User talk:Mitchellrenner

Hello, Mitchellrenner, Welcome to Wikipedia; I apologise if the comments by me and others in response to your question at Talk:AIDS seemed a bit abrupt. Wikipedia has seen repeated and sometimes concerted efforts to change verifiable and well-sourced information on HIV/AIDS to unsourced conspiracy theories and other nonsense associated with a fringe movement called AIDS denialism. Some proponents of this thoroughly discredited theory try to use the talk page at AIDS and other articles to promote their ideas, which is not a valid use of the talk page (or Wikipedia in general). In my experience, new editors whose only Wikipedia contributions have been questions about "correlation versus causation", isolation of HIV, electron micrographs of the virus and other denialist buzz-concepts are denialists who are intent on making a point and disrupting Wikipedia. You may be an exception, and if so, I apologise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize on your account. I believe I have walked into a firestorm, rather unwittingly. That seems to be my style, though. I have no interest in any particular side or the other, although I am intrigued by debate, and this is obviously a very personal issue for many. Without further erudition on the matter, I doubt I have much to offer, but from an outsider's view, all I can say is, the current discussion is not very productive due to the emotions of those involved getting in the way of a meaningful dialogue. If one side or the other ever hopes to reach the other, there has to be a willingness to look at the others' arguments, and find common ground, through reason. I have no ulterior motive when I say that "correlation" is not "causation" other than to simply point out, the two are not the same. It does not discredit anyone; it simply points out the illogicality of the language being used. I would do the same for any argument. I remember reading Wikipedia back in 1996 when it was first coming to light and showing up on search engines. I thought it was a brilliant idea. It makes me think of Hesse's "Glass Bead Game" for some reason, where the rules of play form of their own accord and by logic, and reason. It is a misfortune that some have to resort to bully tactics, making their arguments all the much weaker for it, and fanning the flames further. But I am naive; I shouldn't test such waters, without being more knowledgeable of what I am speaking of, perhaps. Mitchellrenner (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)