a good day!

[Hannah Bell]

21. i think the reason you won't "play" is because you know i'll call

any violation of civility, so you CAN'T "play".

You have a nice day too.

[trotsky]

22. But yet nothing of mine got deleted.

Ergo, no breaking of the civility rules.

Although repeatedly accusing me of offenses I have not committed is certainly uncivil.

So can you refrain from that, please?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. Gardasil came on the heels of 27,000 heart attacks or sudden deaths from Merck's other wonder drug

another "wonder drug" by Merck and where the truth was withheld from the public
as Merck raked in blood money.

[Celebration]

10. we are conflating two issues, but still.............

I completely understand people not trusting Merck.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." It's really hard to argue with that reasoning.

[beam me up scottie]

18. So then this is a hit piece on Merck and not about Gardasil at all.

I'm shocked.

[Hannah Bell]

23. No, it's a reputable study published in a reputable journal.

[beam me up scottie]

25. The article might be, but the op's own words are suspect: "Merck raked in blood money"

Gardasil came on the heels of 27,000 heart attacks or sudden deaths from Merck's other wonder drug

another "wonder drug" by Merck and where the truth was withheld from the public
as Merck raked in blood money.

Nope, no agenda there...

[Hannah Bell]

28. irrelevant. as is the poster's supposed "agenda".

The study was reputable, & texas is a fairly "fundie" state.

surely if the prudes were powerful, it would be in galveston.

[beam me up scottie]

30. No, it's not. It's the op's responsibility to prove his claim and he failed - miserably.

OP plainly disproves your hypothesis that right wing drives concern r/e Gardasil deaths,injuries

He didn't prove his claim and that post shows exactly why.

[Hannah Bell]

32. fine if you think he doesn't prove the claim; attacking him on the basis

of his presumed "agenda" is personal.

you can say the first without the second.

[beam me up scottie]

34. What a hypocrite.

Anyone who has seen your work in this forum will get a real chuckle reading your post.

You accused trotsky of lying about his concern for women's health:

yes, you're allowed to have an opinion. but "concern for women's health" is emotional smoke, to hide the facts.

[Hannah Bell]

37. as is this post.

i've only been posting in this forum a few days. if you think my posts have been uncivil, hit alert.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Shall I keep going?

There's lots of material to work with.

You accused me of breaking the rules, I cited your hypocrisy and posted evidence to back up my claim.

That is how it's supposed to work, right?

[Hannah Bell]

46. If you feel you must. Or you could just alert, if there's so much material

to choose from.

[beam me up scottie]

49. No, I prefer to have those little reminders around whenever someone tries to lecture me on the rules

You could always ask them to delete your personal attacks.

[Hannah Bell]

50. let's see 'em. i recall some snark before i understood the dynamics

of this forum, & a post where i asked another poster to stop his "idiotic" personal attacks. i don't recall anything other than that in this forum. but perhaps i missed something. so show me.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Do a search and look at them yourself.

You're hardly an innocent bystander.

[Hannah Bell]

57. i don't have search function. & you brought it up.

i've only been posting here a few days. if i've been out of line, alert.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Nope, I don't alert on petty crap like that.

I want people reading these threads to see just what kind of people are weighing in on this issue.

If you post personal attacks, expect to be called on it every time you accuse someone else of breaking the rules.

Do you want me to donate $5 for you so you can do searches? (I'm not being an ass here, I'm serious. My star was given to me by another DUer when I lost my job).

[Hannah Bell]

62. You're correct, it's petty. Because I've made no violation of the rules, nor

indulged in whole-sale personalism. I simply decided to comment when posters made an unprovoked personal attack after studying the thread where every opening post to the OP from certain folks was a personal attack or smear. This is also petty, & spoils discussion.

It's my belief, from observation, that these posters are mostly the aggressors here, & the other couple posters are mostly the reactors (though not entirely innocent).

It's also my belief that if the volume of personalism declined, the quality of the discussion would improve significantly.

The offer to buy me a star is very kind, but I will decline with gratitude.

[beam me up scottie]

64. If you would pay attention, you would have seen my offering of an olive branch yesterday.

And today, when trotsky did the same he was roundly attacked.

I didn't see you defending him, by the way.




edit to remove extra word

[Hannah Bell]

65. i'm sorry, i don't know what you're referring to. if you could link it, it

might refresh my memory, or show me something i've overlooked.

olive branches are good.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41448&mesg_id=41610

and keep reading.

[Hannah Bell]

70. OK, I read the post (which I hadn't seen, though I saw the thread).

i don't quite see it as an olive branch, though.

you ask for cites. i'm not sure why. debate the claim, if you think it's wrong, or ignore it, if you think it's beside the point. (i myself think it's way broad-brush, & pointless, in a way).

But whatever - it's possible to do it civilly.

[beam me up scottie]

78. The problem is people in this forum constantly contend that their opinions are facts.

If someone has an opinion (and we all do) they should declare it as such instead of posting long lists of assumptions with misleading quotes and bogus citations.

That is why I posted the definitions of citation and the burden of proof.

If someone posts a laundry list of assumptions including the claim that Gardasil caused the deaths of x amount of young girls, they should be able to back it up with legitimate sources.

If they cannot, or will not cite sources, they aren't capable of debating anything.

Ditto with burden of proof, if they made the claim, they are responsible for proving it.

peace out

[Hannah Bell]

86. i agree that debate involves backing up one's opinions. and if someone

is unwilling to do it, the response would be - well, i disagree, you won't back up your opinion, i guess we're done. (rather than insulting them personally).

but it works both ways. one poster regularly states that the anti-gardasil position (of any variety, apparently) is driven by religious prudes. the only evidence i've seen for that is the fact that some people like phyllis schlafly post anti-gardasil info. This doesn't prove "a lot" or "most" are driven by these folk.

The NEJM, NYT & others have published concerns as well - & the response of this poster is not to the data, but to repeat this charge that concerns (generally) are driven by prudes.

I don't care if individuals choose gardasil. I don't oppose vaccination for common childhood diseases.

I oppose mandatory hpv vaccination, for a number of reasons. I also oppose it in poor countries, on the basis that it is a poor use of $ v. other more pressing needs.

I don't like having legitimate discussion shut down with insults & insinuations.

[beam me up scottie]

91. So obviously there's a lot of middle ground.

We're not "paid shills" or "Pharmhands" either and what we're objecting to is the scare tactics used by conspiracists.

If you do a search on certain anti-vaccination posts here you'll find the exact same screeds posted -verbatim- on a dozen or more medical conspiracy websites.

Conspiracists aren't advocating safety, they're convinced that they're being poisoned and care more about exposing the evil scientists and the corporations than making sure people have accurate information.

[Hannah Bell]

99. i've never said you're paid shills. conversely, you don't know

that anyone here is a religious prude, "conspirator," accolyte of schlafly.

so why don't you try being polite?

[beam me up scottie]

100. I never accused you of doing that.

And yes, I DO know who the conspiracists are in this forum. They're quite outspoken both on and off DU.

And again, I show posters as much respect as they show me.

There is much history between the posters both in this forum and others, so much of the animosity you see has been simmering for a long time.

[Hannah Bell]

31. btw, impugning a poster's supposed agenda is personal attack.

[beam me up scottie]

33. oh brother

again, you just accused trotsky of lying http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=41556&mesg_id=41700">here

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

79. one poster actually instructed me NOT to post these articles in "Health"

A poster here, not a moderator - told me that my posts had no place in this
forum, and the attacks have been repeated, frequent and unrelenting.

This isn't new, when Merck was lobbying the states to mandate Gardasil,
I posted news articles here then. And the same nasty personal attacks
occurred.

Now, because of the nastiness, the hate, the harassment, the constant and frequent
belligerance of some, I feel that this issue MUST see the light of day.

[cosmik debris]

81. Ah, the crusading martyr.

You are a real piece of work.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. you make another insult and personal attack

[beam me up scottie]

85. Did you want to borrow this?

[Hannah Bell]

89. personal attack. no provocation.

what happened to the olive branch?

[beam me up scottie]

94. I learned my lesson yesterday.

Some posters don't want to communicate.

If their posts are the mental equivalent of "why are the bad kids always picking on me?", I show them as much respect as they show me.

Now you I can talk to, you are willing to examine your position and consider the opinions of others.

[Hannah Bell]

96. my opinion, then: if you believe there's no point in talking to folks,

there's no point in calling them names.

my opinion: bullying, playground, bullshit.

[beam me up scottie]

102. That's your opinion.

I love to see the humour generated by controversial issues. I would have left DU a long time ago had it been banned.

[cosmik debris]

98. No, I think it is understood. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

88. name-calling. no provocation.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Forum nannies seldom have time to discuss the issues.

Just sayin'.

[Hannah Bell]

97. name-calling.

just saying.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Nope, making a statement.

If all one does is scold other posters, one will quickly find themselves ignored.

[Hannah Bell]

16. kick

[depakid]

103. And the obsession with Gardasil continues

:crazy:

[mzmolly]

104. K and R

:kick: