Talk:Stephen Barrett/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes

There are many sources for this, including the webpage I referenced with Stephen Barrett's name on it for 6 years. This is an encyclopedia, but it reads like another advert for Barrett. I reinstated the link that shows Barrett as part of this group. I can provide links from several years. This is as valid a part of his biography ... even if he doesn't want to be associated with it. Please do not remove this again, Arthur. Ilena 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It's humor. Completely and totally inappropriate for the article, unless presented as sarcastic humor, and then I don't see how it would be notable. I'm especially concerned that this could be taken as biased content Wp:blp#Biased_or_malicious_content --Ronz 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a list of people who, along with Barrett, SLAPP sued many people as well as waged smear campaigns against who they deemed were "net quacks." It is indeed notable as this was in existence for over 6 years. With all due respect, Ronz does not have the experience with this Posse to know whether or not it is a 'satire.' People on this list attacked and hired private investigators to hunt down the very people Barrett and Polevoy (on list) were suing. Barrett may not want to be associated with this now, but he chose to be for over 6 years. Were the Blacklists of the Macarthy years satirical? Absolutely not, and neither is this. Please do not remove. Thank you. Ilena 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait for other editors to weigh in. --Ronz 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

O man, notable anybody, or rather the lack there of. Just because Ilena thinks that Peter Bowditch's site is notable in this regard doesn't make it so. Lets see how many other editors torture WP guildlines into making it so... Shot info 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a encyclopedic accounting. He voluntarily was a member of this Posse and it is entirely notable to the people whose lives the Posse infiltrated and attempted to destroy. Calling it a 'satire' doesn't make it so. Barrett and the other posse members used both the legal system and their blogs, webpages, usenet and wikipedia to attack a group of people they called "net quacks." They attempted to destroy these people's lives, mine included. People from this posse hired PI's to hunt me down, stalk my friends and go through our garbage. He chose to remain in this group for 6 years, along with the other plaintiffs in his SLAPP suits. It was only taken off the net a couple of weeks ago after the plaintiffs all lost their suits to me. Thank you.Ilena 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was Bowditch's spoof to make fun of you and others by appealing to your conspiracy theories. Even YOU are a member of the Posse! Some of us knew he had placed our names there, but I doubt Barrett did, and even if he did, it would have been one of thousands of places his name is used and misused, and he doesn't have the time or interest to do anything about it.

Bowditch even created spoof Yahoo! groups to tease types like yourself. How about the "Quackbusters of the Illuminati"? (oops, now I'll have to kill everyone who reads this.....;-) There is a lot of chain pulling going on, and you fell for it lock stock and barrell! What a joke, and it worked! Now you want to publicize that you were hoodwinked by placing such trivial information on Wikipedia? Pleeese, tell me this is a dream come true!! Ilena blew it again.

Your conspiracy mindset makes you stable bricks together into a house of your own creation, which has little relation to reality. You seem to think that what one person does (and that person is on a Posse list, probably unwittingly) makes all the others guilty of their action. That's ridiculous! Your statements above are a weird and basically false construction of various events involving various individuals, most of whom had nothing to do with the actions of the others. That construction of events is a libelous construction, because you are accusing many innocent people for the actions of others, simply because they occasionally had some type of connection with each other in some sort of situation. Just because some of them are on the Healthfraud list, then you seem to think (actually accuse!) that all list members are apparently guilty for the actions of one member. You accuse list members of being Barrett's agents and acting on his behalf. Forget it! That's too far out for Mad magazine! Just because others have their websites in my Anti-Quackery Webring, then all web ring members are apparently guilty of some type of conspiracy. What a mess your conspiracy thinking creates! It took me a long time to even convince Barrett to place a few (far from all) of his sites in the ring. I have no idea who most of the listmaster are. The only thing we have in common is common goals -- exposing dangerous and deceptive forms of quackery. That's a pretty honorable hobby. I do feel sorry for you, -- Fyslee 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, both of you. Jance 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object to immediately archiving this section? --Ronz 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Disinformation

fyslee claimed: "I understand your consternation over the King Bio thing, which was not Barrett's case, but the lawyer's who got him involved. The lawyer made the mistake, and Barrett probably mistakenly assumed that medical ethics and scientific logic were allowable, when they clearly are not in a court." This is beyond absurd. Barrett/NCAHF hired the lawyers ... not the other way around. Then NCAHF hired themselves. Paid themselves to be 'experts.' They lost in every court. This whole article is whitewashed and unbalanced and a blatant attempt to change history. I also note that here fyslee claims to speak on Barrett's behalf, clear and utter POV. This is extremely analogous to Fyslee repeatedly claiming that Barrett's NCAHF was a legal Calfiornia corporation when all evidence points to that being totally false. You can call it an 'attack' and censure my words again as you usually do, fyslee, but all the above is factual and verifiable. Thank you. Ilena 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object to immediately archiving this section? --Ronz 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett's POV repeated here

SLAPP suits such as Barrett's against me and many others, are attempts to silence critics (which Barrett admits he wants to do.) The courts frown on this ... that is why he is being forced to pay my attorneys fees and probably others as this case continues. To reiterate his POV that he was "libeled" when the Supreme Court of California says he wasn't, is just more grandstanding here for his losing cases. Please do not remove my quote and leave the quote of Barrett's POV. Mine is not POV. Ilena 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone directly involved with Barrett you certainly do bring POV to this article. You should concentrate on editing articles in wikipedia where you can be more objective. Wikipedia articles should not be used to achieve score points. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case here, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Wikipedia, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. Thank you.Ilena 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which links and who are you talking about? And with resepct to your own web site, others may choose to add the site. However, it is inappropriate for you to add the site. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. fyslee is the Ringmaster for all of Barrett / QW / NCAHF sites, as well as Barrett's personal assistant listmaster for the healthfraud list for several years (until about 2 weeks ago). He has put hundreds (may be an underestimate) of Barrett's related links throughout wikipedia ... which all link to his own "quack files." Here is one of his Wiki pages which itemizes this. Thank you. .Ilena 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My webrings are my hobby, and Barrett has no impact on them, including what sites are members. There are sites of which he likely does not approve, but that's no concern of mine. Only a few of his sites are members, along with many others. Standard and legitimate practice on the internet. Webrings are created to collect sites on similar topics. Nothing wrong or nefarious about that. Likeminded sites link to each other. Nothing wrong with that either. Everyone does it, including quacks and alternative medicine practitioners. If it's wrong of me, then it's wrong of them. I have not put "hundreds" of links. When I occasionally do so, it is very specifically chosen because it is a WP:V & WP:RS of information on THAT topic. Again standard and encouraged practice here. The reason your sites aren't allowed is because they are attack sites. They aren't performing a public service, other than to attack your enemies. Barrett's sites provide documented and sourced information designed to protect the public from deceivers and frauds. The governement, consumer protection organizations, scientists, universities, and many others consider them to be a valuable source of information. My own anti-quackery activities are my own, and are my own responsibility. I do not bring them to Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee's personal interests are of no concern here, imho. Ilena, please don't continue raising this point- frankly, I am sick of it. We all have personal opinions, and background. It is only an issue if it intereferes with editing, or a person becomes disruptive, etc. Jance 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object to immediately archiving this section? --Ronz 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)