I got a spam email this morning entitled "What has Crafty Clark got up her European sleeve?" to my work address.
I really don't like spam. I was also somewhat disgusted at the content of the email, which included stuff like: "And during the
government’s controversial condom campaign homosexual men were tongue-ing each other at a time when children were still watching television." (Ummm, so?) There was also some stuff about Helen Clark is obviously a TOTAL EVIL COMMUNIST because some group in the Phillipines that got raided by the police had her name on a piece of paper, AND she picked coffee in Nicaragua, and you know what that means!
Anyways, my point is, this came from the email address paintbrushed@37.com, and when I wrote back (because hey, work has spam filters), saying that actually, I'm well happy with the current government and I'm stoked that homophobia is more of a minority in this country than homosexuality, and here is my name because I'm proud to put it to my opinions rather than hide anonymously, I got another reply going "attack the facts, not the messenger".
My point is this: spam me, paintbrushed@37.com, and suddenly, you become fair game for spam yourself.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
Right on Joanna!! This sort of shit ...
Right on Joanna!!
This sort of shit really pisses me off actually (unsolicited emails - esepcially of a political nature). Did a quick Whois search and found the registration for the domain (held overseas), not much use really though...
May be time to bait the troll and send this person an email :-)
//May be time to bait the troll and ...
//May be time to bait the troll and send this person an email :-)
Just don't use your work address...
Spot on - I have a plethora of email ...
Spot on - I have a plethora of email address's just waiting to be used for this sort of thing!
//My point is this: spam me, ...
//My point is this: spam me, paintbrushed@37.com, and suddenly, you become fair game for spam yourself.
Judging by the kind of site 37.com is, it looks like that email isn't a personal address at all, but was just created to send spam. That's not to say that sending nasty emails back is entirely useless, given you've already had a response, but probably the email addy will disappear once the election's over.
In most cases I would not advise ...
In most cases I would not advise sending emails back. That just confirms your email address is valid and you end up getting far more spam.
In most cases, I wouldn't, but like I ...
In most cases, I wouldn't, but like I said, work spam filters. And this guy keeps on writing back, telling me to "READ WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN", and ignoring me when I reply "read what I've written about asking you what your name is, and where you got my email from".
Anyone who quotes from Investigate as a credible source really needs to have their head checked.
You go girl! Fight the good fight....
You go girl! Fight the good fight.
// Anyone who quotes from Investigate ...
// Anyone who quotes from Investigate as a credible source
// really needs to have their head checked.
ahhh, idolblog memories...
[ external link ]
man. that looked fun....
man. that looked fun.
jo and natalie tag team action. how ...
jo and natalie tag team action. how could it not be fun? ;)
.jpgs are available to subscribers ...
.jpgs are available to subscribers only...
//ahhh, idolblog memories... god, ...
//ahhh, idolblog memories...
god, reading that thread made me want to hit someone.
(...not least because of the idolblog thread structure - posts read upwards, replies read downwards. Really irritating)
For some reason I just read my previous ...
For some reason I just read my previous post and got jamais vu. But I digress.
Call me a stupid moron, but I think ...
Call me a stupid moron, but I think Investigate is actually pretty interesting. Sure, Ian wishart is obviously a cock, but they do unearth some interesting stuff. Their article on condoms, and how shit they actually are, is pretty scary.
That's not new. I first heard people ...
That's not new. I first heard people spouting about the shitness of condoms about twelve years ago. The most alarming thing to me would be that people think Investigate are the pioneers of the crusade.
//Their article on condoms, and how ...
//Their article on condoms, and how shit they actually are, is pretty scary.
I haven't read the Investigate article, but your perception of how shit (or not) condoms are depends on what you're comparing them with. Compared with unprotected sex, their quite effective. If you compare them to not having sex, then they'll always look quite shit.
It's a lot like motorcycling really. Wearing a helmet and protective clothes makes motorcycling a lot safer, but it's still dangerous.
// Their article on condoms, and how ...
// Their article on condoms, and how shit they actually are, is pretty scary.
This artical is available online, but from what I can tell, it has to be one of the biggest abuses of statistics I've ever read. Take the following line:
"shows a reduction of 29% in syphilis rates, still a 71% chance of contracting syphilis"
So, uh, that would be like saying that that following the introduction of speed cameras there was a 29% reduction in crash rates. THEREFORE I have a 71% chance of crashing. Boy. Remind me not to ever drive my car again.
A more realistic interpretation of the syphillis statistic would be something like the following: No condom syphillis chance=30%, with condom chance=1%, therefore a 29% reduction. Or alternatively: no condom=10% with a 29% reduction (of 10%), the chance is now 7.1%. Note how neither of these lead to the patently absurd 71% chance of catching syphillis.
That's such unspeakably shit journalism I'm just speechless.
[ external link ]
Has it got a large readership?...
Has it got a large readership?
I fucking hope not. I'm aware that it ...
I fucking hope not. I'm aware that it doesn't align with my political beliefs, but I know plenty of smart people who can disagree with me without resorting to wilful miscomprehension of facts. And from the other stuff I flicked through, it *all* seems horrendous, not just that that one report is particularly crazy.
Large Readership? Good enough too jump ...
Large Readership?
Good enough too jump the Tasman. Popular with Destiney Church.
Sadly, no column from Frank Haden yet Jimi, but I will keep you posted.
I think the understanding you have taken from the "Safe Sex" issue and your connection to Speed Cameras, is more a reflection on your own Political Ideology, Limegreen.
The crux of Wishart's beef is that the Safe Sex campaign (specific to Condoms) sends the message that you are protected when the Data he is presenting says otherwise. Wether we like it or not, many people think the use of a Condom means there going to be OK
If there is a consenus that say, Chlamydia, for instance is at an all time high, is this because
A/ we have better detection systems
B/ people are more open with their Doctors
C/ more people are having Sex
D/ more peole are having Sex because apparantly Condoms stop the clap.
If its D/, then does Investigate have a "valid" point?
The Syphilis quote you highlighted, is in my opinion saying that should your partner be infected with said Condition, then Properly applied Condom only offers 29% "coverage". He is certainley not implying that on the prowl tonight theres a 7 in 10 chance of the Red dong.
Lets look at Investigate's quoted references
WHO Bulliten
Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
American Journal of Epidemiology
American Journal of Public health
Journal of Infectious Diseases
Are these sources "discreditable"? If so why, or is it in Investigates "application of said "Facts"?
I think the main issue is this Limegreen,
That you believe Wishart is a God Freak who is using Scientific Data to push an unspoken agenda. Which in this case would be Absteniance until Marriage. Which, Fundamentally, you disagree with.
Im not trying to validate either poisition of that arguement, just that your accusations re: Investigate simply are as factual too me as you appear to believe Wishart's article is/was.
Best place for info on Meng Vacc Program was Investigate
Only Magazine to endicte Kissenger as War Criminal/ Genocide (outside of Red Flag, heh!), was Investigate.
N&S had Coddington on there Payroll for how long?
There was some really good pieces about the Civil Union Bill, not the Homophobic rubbish we saw as "arguement" in many other places. (yes, I think CUB is good law).
The Evolution Debate was cracker , you think Massey University is gonna let a Creationist on site? Wishart gave Warwick Don equal space and right of reply. Regardless of opinion this is good journalisim.
Investigate regulary provides links to opposite arguements to Opinion pieces. This is bloody handy.
The GE coverage and the absolutley savage indicement of monosato was a treat.
If you people are to be so quick to write off Investigate as Christian Lunacy, you are truly doing yourselves a dis-service. The prejudice you allow to form is exactly the same you accuse Wishart off.
In no way should this post excuse Investigate for running Anne Coulter.
Look, I truly think large parts of Investigate are utter bollocks, yet I also think this of Three News, The Christchurch Press,Cosmos, New Scientist, Time, Omni, The Listener etal...
If you expect any publication to endoser/backslap your chosen Beliefs/Poisitions in every instance then write your own, or at least regularly contribute/ lobby/ take to task.
//Are these sources "discreditable"? If ...
//Are these sources "discreditable"? If so why, or is it in Investigates "application of said "Facts"?
The latter.
//I think the understanding you have taken from the "Safe Sex" issue and your connection to Speed Cameras, is more a reflection on your own Political Ideology, Limegreen.
Ummm no. He initially declares the benchmark to compare how effective condoms are is the 3% failure rate for preventing pregnancy. Thus, he's clearly implying the 7 in 10.
Then elsewhere he asks "where is the evidence on your website that you are telling them there is still, for example, an 80% chance they’re going to get syphilis?"
That's not, if you have sex with someone with syphilis with a condom you have an 80% chance, but a "you have an 80% chance" (back-calculated from a 20% chance of not).
//That you believe Wishart is a God Freak
Actually, I don't think Wishart is a God Freak. He might be a christian (I don't know), but I'm quite down with christianity, and it's certainly no reason to attack someone's use of statistics.
//Which in this case would be Absteniance until Marriage. Which, Fundamentally, you disagree with.
Ummm no. I have no disagreement with abstinence, fundamentally or otherwise.
You might note earlier I compared a condom and sex to a helmet and a motorbike. As a bit of a stats buff, I think I understand the level of risks in both pretty well.
//The prejudice you allow to form is exactly the same you accuse Wishart off.
Umm no. I review other people's use of statistics on a regular basis. There are two things that give statistics a bad name: a) most people find it extremely boring, and b) the misuse of statistics. I can't do anything about people finding them boring, but it really riles me when people misuse them.
Yeah, Good Reply. I think your ...
Yeah, Good Reply.
I think your inferral of the article is utterly flawed, but your point is clear.
Check Wishart's interpration of Stats re:Winebox and Political Donations.
Thats the sort of stuff that should be in the school cirriculum.
how is it spam?...
how is it spam?
it came salted and canned....
it came salted and canned.
It's spiced ham!...
It's spiced ham!
Unsolicited email address harvesting ...
Unsolicited email address harvesting and trying to sell something.
and we're supposed to believe he sent ...
and we're supposed to believe he sent it to your address? and that this isn't just a nasty way to get back at your ex
Yes, that's right, rope....
Yes, that's right, rope.
prove it...
prove it
Prove that I'm not telling the truth....
Prove that I'm not telling the truth.
why?...
why?
Actually you're right, I was lying ...
Actually you're right, I was lying about this whole thing, the email actually came from APRA.
Also: dude, I'd never go out with ...
Also: dude, I'd never go out with anyone who wasn't Master or Mistress of their own Domain. Sheesh.
//We've since established that the ...
//We've since established that the original email was sent to a generic email address from Joanna's company website, which is internally redirected to her personal mailbox.
who has established this?
i see no proof of this on the thread, just joanna posting an email address because some guy purportedly spammed her before being kind enough to write a personal reply
There's little point in posting ...
There's little point in posting evidence given that if Joanna's capable of devising this grand scheme to piss off an imagined ex-boyfriend, then I'm certainly capable of faking the email headers. Perhaps you'd like a guided tour of Joanna's work servers?
again, these are strong allegations ...
again, these are strong allegations joanna, prove them.
if someone was spamming people, why ...
if someone was spamming people, why would they bother to reply personally to your complaint,
post those logs girl
Don't feed the trolls people!...
Don't feed the trolls people!
We've since established that the ...
We've since established that the original email was sent to a generic email address from Joanna's company website, which is internally redirected to her personal mailbox. So rope can take her ridiculous conspiracy theories re: ex-boyfriends elsewhere.
That was a great thread you linked to. ...
That was a great thread you linked to. I can't stand it when ignorance goes unanswered either, and I imagine many lurkers who might have gone along with the original poster's viewpoint are *hopefully* having a think about what 'truth' means to them.