The Fiber Disease

[Frank N Stein]

BS and al, perhaps you can answer this question for Sabrina

Do you have any proof about your theory on tamtam?

OK, that’s a fair question. Let’s look at what is considered as proof in objective scientific analysis. In logical and scientific analysis, a known object of study is observed and measured for data which define a set characteristics, which in turn support a conclusion. There are many sets of observation which are considered valid. Not all data sets are composed of visible data.

An example of this is atomic observation. No one has seen an atom. Yet we know it exists because of its behavioral characteristics. We know how atoms behave, and therefore draw conclusions based upon their behavior. If one group of atoms behave in one manner, and another group behaves in another manner, we can then categorize them by their behavioral characteristics. We can’t see atoms, but we know from the data characteristics that they display what they are, and how they will effect our environment.

Tam Tam can be evaluated in the same manner. Once again here is a set of known data that defines the conclusions that I have made about Tam Tam.

1) Tam Tam composed an elaborate thesis, but failed to validate it with requested data for over a year. A logical conclusion is that he may be lying, and therefore has no data to support his thesis.
2) Tam Tam operated a very expensive, high bandwidth, web site with no visible means of paying the bill. When questioned about this, Tam Tam stated that he has received funding from investors in the “French Nose & Co.” investment company which does not exist. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is once again lying, and that he is making money to pay his bill from some other source.
3) Tam Tam’s web site used a very professional, and expensive video presentation to capture a target audience, and led them to believe that he had identified the source of their problem, but did not disclose what the source was. The web page then invited the audience to create a “user login” where it is assumed that the audience will gain greater site privileges, and be given more information. After submitting the personal information, the audience finds that there are no more privileges or information beyond that which has already been given on the first and only page. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is using the video presentation to lure people to submit personal information, which he compiles and sells to data mining companies at a profit.

Now there is your data which is acceptable by scientific methodology. These three simple sets of data lead to a conclusion that Tam Tam is nothing more than a common spammer based upon behavioral characteristics. To reach a different conclusion, you would have to include different data. Tam Tam has been asked to provide data which would offset the balance of data displayed here, but has refused to do so.

Now I have answered your question by basing my conclusion upon scientific methodology.

Now I have a question for you, and will continue to ask this same question of you until you provide a valid answer that is also based upon scientific methodology.

Sabrina, what data can you provide that will indicate that Tam Tam is a valid microbiological researcher who has discovered that the source of the morgellons infection is a man made bacterium, that forms intelligent proteins within us, and is assembling insect parts within our bodies?

We will each go one question at a time here, and will not proceed to the next question until each has submitted a valid, objective answer. This is the biology-online.org scientific forum, not the USA Today entertainment forum.

[Frank N Stein]

Al, you have your web cam turned on there buddy. Please take that bra off of turn the camera off man.

[Frank N Stein]

Al, you have your web cam turned on there buddy. Please take that bra off or turn the camera off man.

[al]

Frank, ya baphomet worshipping fool, just go away

[Frank N Stein]

Have any of you greedy little spammer scum ever wondered if someone has killed themselves because they thought they had insects growing inside them, and didn't want to infect their family?

Chew on that one for a little while you arrogant trash.

[Barz]

Did any of you Morgwatch readers ever wonder why sara conner was the only one posting there?

[ukguy]

Do you have any proof about your theory on tamtam?

OK, that’s a fair question.

Yadda yadda yadda

A fair question indeed Frank.
And still you have no proof to support your accusations?

Have we forgotten about the spy-ware now? Ok! Better focus
attention on something you CAN prove yeah?

You have a half-baked theory about misuse of personal information
provided by those signing up to his site but still this notion is devoid
of any facts and glossed over with 'better watch out' scare mongering.

Produce a shred of credible evidence and people will listen to you.
Make a point without the f*** off attitude and people may tolerate you.

People are willing to listen to TamTam because he has always been
consistent, never offered a cure, never asked for money and remained
dignified in the face of serious opposition. You've had an easy ride in
comparison Frank.

[ukguy]

Have any of you greedy little spammer scum ever wondered if someone has killed themselves because they thought they had insects growing inside them, and didn't want to infect their family?

Chew on that one for a little while you arrogant trash.

Frank, we're not going to kick you when you're down.

Bow out or chill out.

Take it easy Frank.

[Frank N Stein]

Have any of you greedy little spammer scum ever wondered if someone has killed themselves because they thought they had insects growing inside them, and didn't want to infect their family?

Chew on that one for a little while you arrogant trash.

Frank, we're not going to kick you when you're down.

Bow out or chill out.

Take it easy Frank.

No I'm not going to take it easy. It's quite easy to see what has happened here. The Tam alias Sabrina was the one who started this thread to begin with. I suppose you thought that this would be a good little draw to your data mining page. I suppose you were right. I suppose it worked for a while didn't it?

No I'm not going to take it easy. I'm not going to let kids who already are fatigued and have sores on them go to bed at night thinking that they have insects growing inside them so some greedy stinking freaks can sit at their station all day and scam people.

No way trash. The word is out. All it;s going to take is one lawyer with a subpoena to take this whole thing down. I'm just wondering if your clients can also he held liable.

Sleep well tonight scum.

[Frank N Stein]

I wonder what liability lunarpages will have also.

[Frank N Stein]

Heres yours UKGUY, maybe you can answer the question at the bottom

Do you have any proof about your theory on tamtam?

OK, that’s a fair question. Let’s look at what is considered as proof in objective scientific analysis. In logical and scientific analysis, a known object of study is observed and measured for data which define a set characteristics, which in turn support a conclusion. There are many sets of observation which are considered valid. Not all data sets are composed of visible data.

An example of this is atomic observation. No one has seen an atom. Yet we know it exists because of its behavioral characteristics. We know how atoms behave, and therefore draw conclusions based upon their behavior. If one group of atoms behave in one manner, and another group behaves in another manner, we can then categorize them by their behavioral characteristics. We can’t see atoms, but we know from the data characteristics that they display what they are, and how they will effect our environment.

Tam Tam can be evaluated in the same manner. Once again here is a set of known data that defines the conclusions that I have made about Tam Tam.

1) Tam Tam composed an elaborate thesis, but failed to validate it with requested data for over a year. A logical conclusion is that he may be lying, and therefore has no data to support his thesis.
2) Tam Tam operated a very expensive, high bandwidth, web site with no visible means of paying the bill. When questioned about this, Tam Tam stated that he has received funding from investors in the “French Nose & Co.” investment company which does not exist. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is once again lying, and that he is making money to pay his bill from some other source.
3) Tam Tam’s web site used a very professional, and expensive video presentation to capture a target audience, and led them to believe that he had identified the source of their problem, but did not disclose what the source was. The web page then invited the audience to create a “user login” where it is assumed that the audience will gain greater site privileges, and be given more information. After submitting the personal information, the audience finds that there are no more privileges or information beyond that which has already been given on the first and only page. A logical conclusion is that Tam Tam is using the video presentation to lure people to submit personal information, which he compiles and sells to data mining companies at a profit.

Now there is your data which is acceptable by scientific methodology. These three simple sets of data lead to a conclusion that Tam Tam is nothing more than a common spammer based upon behavioral characteristics. To reach a different conclusion, you would have to include different data. Tam Tam has been asked to provide data which would offset the balance of data displayed here, but has refused to do so.

Now I have answered your question by basing my conclusion upon scientific methodology.

Now I have a question for you, and will continue to ask this same question of you until you provide a valid answer that is also based upon scientific methodology.

Sabrina, what data can you provide that will indicate that Tam Tam is a valid microbiological researcher who has discovered that the source of the morgellons infection is a man made bacterium, that forms intelligent proteins within us, and is assembling insect parts within our bodies?

We will each go one question at a time here, and will not proceed to the next question until each has submitted a valid, objective answer. This is the biology-online.org scientific forum, not the USA Today entertainment forum.

[Sabrina]

Weak, Frankie boy, very weak. I expected much much more and at the very least a challenge!

If more than one question is beyond your aptitude, I can be patient with you. Thanks for your last post, I'll read it soon, promise.

You are helping to further this cause how?

So, as Randy always asks, “what have you done for this cause?”

If Frankie boy spent half the amount of time really, “doing something” other than going off on his power trip we might be progressing. So, Frankie, what have you done for the cause? You claim to be infected, let’s hear what you are doing about that. Or, can you only sling insults? To whom have you written to? Congressmen? Senator? CDC? NIH? ANYBODY AT ALL?



For the rest,

It seems that Tam’s idea of investing in research has sparked something don’t ya think? Once again the continued and new contributions to his research have struck a real big cord. Why? Look at the patterns, they remain consistent.

Carry on but please move forward. Do not stop researching and organizing. This has been the result of Frankie boy’s presents. Speaks for its self wouldn’t you agree?

Peace,
Sabrina

Looks like a stall tactic to me guys. Why does this guy want all of our attention and right now? Giving him our attention takes away from our focus. Any body know this creeps story? Has he shared anything really personal that is the slightest bit believable? I have yet to see it if he has.

Somebody please enlighten me on exactly what Tam was posting about before we were so rudely interrupted, please. This is the exact point where we need to resume.

Peace,
Sabrina

P.S.
Thanks for the link South, pretty discusting. I wonder how many people they inform before they use that type of wound dressing on them?