This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BruceSwanson (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 28 May 2010 (One simple rule.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:38, 28 May 2010 by BruceSwanson (talk | contribs) (One simple rule.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)I am a copy editor and proofreader living in the Los Angeles area. I've begun a blog on proofreading and its management; and have posted a speculative essay on our probable lottery-based, crowd-sourced future, here.
Since many of my current edits deal with HIV/AIDS I should probably point out that as a heterosexual in excellent health whose only recreational drugs are found in wine, beer, and an occasional cigar, my viewpoint is merely that of an incredulous bystander. From that perspective I've come to realize that the orthodox HIV/AIDS hypothesis as it is found in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages cannot be maintained in detail by editors using their real names. That's because it is so fundamentally dishonest that anyone trying to validate its logic and assumptions would necessarily damage their personal and professional reputation. However, the existence of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, of which I am a layman signatory, would seem to indicate that AIDS-dissident viewpoints can be maintained by people using their real names. I recommend one simple rule to guide their edits:
| “ | Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. | ” |
This alone would eviscerate the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.