The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Will Beback in the City of Angels
ColScott
post Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:51pm
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu 30th Aug 2007, 5:57am
Member No.: 2,793

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



My research indicates that Will works for the City of Los Angeles. Does anyone know if this might be true?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Viridae
post Thu 16th October 2008, 10:57am
Post #2


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am
Member No.: 1,498

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Is it necessary to reveal that information here? Or anywhere?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Thu 16th October 2008, 10:48pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 16th October 2008, 3:57am) *

Is it necessary to reveal that information here? Or anywhere?
I think you can make a case for it. It explains some of Will's behavior, by revealing a form of COI.

Back in 1984, the people running the state of California removed AIDS from the state list of communicable diseases. They did it because they were a bunch of cheap bastards, who calculated that to use the public health system on AIDS would cost a bundle, and they decided to pinch pennies and let people die. But these cheap bastards were clever, too -- they went to the gay community and told them that they were doing it to "protect privacy." This was sort of plausible, because the standard approach to Sexually Transmitted Diseases is to do what is called "contact tracing" -- you interview the person who has been diagnosed with the disease, and ask them with whom they have had sex. This enables them to locate people who don't know they are infected, and may be out there infecting others.

Enter LaRouche, who said that this was an insanely dangerous course of action, because (if memory serves) people can carry the HIV virus for up to seven years without showing symptoms of AIDS, and when you consider the possible number of sexual partners they might have in that time span, it's like a chain reaction. So, LaRouche put Proposition 64 on the California ballot, to put AIDS back on the list. The penny-pinchers promptly went to the gay organizations and said, "LaRouche is a homophobe! He wants to invade your privacy!" The gay organizations took the bait, and launched a jihad against LaRouche.

It was unclear to me back in the day, when I was embroiled in controversy at Wikipedia, why Will Beback was so eager to make common cause with deranged fanatics like Chip Berlet and Dennis King. However, seen from the perspective gained from Daniel's revelation above (i.e., if you follow the links, Will is a gay activist in California,) it becomes apparent that Will has an undisclosed motive for doing so.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 16th October 2008, 11:19pm
Post #4


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 16th October 2008, 3:48pm) *

Back in 1984, the people running the state of California removed AIDS from the state list of communicable diseases. They did it because they were a bunch of cheap bastards, who calculated that to use the public health system on AIDS would cost a bundle, and they decided to pinch pennies and let people die. But these cheap bastards were clever, too -- they went to the gay community and told them that they were doing it to "protect privacy." This was sort of plausible, because the standard approach to Sexually Transmitted Diseases is to do what is called "contact tracing" -- you interview the person who has been diagnosed with the disease, and ask them with whom they have had sex. This enables them to locate people who don't know they are infected, and may be out there infecting others.

Enter LaRouche, who said that this was an insanely dangerous course of action, because (if memory serves) people can carry the HIV virus for up to seven years without showing symptoms of AIDS, and when you consider the possible number of sexual partners they might have in that time span, it's like a chain reaction. So, LaRouche put Proposition 64 on the California ballot, to put AIDS back on the list. The penny-pinchers promptly went to the gay organizations and said, "LaRouche is a homophobe! He wants to invade your privacy!" The gay organizations took the bait, and launched a jihad against LaRouche.


Wow, that's an economically biased perspective, considering the amount of money California would throw at AIDS just a few years later, when a blood test was available. Cheap bastards they might be, but everyone was terrified of the blood supply by 1985.

Your history is messed up. In 1984 there was no AIDS test, but there was decent epidemiological evidence for blood transmission. There was less evidence for sexual transmission, and no way to prove same, without a lab test. (This came in 1985)

If you think gay men in 1984 were not capable of screaming bloody murder about contact-tracing of even a manifestly-sexually transmitted disease, all on their own, you don't know the history of hepatitis B and syphilis, which spread through the gay community in a very similar way to AIDS, in the decade before AIDS. Syphilis caused problems and a great deal of screaming from gay men about discrimination, but there wasn't much the gay community could do, since it was a long reportable communicable disease. However, the guy community did mange to block contract tracing for heptitis B, on grounds that it wasn't ALWAYS a SEXUALLY transmitted disease (instead, in gay men, it just only usually was).

This was an entirely politically-correctness thing. At the time, you were forbidden to ask blood donors about their sexual activities, even though it was known for certain that hepatitis B was epidemic in gay men (causing this group to be so at-risk that it was the one in which the first heptitis B vaccine was tested, in 1980 or so). At the time, the existence of a hepatitis B test, which was being used to screen blood anyway, was used an an excuse not to ask about sexual behavior (it didn't matter what you did in the bedroom, went the thinking-- they were going to test blood anyway). At the same time, LACK of an AIDS test was ALSO used as an excuse not to ask about sexual behavior! (The idea being that since there wasn't a test, there was no way to be sure the agent wasn't transmitted only by sharing needles, and not strictly sexually. Even illicit drug use itself was suggested as a cause). Doctors and blood banks cooperated with all of this, because they didn't want to do anything to interupt the blood donation process, and would fight tooth and nail against anything which made it harder to donate. Money for contact tracing had very little to do with any of it.

Anybody who gives you a different history on this, wasn't there in California, watching the medical system as all this happend. I was.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
ColScott   Will Beback in the City of Angels   Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:51pm
Daniel Brandt   My research indicates that Will works for the Cit...   Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:45pm
ColScott   My research indicates that Will works for the Ci...   Wed 23rd April 2008, 7:11pm
Pumpkin Muffins   [quote name='Daniel Brandt' post='95648' date='We...   Wed 23rd April 2008, 8:01pm
ColScott   [quote name='Daniel Brandt' post='95648' date='W...   Wed 23rd April 2008, 9:05pm
Herschelkrustofsky   [quote name='Pumpkin Muffins' post='95718' date='...   Wed 23rd April 2008, 9:16pm
ColScott   [quote name='Pumpkin Muffins' post='95718' date=...   Thu 24th April 2008, 12:09am
Cla68   I've had some differences with Will in the pas...   Thu 24th April 2008, 12:23am
Pumpkin Muffins   [quote name='Pumpkin Muffins' post='95718' date='...   Thu 24th April 2008, 1:10am
BobbyBombastic   Mod note: Moved from Editors forum to Will Beback ...   Wed 23rd April 2008, 6:42pm
Herschelkrustofsky   Will Beback's is a subtle kind of douchiness -...   Thu 24th April 2008, 12:33am
wikiwhistle   He was good to me, I NPOV'ed the lead of the L...   Thu 24th April 2008, 2:08am
Daniel Brandt   William (Will) F. McWhinney is in Zabasearch.com, ...   Thu 16th October 2008, 12:22am
Daniel Brandt   Here's more recent information — just one ye...   Fri 17th October 2008, 1:18am
tarantino   Here's more recent information — just one y...   Fri 17th October 2008, 2:29am


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th 5 13, 7:50pm