Name Calling, Ad Hominem (a logical fallacy), Thoughtcrime
Word Game

"The language of Nonthought."----Lionel Trilling

[Newspeak. Name Calling is the attempt to distract the uninformed observer off the message by attacking the messenger (ad Hominem) with 4 basic variations outlined below.  Many of these are what you would call Newspeak terms.]   

Ad hominem labels (Thoughtcrime): Anarchy Paranoid  anti-vaccine  anti-Semite  Conspiracy theorist  Denialist  Quack  'Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science'  Neo-Nazi  Heretic  Scobie's Law

See:   Articles  Rationalization     Nonthought  Orwell  Pyjama person (PJ)

Laughing at the truth
An open mind
Abuse examples (FB)

Arrogance is an inverted style of ad-hominem."--Jim West

[1991] Revisionism and Censorship Down Under by John Bennett

1.  Words with slides attached (called buzzwords): Here the propagandist sets up attachments to various words, using the media usually.   These are called slides, so you are conditioned to think in a certain way (down a slide) when a word comes up with a slide attached.  The classic is 'anti-semite', anyone tagged with that gets ignored straight away by non-thinkers.     

Other popular ones are Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science',  'Conspiracy' , 'anti-vaccine', 'paranoid' 'Quacks, cranks & quackery, Altie  Denialist anti-Semite  Heretic

When these words come up you are meant (especially with the tone and body language of the media propagandist) to think the messenger is a crank, paranoid, insane etc.  Here we have a medical Wikipedia editor using the paranoia buzzword:

2.  'Hard to believe' Buzzwords, called Appeal to incredulity.   Here the propagandist will find various words that he can hold up to the crowd to make the messenger appear paranoid.   He knows the crowd is uninformed and fearful, and will see those fearful buzzwords, then have a rationalisation by making out the messenger is fearful and mad.    Also it makes out the propagandist is reasonable and unbiased.  A great example is shown by a medical Wikipedia editor here, also using buzzwords 'extremist',  'conspiracy theory':

"I agree with that information about vaccines and their side effects should not be suppressed. However, the link is not an appropriate source for this information because of the competing extremist information and conspiracy theories as outlined on the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine. As already reviewed by InvictaHOG, the commentary on Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers distracts from the criticisms of vaccines and decreases the value of link." Andrew73 13:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That ass the Wiki Allopaths only 'argument' for banishing any Wiki links to

This quote points out the value of buzzwords when you consider the package of lies sold over the centuries:

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic. --Dresden James

3. Medical buzzphrases.  The medical propagandist/shill has other words/ploys that he uses to make out to the uninformed he is unbiased and scientific, open to reason.  Of course he would accept the information but the message is not-Clinical-Trialled, Evidence-based medicine  not-Peer reviewed  or we need more studies.  If that fails then there is a bucketload of Epidemiology  & Junk Science to confuse the naive.

4. Basic abuse and accusations of mental illness eg full-on paranoid schizophrenic.  The danger here is for the messenger to drop down into the mud and resort to emotions.  Never argue with a fool as you will end up looking like one too.

See this Blog page called JABS Loonies - Justice, Awareness, Basic Support and Mind Blowing Stupidity

Paranoid is the most popular.

I get the feeling that John's just nuts.  I don't think he's doing it on purpose.  I may be wrong, but that's my intuition.---Jake Waskett (circumcision advocate, and circumcised at age 26)

I cited some of the methods used to silence historical revisionism in Australia in Censorship of Dissident Opinions, available from the ACLU. More drastic measures are used in some other countries. A Revisionist received a two-year jail sentence in Canada, a Revisionist in France was assassinated, Professor Faurisson was suspended from his teaching position in France, Henri Roques had his Ph.D. (granted for research on aspects on the Holocaust) revoked, a retired judge in West Germany had his law degree revoked and the plates of his book The Auschwitz Myth seized, other writers in West Germany have been jailed, and the headquarters and warehouse of the Institute for Historical Review was burnt to the ground in the U.S.A. For further information, write to the ACLU for a leaflet headed "The Worldwide Persecution of Dissent. " All of the attacks on Revisionists (including Jewish Revisionists) I have mentioned have one thing in common. They are subjected to character assassination but no, or very little, attempt is made to refute their arguments. [1991] Revisionism and Censorship Down Under by John Bennett

Dissident thinkers who challenge the accepted version of the past cannot expect a fair hearing in Australia, are subject to "unmeasured vituperation" and are not given a fair hearing. Thus my attempts to query the extent of the Holocaust of Jews in World War II have led to me being described as "more evil than Himmler and Pol Pot" (Quadrant), a "pathological raver" (New Statesman), "unhinged" (Commentary), "comic" and "bizarre" (The Age), "scum" (3AW) and "dangerous and foolish" (Derryn Hinch, 3AW). A play written by a Jew from Sydney called "The Diary of Anne Frank -- a Forgery?" describes me as a vicious evil neo-Nazi professional propagandist who poses as a civil libertarian and is utterly discredited. I am not afforded a right of reply to such attacks. [1991] Revisionism and Censorship Down Under by John Bennett

"Hey John, do you any chance have oh, say, favorable inclinations toward Hitler, the Nazis, neo-Nazis, and white supremacism? I wouldn't be too hard on MI6 if I were you, they did after all secretly recruit and protect thousands of Nazi SS and Nazi collaborators after the war, including key Holocaust perpetrators Adolf Eichmann, Dr.Carl Clauberg, Hans Globke and Dr. Jozef Mengele. And MI6 top dog Aleister Crowley liked the Nazis too."


Stacy Mintzer Herlihy

"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a mental hospital. He stood there in front of a crowd of several hundred people and said that the WHO and the Save The Children Fund were engaged in a policy of deliberate genocide which would "put Hitler and Stalin in the shade". And we are supposed to take this arsehole seriously?" --Peter Bowditch

I agree the guy appears to be actually, for real, insane. But so was Charlie Manson. That excuse can only take a person so far. I'm shocked anyone can take the nutjob seriously at all, but apparently some actually manage it. You'd think the overt antisemitism (not to mention the gibbering insanity) would be more of a turnoff than it actually appears to be. I just don't know anymore if it's possible to have too little faith in humanity. Posted by: Rev.Enki | June 15, 2008 11:33 PM

With nuts like you on the loose,  it's best to be anonymous.   "John"   Take your meds.   That's the first thing you have to do to recover. If you start taking your meds,  then maybe you can go back to secondary school and get a good leaving certificate.   Then,  who knows,   maybe a job.   Then you could move out of your mother's house and maybe meet a nice girl somewhere and settle down.    You know,  those things you do with the other girls in the women's bathroom aren't really the way to go.

I thought, over your side of the Pacific, Johns were ceramic things that accepted excrement.---Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.

"People are always joking me about my conspiracy theories. Now when someone jokes me about my theories I point them to your website. An hour later they come back and apologize for being so mean to me. Apparently after being exposed to your particular brand of ‘Batshit Crazy’ I look like a freaking genius. Thanks for making me look good in front of my co-workers. Don’t ever get educated, smart, logical or sane. Don’t ever change. You’re perfect just the way you are. You’re providing a much needed service to those of us who are distrustful of the world around is…but who have not crossed that invisible line from distrustful to crazy and possibly retarded. Thank you so much."

Mark Probert  wrote:
 John's been doing this for years.  In fact, it's all he does.  He  knows he's a liar.  He knows the information he posts is false.  He knows his website is nothing but a collection of fallacies, deceptions, and lies.  And above all, he knows he misleads people, quite possibly leading to harm.  Since he obviously doesn't care that his misinformation might cause harm, I believe he is a sociopath.

"Fredric L. Rice" <FRice@SkepticTank.ORG> wrote in message
Translation: The poor fellow couldn't address any of the factual
 debunkings his poor eyes were subjected to.  The cult programming
 came slamming down and the wind-up moron glibly spouts "Waaah!
 Name Calling!  Waaah!" to avoid the truth.
 Man, take your frocking pills already, would ya?

"One of my favorite guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I have not lodged accusations against your motives and would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with user created content, not a mere collection of links. I hope you agree that pages like vaccine are better when contributors add well-referenced, NPOV prose instead of simply adding links. It would be a poor page if it were simply dominated by outside links with instructions to "go read, it's all there!" You are right about - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." Wiki Medical editor 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[This is the The 'Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science' lie.] "The anti-science brigade threatens our progress and our prosperity. We need political and science leadership to stand up to them.  The anti-GM lobby does not campaign against GM human insulin because the benefits to people with diabetes is obvious.  We need to take on and defeat the vestiges of anti-science. This won't be done by lofty superiority but by engagement with the street, with science out there talking, debating, listening and educating.   In many instances, a powerful and vocal lobby, with access to all the media channels and an interest in polarising the argument, frames the debate.   The misconceptions, often borne of the most outrageous distortion of fact by campaigners, who in accusing others of a lack of scruple show precious little of it themselves, can be so pervasive.   They so easily take hold. Standing up to this is harder than it sounds. But it is a classic example of the struggle between short-term politics and long-term public good."--Tony BlairHere a medical Wikipedia editor uses the word 'crank' on the SIDS discussion page

Crank Editor: Someone from 86.128.x.x keeps putting in a wacky link to "". David W. Hogg 14:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ffrom "J"  : Jerry (HealthFraud list member)

"Who knows what John really believes.  He's a notorious anti-vaccine propogandist who occupies slot #1 in my killfile and has for about 3-4 years now.  He and his site are well known on where his "theories" have been shot down time and time again. Unfortunately, he is completely devoid of ethics and the truth is of absolutely no importance to him.  No matter how many times his propoganda is proved false, he continues to preach it. His entire site is nothing but a collection of faleshoods, distortions, and rubbish.  It would best be described as a porn site."--Carey Gregory (Usenet)

"Carey Gregory" <> wrote in message >
You really are complete scum, John.  Do the world a favor -- fuck off  and die.

"This whale to site is rubish. The author is so ashamed of it, he does not even put his name on the site. The site is clearly not by someone who has a clue about medicine or vaccination. Nor is he interested in the truth. For accurate information go to Immunization Action Coalition" ---Jeffrey Peter, M.D. <"

Oh, man... not Blaylock again.  Wasn't he the guy who claimed to be on the
faculty of the medical school in Mississippi until Ole Miss contacted him
about the ramifications of claiming something that was clearly false?!
(note:  Ole Miss is the nickname of the Univ. of Mississippi which has the
only medical school in that state, its webpage being ...
which has a faculty directory that never had Blaylock on it)

What a loser!

The guy may have been a real doctor at one time, but he now reduced to
selling supplements out of a strip mall.

Of course, we have the infamous website, full of all sorts of
conspiracies: guy claims that satanic black lines burned his bum! From ... " I also burnt my ass on it some
years back when I was experimenting with psychedelics, similar to a chemical
burn right through my trousers, where the trousers were unscathed apart from
a flattening of the cord. I thought, first, that I had been given a
metaphysical kick up the backside! Perhaps I had."

Not a very reliable source... Comments about John Scudamore in include "a
large and slightly sorted collection of conspiracy theory save the whale,
illuminati, weird "science" and stuff which is not corrected to reflect
demonstrated mistakes."  But that page is now gone (still here: )
, but this one remains:

Hi John

Take your attempt to kill diabetics and FUCK OFF.----Ted Rosenberg <> Jan 15, 2007

Mark S. Probert
Peter Bowditch
Putz the pharma shill

Tonic Customer:

Another Tonic user ( has requested that you contact
them regarding your registration of ''.

Tonic Domains

Mentally ill (my favourite):
Steve Harris:
Possibly.  But people who do know me in life and also read me on the net say the opposite. Something like "Why are you so much more sarcastic in print than in life?"

My answer is that I don't have to deal with too many loons in meat-space, having purged all of them from my non-cyber life (thankfully none were blood relations, so this was possible). Here on the net, though, you meet raving nuts from all over. I'm of the opinion that those who sound initially sane but clearly are not, are helpfully pointed out like rattlesnakes on a trail.

Anonymous John thinks he knows more than an entire profession about everything the profession does. That kind of thing hasn't been possible for anybody in the hard sciences since the Enlightenment (for a good three centuries at least), and even in an applied science trade like medicine, it hasn't been possible at least since WWII. Worse still, John quotes from people who are even bigger megalomaniacs than he is. All seem to have that most basic problem of the subclass of the mentally ill who have personality disorders: they are liars without integrity.

John seems to be their representative in cyberspace. In the Matrix of Usenet he is a cyst full of noxious fluids, a boil full of puss, a giant gasbag full of hot air. I have a whole lab full of needles. I recommend the treatment of Becton and Dickinson here. You might not feel the #30 too much, but by the time we get to the #18, there will be a sliiight pinch....


How surprising to find that John@whale is a full-on paranoid schizophrenic, not just an odd bloke with a few fixed delusions about vaccines and medical subjects. Not. SBH

In article <b9mi95$r2v$>, "john" says...


Even if it were all true, why on God's green earth would any sane person state the case in a manner so perfectly suited to labelling its authors "insane"?

The entire "" domain is nothing but a sideshow stage for people obsessed with showing off their individual and collective madness.

 - Bil

On Sat, 10 May 2003 23:20:38 GMT, wrote:

> (PF Riley) wrote:
>>It's not so much stupidity as it is mental illness.
>Exactly.  He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's not
>stupid.  I think he's probably smart enough not to believe most of
>this stuff himself.

Well, I would actually have to argue that point. I think John is both
unintelligent and insane, whereas for a good example of an intelligent
kook, see Gastaldo.


John is a loon.  Something those who have been around these parts for
any length of time know.  The only reason not to kill file him in
perpetuity is to warn others of the depths of his insanity and the
danger behind his postings. 

The biggest question I have about John is... why hasn't he ever been
nominated for a Kook of the Month Award?  Not sure if those are still
being awarded or not, but he's definitely - on persistence alone -
worthy of a nomination.

Vaccines cause crime One of the most mind-blowingly dumb sites on the web is - a repository for all things mental in the world of stupid. Its curator, one John Scudamore (who infamously claimed to have burned his bum on a ley line) also hangs around JABS, dispensing dangerous medical advice and incessantly linking to his own site. The site has it's own internet law - "Scopie's Law", which states; "In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room." John (as he posts on JABS) really is a very special kind of lunatic, as demonstrated by this - a post which links an increase in the vaccination schedule to rising crime rates. (Yes - really.) at 16:04  Kids are way way sicker now than when I was a kid, in the 1950's, which I look on as a sort of golden age, which went on into 70's as well. Some 400 robberies then in a year, 20,000 now. What a moron.

[When I said my last kid was breastfed for 3 1/2 years & solids first at 2 years.] John, anyone who claims to have reared a child who didn't eat solid food until the age of two is either lying, the parent of a *profoundly* sick child, or has abused the child. ....what kind of restraints did you use to keep a toddler from eating solid foods?  Did you lock her in a closet?  Strap her down?  The malnutrition alone would constitute child abuse, but  the restraints required to keep the child from getting to food until she was too weak to feed herself is worse.--DC Sessions