 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005Jan Drew Bears False Witness
Jan Drew accuses me of lying because I claimed that she posted what she believed to be my address. She says I lied because it was not a residential address. It was a business address. I then specified that she posted what she believed to be my business address. She calls me a liar for this. Once I said that Jan Drew claimed she felt better than she had in years within hours of having her amalgams removed. She said it was a lie because it was two years. I then specified it was "two years" but Jan continued to say I was lying because of what I was implying. Jan Drew calls people liars when she cannot dispute what they say. Her accusations of lying is meaningless. Jan Drew repeatedly lies and bears false witness. She repeatedly accuses people of lying when they have not. An example is my assertion that she posted what she believed to be my address. "My address" could be business OR residential. I did not specify originally. Not specifying is not lying and Jan Drew knows it but she is so desperate to call me a liar that she makes that false claim anyway. Note, in any case that Jan Drew cannot explain why she is posting someone's name, business address and phone number in this group. She says it is OK because the information is an advertisement. Why is Jan Drew posting an advertisement in this group?? Is she shilling for a doctor or more likely does she not want anyone to do business with this "Jew Boy". Jan Drew is a despicable liar and bearer of false witness. Her lies have been exposed and all she can do is lie some more. In fact she will respond to this post by starting a new message attacking me with MORE LIES. Just watch. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > Jan Drew accuses me of lying because I claimed that she posted what > she believed to be my address. She says I lied because it was not a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Best defense to logic is ignorance A copy of this post was sent to: GateKeeper@Heaven'sFrontDoor.org. They keep these on archive for all eternity. >> Jan Drew accuses me of lying because I claimed that she posted what >> she believed to be my address. She says I lied because it was not a [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > They keep these on archive for all eternity. YOUR name is there for lying, Mark! I don't suppose Rich could show these posts where I said *it was not a residential It was a business address*. Poor Richard H Jacobson. He wrote: Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Sep 16, 2:50 am). (Too bad, I am keeping it as just one more to prove you are an ABSOLUTELY LIAR) >I have posted NO personal information EVER *This is a whopper of a lie. Jan has posted a number of what she believes to be the names, business addresses and telephone numbers of a number of posters here*. Richard H Jacobson has NOW added the words *business addresses* *Names, business addresses and telephone numbers are personal information. Note that I did not say PRIVATE information. I said PERSONAL (relating to a person)* Note, Richard H Jacobson has NOW added the words *business addresses* Note, Richard H Jacobson is a L I A R!!!!! He thinks by removing his posts, that can not be archived, however he still forgets they are in other people's post and YES indeed, he did say *private* Here is the proof: Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: Vashti <vashti...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:59:38 +0200 Local: Tues, Jul 19 2005 6:59 am Subject: Re: When is stalking not stalking? (was Re: God Bless Dr Breggin) Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original | Report Abuse It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Rich.@. wrote: [snip] > >[stalking snipped] Yup, that's stalking. Trying to post identifying > >offline info to Usenet. > It is *much* worse than that. Jan Drew actually *posted* that she tried > to call what she thought was my phone number and failing to reach me she > said that she called others who might know me (because they had addresses > close to where she thought I was). Now that is pretty abusive behaviour, especially coming from someone claiming to be a Christian. I've read the Bible and can't recall any passage admonishing believers to "Seek out thine enemies and the neighbours of thine enemies"(may have missed it though) but I'm certain there's nothing in there like "Stalk those who expose thine lies for what they are and make known to all where any who would resemble them in name or be their neighbours reside". > Jan Drew is a very disturbed individual. She should be a cautionary tale > to anyone thinking about posting their real names on usenet. Jan Drew is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > despicable anti-semite who agreed with poster Debbee Adams that Hitler was > right in what he did to the Jews. Yup, next stop would be the old "Wir haben es nicht gewußt". :/ [snip] > Whenever Jan DRew posts private personal information, anyone who responds > should make sure that they remove the information from their reply. Anyone > who does not is just as bad as the person posting it originally. If you > are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Yup, I agree... that she posted someone's info is wrong. It should not be repeated. Vashti >>>Jan Drew accuses me of lying because I claimed that she posted what >>>she believed to be my address. She says I lied because it was not a [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > YOUR name is there for lying, Mark! I'll the BigG-y tonight. > I don't suppose Rich could show these posts where I said > > *it was not a residential It was a business address*. I do not suppose that you recall that I said I do not give a cleanse whether it is business or residential since I examine the intent of the stalker, and, in this case, your intent was perfectly clear, to give someone misery. >>>>Jan Drew accuses me of lying because I claimed that she posted what >>>>she believed to be my address. She says I lied because it was not a [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > I'll the BigG-y tonight. YOUR name is there for lying, Mark! >> I don't suppose Rich could show these posts where I said >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stalker, and, in this case, your intent was perfectly clear, to give > someone misery. Irrelevant. I don't suppose Rich could show these posts where I said *it was not a residential It was a business address*. Poor Richard H Jacobson. He wrote: Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Sep 16, 2:50 am). (Too bad, I am keeping it as just one more to prove you are an ABSOLUTELY LIAR) >I have posted NO personal information EVER *This is a whopper of a lie. Jan has posted a number of what she believes to be the names, business addresses and telephone numbers of a number of posters here*. Richard H Jacobson has NOW added the words *business addresses* *Names, business addresses and telephone numbers are personal information. Note that I did not say PRIVATE information. I said PERSONAL (relating to a person)* Note, Richard H Jacobson has NOW added the words *business addresses* Note, Richard H Jacobson is a L I A R!!!!! He thinks by removing his posts, that can not be archived, however he still forgets they are in other people's post and YES indeed, he did say *private* Here is the proof: Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: Vashti <vashti...@gmail.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:59:38 +0200 Local: Tues, Jul 19 2005 6:59 am Subject: Re: When is stalking not stalking? (was Re: God Bless Dr Breggin) Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original | Report Abuse It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Rich.@. wrote: [snip] > >[stalking snipped] Yup, that's stalking. Trying to post identifying > >offline info to Usenet. > It is *much* worse than that. Jan Drew actually *posted* that she tried > to call what she thought was my phone number and failing to reach me she > said that she called others who might know me (because they had addresses > close to where she thought I was). Now that is pretty abusive behaviour, especially coming from someone claiming to be a Christian. I've read the Bible and can't recall any passage admonishing believers to "Seek out thine enemies and the neighbours of thine enemies"(may have missed it though) but I'm certain there's nothing in there like "Stalk those who expose thine lies for what they are and make known to all where any who would resemble them in name or be their neighbours reside". > Jan Drew is a very disturbed individual. She should be a cautionary tale > to anyone thinking about posting their real names on usenet. Jan Drew is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > despicable anti-semite who agreed with poster Debbee Adams that Hitler was > right in what he did to the Jews. Yup, next stop would be the old "Wir haben es nicht gewußt". :/ [snip] > Whenever Jan DRew posts private personal information, anyone who responds > should make sure that they remove the information from their reply. Anyone > who does not is just as bad as the person posting it originally. If you > are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Yup, I agree... that she posted someone's info is wrong. It should not be repeated. Vashti Cue Richard H Jacobson to Cue Jan >>>>>Jan Drew accuses me of lying because I claimed that she posted what >>>>>she believed to be my address. She says I lied because it was not a [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > YOUR name is there for lying, Mark! How do you know? Are you deputized or something? >>>I don't suppose Rich could show these posts where I said >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Irrelevant. I know you say it is irrelevant, but, you are wrong. The posters intent is all that really matters. When you post, it is intended to do harm. Yawn...snip of Jan's obsession with Rich. |
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.