@admin Are you saying that he cannot function like a normal person?

Posted by: @dejan

↑

I'm not spreading propaganda, I just wanted to convey what Waclaw wrote on the World Supercentenarian Forum, that was the link I provided there, I have no opinion on it and stated my neutrality.

One person asked why Gerontology Wiki doesn't recognize LQ and other validations, I just tried to answer that question, I didn't mean to spread any propaganda, I have nothing to do with it...

The easiest way to explain it is to cite the original source where I read it, after the link was removed, I posted screenshots from that public post, however that was also deleted, then ok, it would have been better if I hadn't commented anything. I had intend to answer someone's question, nothing more than that.

Yet we can all read that what Waclaw writes over there creates a false narrative. He lives in his own bubble and is knowingly and deliberately presenting the GRG (and himself) as the victim in this new situation - a manipulative, regrettable, and questionable tactic.

He seems to have forgotten, for example, that Robert Young is a minority shareholder of LQ - so basically he's saying that his own head/boss/supervisor (whatever their professional relationship is) is not very ethical, as RY is involved in a "for profit" organisation (even though we've all read that any money LQ makes is directly invested back into science, and to improve both the field and the acknowledgement of supercentenarian research).

He's keen to mention that the GRG is associated with the GWR, but fails to mention that the GWR is a commercial enterprise (note how it has a business model) : card stacking (i.e. Waclaw's favourite form of propaganda) at its finest.

He tries to invalidate LQ by implying it is not a professional organisation because it relies on laymen (something which I strongly doubt, looking at who is involved), yet most of the fresh GRG correspondents don't even hold a degree in gerontology (or even a degree at all). And even Waclaw himself, the self-proclaimed scientist, does not have a degree in gerontology, as far as everyone is aware.

And there's a lot more to counter every bit of nonsense Waclaw spits out.

So yes, when you reproduce anything that Waclaw's saying without any filter (and we can all read your stance on the GRG / Waclaw has changed since you've become a GRG correspondent), then the GSF sees it as its duty to add a disclaimer / to counter that. There's definitely room for a GRG perspective here, but right now it's really trying to single itself out in a de(con)structive way - and that's something that it should be called out for.

@Dejan

By the way, a thought of mine. Once upon a time you were very active in our forum. Then you decided to join a one-man-show-club. For most members here it seemed that you do have other priorities and left us. You can´t have your cake and eat it too. One could say you were/are disloyal to us.

I don´t have anything against you as a person, but I think you should consider very well and conscientiously where you want to be active or not.