I MUST object to this When I originally put forth my version of MastCell and Nightscream s argument I was told I was not addressing the article but just babbling on the issue So I defended myself that this is directly related to the article and its POV Then I was told that somehow paraphrasing the argument used to push POV is somehow an attack on the editors And that I misattributed them Fine I ll deal with that later Okay so let me get this straight People push a POV on an article They use specific arguments to justify pushing their POV the endless bickering over scientific consensus scientific community facts who is a scientist just read the last 3 years discussion pages I come onto this discussion page and I point out how pathetic their arguments used to push their POV are When I do this I am told I am not addressing the article to improve it and that I m attacking the editors and that if I continue to do this I will be banned Whatever Nightscream said I made none of the arguments you attributed to me nor do I recall MastCell doing so either But you said It indicates that it is referring exclusively to those who follow the Scientific Method and not any ol Tom Dick and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage It does not take a ph d to figure out that by any ol Tom Dick and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage you mean Duesberg Perth David Crowe AIDS Wiki and Virusmyth and all the people associated with them Hence by your own words you are saying that all these people the Tom Dick and Harry s are not following the scientific method and are thus not part of your scientific community And this is my point You DEFINE anyone who rejects the hypothesis as necessarily not following scientific method hence not a member of the scientific community then claim there s 100 or near 100 agreement in the scientific community that HIV causes AIDS It s a completely circular argument 69 45 178 143