 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005Peter Bowditch's LYING Websites (was Medical Cartel Hoaxes)
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message news:juuch196qpocqe4cjo8cb8uftv2ukgd78u@4ax.com... > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: > >>"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message >>news:ABsRe.7681$UE2.2911@tornado.socal.rr.com... >>> >>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>> news:EknRe.78667$084.39122@attbi_s22... >>> >>> So, is that the best you can do? Peter is a "blatant liar" and Ratbags >>> is >>> a "lying website" because Peter did not PROVE that certain accusations >>> were made against him? That's way too thin. >> >>So that's the best, you can do?? >> >>Peter makes LYING claims and he can NOT prove them. > > What claims are they? The same ones that appeared several times in this thread. This same old game repeated game won't work. >>It simply means, he can NOT because *he* knows he lied. > > I know nothing of the sort. Uh huh. Why have you not proved them? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ >>It does NOT get any clearly than that. >> >> Peter's website is confrontational and controversial, and is bound to >>generate all sorts of responses, so why >> >>> should we not believe that Peter got exactly the indictments he says he >>> did. >> >>Peter clearly stated in HIS OWN WORDS what others; said! >> >>The FACT is, they did NOT. > > And you know this how? Because I have read all the threads, concerning Dr. Patel, NONE of what you stated was said, but you knew that, as I asked you these question in those threads. >>> And why should he have to prove his statements about what happened to >>> him? >> >>Your twisting won't work, it is NOT a matter of what *happened to him* it >>is >>a matter of what he claimed others' said! >> >>> The bottom line is that you still have not exposed a single lie on >>> Peter's >>> website. >> >>The bottom line is, I have exposed the MANY LIES on his website, anf I >>have >>exposed that YOU ARE A REPEATED L I A R! > > As you have not exposed a single lie on my site, it is stretching the > truth to call the count of zero "MANY LIES". I have exposed the MANY LIES on your websites! YOU have not PROVEN a single claim you have made, that is listed in this thread! The burden of proof is YOUR responsibility. >> Your accusation that it is a "lying website" is still the lie here. >> >>L I A R! >> >>it was claimed that by not having something to say about him I was >>condoning >>his behavior >> >>I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was all part of >>some >>form of cover-up. >> >>Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a >>little >>better. Perhaps we could call these people genuinely concerned citizens >>(Guardian Angels more appropriately)that have to endure enormous pressure >>to >>do what is right. >> >>Is anyone offering them fame, money and flights ? >> >>No, I thought not. But Organised Medicine did for Dr Patel. >> >>But of course Peter knew all this. >> >> It is rather bizarre to see people holding these >> comments up as examples of the incorrect thinking <snip> >> >>Quackery supporters are using Dr Patel as an example of the dangers of >> real medicine as compared to the absolute safety of alternatives >> >>There is NOTHING that is absolutely safe. This is a totally STUPID >>statement!!! >> >> Do show us where Dr. Haley's fans said he has apologized! > > This thread is not about Boyd Haley. It is about the MANY LIES ON YOUR WEBSITE! >>> --Rich <snip PROVEN LYING websites nad PROVEN SPAM.> >>>Peter makes LYING claims and he can NOT prove them. >>>The bottom line is, I have exposed the MANY LIES on his website, anf I >>>have >>>exposed that YOU ARE A REPEATED L I A R! >I have exposed the MANY LIES on your websites! >>>L I A R! >It is about the MANY LIES ON YOUR WEBSITE! ><snip PROVEN LYING websites nad PROVEN SPAM.> >On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:57:03 GMT, "LadyLollipop" ><LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >>Genesis 27:19-20, 24. Jacob had to lie again to cover up his first lie ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > you stated was said, but you knew that, as I asked you these question in > those threads. Okay, Jan, Peter did NOT say that the accusations he received were in the form of posts to this newsgroup. The world is bigger than m.h.a., you know. Just because you did not see the words here does not mean that he did not get accused in other forums, or by e-mail. So your "proof" is bogus. >>>> And why should he have to prove his statements about what happened to >>>> him? >>> >>>Your twisting won't work, it is NOT a matter of what *happened to him* it >>>is >>>a matter of what he claimed others' said! And you have NO reason to believe they did not say what Peter said they did. >>>> The bottom line is that you still have not exposed a single lie on >>>> Peter's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The burden of proof is YOUR responsibility. No, YOU are claiming there are lies. Show us the lies. YOU are the one that recently pointed out that the m.h.a. charter states that posters are not expected to provide proof of every statement they make. >>> Your accusation that it is a "lying website" is still the lie here. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>condoning >>>his behavior There is no reason not to believe this. >>>I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was all part of >>>some >>>form of cover-up. There is no reason not to believe this accusation was made, even if it did not appear in m.h.a. >>>Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a >>>little [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > It is about the MANY LIES ON YOUR WEBSITE! Many lies? You have yet to show us one.  Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > did not get accused in other forums, or by e-mail. So your "proof" is > bogus. Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:04:23 GMT Local: Mon, Jun 27 2005 2:04 am Subject: Dr Death >>>>> And why should he have to prove his statements about what happened to >>>>> him? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And you have NO reason to believe they did not say what Peter said they > did. Just *WHERE* was it claimed that by not having something to say about him I was condoning his behaviour ? Just *WHERE* was it said that I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was all part of some form of cover-up? He has a responsibility to prove his claims, but you knew that. >>>>> The bottom line is that you still have not exposed a single lie on >>>>> Peter's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >No, <snip> YES!!!!!!! >>>> Your accusation that it is a "lying website" is still the lie here. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is no reason not to believe this. *I don't give a damn if Peter lies to this newsgroup, his mother or the pope* Rich Shewmaker >>>>I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was all part of >>>>some >>>>form of cover-up. > > There is no reason not to believe this accusation was made, even if it did > not appear in m.h.a. Just *WHERE* was it said that I was protecting him by not calling him a quack and it was all part of some form of cover-up? >>>>Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a >>>>little [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Many lies? You have yet to show us one. >>>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >Just *WHERE* was it claimed that by not having something to say about him I >was condoning his behaviour ? Just *WHERE* did I mention your name? You are not the only anti-medicine whacko in the world. >Just *WHERE* was it said that I was protecting him by not calling him a >quack and it was all part of some form of cover-up? Just *WHERE* did I mention your name? You are not the only anti-medicine whacko in the world. >He has a responsibility to prove his claims, but you knew that. > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Just *WHERE* was it said that I was protecting him by not calling him a >quack and it was all part of some form of cover-up? Just *WHERE* did I mention your name? You are not the only anti-medicine whacko in the world. >>>>>Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a >>>>>little [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> Many lies? You have yet to show us one. > SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Oh dear, it appears, Peter can't answer, he needs the help of another liar. >>>>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>> >>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ These lines are STILL BLANK!!! >>>>>>It does NOT get any clearly than that. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Just *WHERE* did I mention your name? You are not the only > anti-medicine whacko in the world. Irrelevant. It is noted, you STILL have NOT answered the question! >>Just *WHERE* was it said that I was protecting him by not calling him a >>quack and it was all part of some form of cover-up? > > Just *WHERE* did I mention your name? You are not the only > anti-medicine whacko in the world. Irrelevant. It is noted, you STILL have NOT answered the question! >>He has a responsibility to prove his claims, but you knew that. >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Just *WHERE* did I mention your name? You are not the only > anti-medicine whacko in the world. Irrelevant. It is noted, you STILL have NOT answered the question! Poor, floundering, Peter, he has gone from insults to irrelevance. He STILL can NOT prove his LYING CLAIMS. >>>>>>Your reference to better methods of whistle could perhaps be termed a >>>>>>little [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> >>> Many lies? You have yet to show us one. > It is noted, you STILL have NOT answered the question! It is noted, you STILL have not shown a single lie on Peter's website. Trying to divert the issue with "questions" is not going to work. There is no lie here except yours. Every time you say "lying website" it is a LIE! Every time you say "proven liar" it is a LIE! In fact, nearly every time you post to this newsgroup you LIE! You don't know what a lie is. You don't know what proof is. You have NO qualifications to be the lie cop on this newsgroup. AND, you have blown your credibility here completely. Nobody here (except a few deluded alties) believes ANYTHING you say here. So why don't you just save yourself some time and quit calling everybody you disagree with a "liar"? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or the pope. > --Rich Shewmaker > I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or > the pope. But I AM getting damn tired of YOU lying to Peter, me, this newsgroup, and everybody else. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >> I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or >> the pope. > >But I AM getting damn tired of YOU lying to Peter, me, this newsgroup, and >everybody else. Cue Jan to ridicule you for being selective about who you care lies. Sorry to belabor the obvious. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or the pope. > --Rich Shewmaker > I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or > the > pope. > >> --Rich Shewmaker Ah, yes. The fingers-in-the-ears, "LA, LA, LA, LA," response. Pretty weak, liar Jan. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or the pope. --Rich Shewmaker |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.