 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / November 2005WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Monopolies
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their Monopolies To : All participants and readers of misc.health.alternative + other health-related newsgroups Please be aware that many comments and responses posted to this forum are not those of casual posters interested in an honest exchange. A number of individuals with ties to industry are engaging an effort to shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers"(*). Pharma Bloggers on usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog. Most of these people are likely to have an association with a PR campaign whose "blogging" efforts are underwritten by the media and marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns of behaviour in posting. Here are a few points to remember while participating in usenet newsgroups: 1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. 2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management "healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine. 3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to have the last word. They rarely fail at either. 4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation. 5. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You will see this tactic used more often than any other. 6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting" websites designed to denigrate natural medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these promoters of mainstream medicine belies their ties to industry. Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward others, and if that response is an attempt to denigrate natural medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a "Pharma Blogger." Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on a daily basis than virtually anyone else, which is why I am posting this alert. If you find it odd that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The Pharma Bloggers have over-run the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma, mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply frightened away. That's a primary goal of these industry media jockeys, and they are very good at it. (*) Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet to: 1) promote and defend maintstream medicine while denigrating natural medicine approaches; 2) attack others who express a preference for natural medicine, or who question the value of mainstream medicine; and 3) cite a variety of "junk medical science" funded by industry for the purpose of establishing markets for marginally effective, and often dangerous, medical products and devices. PeterB > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > Monopolies ... > (*) Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet to: 1) promote > and defend maintstream medicine while denigrating natural medicine [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > PeterB This is Usenet, not the Internet. This is a newsgroup, not a blog. Can't you get that simple concept into your head? > > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Can't you get that simple concept into your head? Most usenet newsgroups are hosted on Internet servers, and most people rely on Internet servers to reach them, so there is no contradiction. As for the distinction between a "newsgroup" and a "blog," I never said "blog," I referred to "blogging," explaining my use of the term as distinct from standard blogging. Perhaps you should improve your reading skills. PB >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Most usenet newsgroups are hosted on Internet servers, and most people > rely on Internet servers to reach them, so there is no contradiction. No. It is a seperate server for Usenet. Some people may use groups.google.com --- but my ISP contracts with a seperate company to provide the Usenet server. I actually have a seperate account from my Internet AND even emial accounts to log into the Usenet server. > As for the distinction between a "newsgroup" and a "blog," I never said > "blog," I referred to "blogging," explaining my use of the term as > distinct from standard blogging. Perhaps you should improve your > reading skills. > > PB You are still using the terms very very wrong. "Blogging" is the use of a "Web Log", an online diary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogging ... Some blogs do have comment areas that sometimes turn into a discussion. This is a newsgroup, which is a type of discussion forum. There are other types of discussion forums that are available through some internet service providers (for instance when I had a Compuserve account I frequented their forums, my present ISP also has exclusive forums, but I do not use those). Also, there are Yahoo groups, and forums available on several websites (like www.snopes.com ). Get a clue. > >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > No. It is a seperate server for Usenet. Usenet RESDIDES on it's own servers, that doesn't mean the Internet is not used to access Usenet newsgroups. Again, your point is meaningless. > Some people may use > groups.google.com I'm sure that most people frequenting newsgroups these days, in fact, are using Internet portals. > --- but my ISP contracts with a seperate company to > provide the Usenet server. Well, bully for you. > I actually have a seperate account from my > Internet AND even emial accounts to log into the Usenet server. That doesn't make such an arrangement typical for everyone else. > > As for the distinction between a "newsgroup" and a "blog," I never said > > "blog," I referred to "blogging," explaining my use of the term as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are still using the terms very very wrong. sue me. > "Blogging" is the use of a > "Web Log", an online diary: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogging ... Some blogs do have comment areas > that sometimes turn into a discussion. And this is a newsgroup, but how much content here is actually "news?" Like all social venues, this virtual community does not conform to one definition of terms or substance. > This is a newsgroup, which is a type of discussion forum. You figured that out all by yourself? > There are other > types of discussion forums that are available through some internet service > providers (for instance when I had a Compuserve account I frequented their > forums, my present ISP also has exclusive forums, but I do not use those)... And this is relevant because you want to demonstrate that you have maybe three neurons left firing in your head? > Also, there are Yahoo groups, and forums available on several websites (like > www.snopes.com ). And Yahoo happens to be an Internet portal, dufus. > Get a clue. Grow a frontal lobe. PB >>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Can't you get that simple concept into your head? *P*ontificating*B*ullshitter cannot find his head. > >>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > >>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > *P*ontificating*B*ullshitter cannot find his head. Pharma Blogging comment noted. Can't you come up with something even remotely witty? Not in the script, eh? PB >Pharma Blogging comment noted. Can't you come up with something even >remotely witty? Not in the script, eh? > >PB Another name for Pharma Blogger is Ratbags ... just another of the overhyped Quack Teams that fill blogs and Usenet ... See them lined up together: http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Probert (many aliases) http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Langer http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Gorski http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Polevoy (in drag as "Vera Teasdale" etc.) http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Thorson http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Bowditch http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Lowry http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Shoemaker http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Kinghoff (many aliases) http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Nidiffer http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield (Ifully believe Cathy B is Dalefield and lies about it as is her way) >>Pharma Blogging comment noted. Can't you come up with something even >>remotely witty? Not in the script, eh? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See them lined up together: You have been quiet for a while and some intelligent discussion managed to get going. See the parallel? >>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Pharma Blogging comment noted. Can't you come up with something even > remotely witty? Not in the script, eh? You are not sufficiently mentally stimulating to reach my humor center. >Pharma Blogging comment noted. Can't you come up with something even >remotely witty? Not in the script, eh? > >PB Another name for Pharma Blogger is Ratbags ... just another of the overhyped Quack Teams that fill blogs and Usenet ... See them lined up together: http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Probert (many aliases) www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.html http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Langer http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Gorski http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Polevoy (in drag as "Vera Teasdale" etc.) http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Thorson http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Bowditch http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Lowry http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Shoemaker http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Kinghoff (many aliases) http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Nidiffer http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield (Ifully believe Cathy B is Dalefield and lies about it as is her way) >>Pharma Blogging comment noted. Can't you come up with something even >>remotely witty? Not in the script, eh? >> >>PB You have been quiet for a while. Do you have anything new? or, are you just the old boring Ilena, who is Jan's handler? > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > Monopolies Ah, PeterB, I see you cashed your paycheck from the alt-med industry. What else could have motivated you to pick up your alt-blogging profession again. They obviously didn't give you a raise, since it's the same ol' as before. Maybe you should put in extra hours. That's at least what got me a free ride with the companies' jet! You should have seen it - champagne, kaviar, free Viagra and Vioxx. You're really on the wrong side dude! > > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > - champagne, kaviar, free Viagra and Vioxx. You're really on the wrong > side dude! Ah, perhaps you should look into Probert's comedy class, there may still be openings. Don't tell me, you're already a graduate? Is that why I'm always laughing at you...? PB >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PB Like other altie whackos, you are lacking in a sense of humor. I thought the champagne and Viagra bit was funny. ;o) Rich > >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Like other altie whackos, you are lacking in a sense of humor. I thought the > champagne and Viagra bit was funny. Now that's funny, because I would apply the term "altie whacko" to you, since "alternative" is logically whatever has arrived latest on the scene, ie., pharmaceutical innovations. Natural medicine, by contrast, is millions of years old and has evolved with Man to provide homeostatic balance without dangerous side effects. In terms of metabolic function, genetics, and adaptation, therefore, you are the "whacko," not me. PB >> >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >> >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > PB Okay, so that's funny too. ;o) Rich >> >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >> >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > PB They have their going ons behind the scenes in private e-mail, what sissies and wimps. >They have their going ons behind the scenes in private e-mail, what sissies >and wimps. >On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:57:03 GMT, "LadyLollipop" ><LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>only those filled with hate have a >>need to belittle and call names. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > They have their going ons behind the scenes in private e-mail, what sissies > and wimps. How do you know that? Are you rifling through my inbox? >>>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > How do you know that? Are you rifling through my inbox? Ummm, no, I read Rich's post, I do not do things, like you do. >>>>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Ummm, no, I read Rich's post, I do not do things, like you do. I do not rifle through any inbox except my own. You should be ashamed of yourself for accusing me of that. And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that there are emails being passed back and forth. Only you PARANOIA (which is a symptom of being a cyberstalker) makes you say that. >>>>>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I do not rifle through any inbox except my own. You should be ashamed of > yourself for accusing me of that. Poor Mark. > And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that there > are emails being passed back and forth. Poor Mark. Mark == Check your e-mail --Rich > Only you PARANOIA (which is a symptom of being a cyberstalker) makes you > say that. Poor Mark Mark == Check your e-mail --Rich >>>>>>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > --Rich Yews, Jan, rich wrote that. What makes you "think" that it was not posted just to get your goat? Baaa-Baaa Chuckle. "Yews, Jan, rich wrote that. What makes you "think" that it was not posted just to get your goat? Baaa-Baaa Chuckle." ~ Mark Noir "Or bring you in To the foooooooooooooollllldddddddddddddddddddd ......................." ~ Black Chalk >> Check your e-mail >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Chuckle. Lollipop-- Check your e-mail. ;o) 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/ >>>Check your e-mail >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > http://www.skeptic.com/ > http://www.csicop.org/ Rich, check your email. Peter, did you get yours? The meeting is tomorrow night (day for Peter). >>>>>>>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >> >> --Rich <snip misspelled back peddling> *And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that there are emails being passed back and forth* Poor pathetic, Mark. >>> --Rich >> > <snip misspelled back peddling> > > *And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that there > are emails being passed back and forth* Have you ever heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Is says that I can e-mail whomever I please. Even you if I so choose, and other than deleting it unopened, you can't do a thing about it no matter how much it annoys you. Perhaps Mark and I are discussing ways to reduce medical errors in hospitals. Would that annoy you too? Oh, and if you are going to appoint yourself the group's English teacher and criticize everyone's typos, you had better make sure your own grammer and spelling are consistently correct. Your history in that regard is far from faultless.  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/ >>>> --Rich >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >everyone's typos, you had better make sure your own grammer and spelling are >consistently correct. Your history in that regard is far from faultless. Not the point, she was accused of being paranoid for her statement. reread And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that there are emails being passed back and forth. Only you PARANOIA (which is a symptom of being a cyberstalker) makes you say that. Someone owes LaddyL an apology. Thanks for the laugh LL. > >>>> --Rich > >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Not the point, she was accused of being paranoid for her statement. > reread Her actual post was: "They have their going ons behind the scenes in private e-mail, what sissies and wimps." Sounds paranoid to me. And somewhat bizarre. > And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that > there are emails being passed back and forth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for the laugh LL. >> >>>> --Rich >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Sounds paranoid to me. And somewhat bizarre. Of course, since you engage in this behind the scenes sissies and wimps activity, <excatholic>, while others are up front and have no need to play this games. >> And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that >> there are emails being passed back and forth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Thanks for the laugh LL. >>>>> --Rich >>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Thanks for the laugh LL. Lollipop IS paranoid, and has a pathological fear of e-mails. If you send her one, even by accident, she goes ballistic. It's none of her damn business whether Mark and I e-mail each other, and nobody owes the meddling old fool any apologies. 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/ >>>>>>--Rich >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > business whether Mark and I e-mail each other, and nobody owes the meddling > old fool any apologies. Major agreement. For all Jan knows, we could be discussing nude hiking at the South Pole, now that it is nearly sun-up. >>>>>>>--Rich >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Major agreement. How SURPRISING! NOT! <snip> >>>>>>>>--Rich >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > <snip> What she snipped: For all Jan knows, we could be discussing nude hiking at the South Pole, now that it is nearly sun-up. Yes, I confess...Rich and I are planning the first annual MHA Nude Hike to the South Pole. Jan is not invited. >>>>>> --Rich >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Lollipop IS paranoid, and has a pathological fear of e-mails. If you send > her one, even by accident, she goes ballistic. HO hum, another REPEATED LIE. Rich send me one and it was NOT an accident. It was NOT posted both on the newsgroup and sent to me, it was ONLY sent to me, there is the proof Rich is LYING!!!! Those who have sent me one ,when it was actually a mistake, have received a most POLITE e-mail from me in return, and this has been proven. Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry From: "Tony Bad" <SpamSpamS...@bakedbeans.spam> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:13:41 -0400 Local: Tues,Jul 2 2002 3:13 pm Subject: Apology to Jan Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse I inadvertently sent what was intended as a NG reply directly to Jan's e-mail address. I am always irritated when folks do this, so it bothers me that I did it to Jan. While we clearly do not see eye to eye on dental topics, Jan was very polite in handling this error on my part. Thanks Jan, and sorry about that. Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry From: "carabelli" <huer...@worldnet.att.net> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 01:36:29 GMT Local: Mon,Nov 15 2004 8:36 pm Subject: Re: To Jan Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20041115200729.12301.00000785@mb-m28.aol.com... >>>Subject: Re: To Jan >>>From: "carabelli" redsl...@att.net.not >>>Date: 11/15/2004 7:20 AM Pacific Standard Time >>>Message-id: <AO3md.22439$7i4.12...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> >>>"Tony Bad" <SpamSpamS...@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message >>>news:gw3md.6145$GV4.6311043@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... <snip Joel's blathering> I did the same thing once, and apologized and Jan was actually very polite >>>and > gracious...even though we had previously exchanged rather nasty >>>> comments. > T >Ditto that for me - however this was a few years back. >>carabelli >Honesty, a breath of fresh air. >>Thanks, Dan. >>Jan You are welcome. carabelli It's none of her damn > business whether Mark and I e-mail each other, and nobody owes the > meddling old fool any apologies. Hmmmm, it is everyone's business what is posted here. NOW we see a bit of the *gang's* double standards. Nothing new!! >HO hum, another REPEATED LIE. Rich send me one and it was NOT an accident. >It was NOT posted both on the newsgroup and sent to me, it was ONLY sent to >me, there is the proof he is LYING!!!! Jan Drew is one to talk about lying. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge not, lest you be judged. If Jan Drew is truly a Christian why is she casting the first stone when her lies are a matter of record. Why is she judging others of what she is guilty?? Answer: She is a hypocrite. >Jan Drew claims that she almost died of mercury poisoning from >amalgams and that removing the amalgams saved her life. I proved that [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > >Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>--Rich >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Someone owes LaddyL an apology. She gets an apology when she apologizes for all of her transgeressions, including her outright anti-Judaism bigotry. > Thanks for the laugh LL. Yes, she is a character. A sad one, though. Poor Mark ,<snip old worn out diversion> >>>>>>--Rich >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Yes, she is a character. A sad one, though. > Poor Mark ,<snip old worn out diversion> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> >>>Someone owes LaddyL an apology. Without noting it, Jan snipped: She gets an apology when she apologizes for all of her transgeressions, including her outright anti-Judaism bigotry. >>>Thanks for the laugh LL. >> >>Yes, she is a character. A sad one, though. >>>> --Rich >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a thing about it no matter how much it annoys you. Perhaps Mark and I are > discussing ways to reduce medical errors in hospitals <snip> ROTFLOL. Once again you just PROVED yourself a LIAR. Rich Sep 16, 8:27 am Subject: Jan Drew/ LadyLollipop's New Tactic Mark Probert" <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:2HeWe.6577$TA2.283@fe09.lga... > Rich.@. wrote: >> Recently Jan Drew has been completely dismissing any comments exposing >> her lies, bigotry and hypocrisy by accusing individuals of being >> "cyberstalkers" simply for responding to her posts. >> Respond to a post of hers with a critical comment and immediately you are >> branded as a "cyberstalker". >> This recent tactic is very similar to her tactic of accusing anyone who >> endorses science based medicine that Jan Drew's disagrees with as members >> of or brainwashed by evil "organized medicine". >> These tactics confirm that it is completely pointless to attempt to >> discuss anything with Jan Drew. However as I have said before it is >> important to expose her lies, hypocrisy and bigotry when appropriate. > Perhaps we need a well written, well documented "Jan Drew/LadyLillipoop > FAQ" that could be posted in response to all of her posts. Mark == Check your e-mail --Rich >>>>>--Rich >>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > --Rich I did. I got the email about the nude hiking to the south pole. >>>>>>--Rich >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >I did. I got the email about the nude hiking to the south pole. It's almost sunrise. Will I bring the beer and the sauce for the penguins like last year? 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 >>>>>>>--Rich >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >It's almost sunrise. Will I bring the beer and the sauce for the >penguins like last year? Oops!! That was supposed to go by email but I hit the wrong button by mistake. Jan will be quoting from that great theological work, The Life of Brian, and will say that I am a naughty boy. 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 >>>>>>>--Rich >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > It's almost sunrise. Will I bring the beer and the sauce for the > penguins like last year? yes...and we can all roast...oops...I mean toast Jan....like we did last year. >>>>> --Rich >>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > --Rich Yes. I sent an e-mail to Mark. Is that any of your business whatsoever? Why don't you keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong? 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/ >Yes. I sent an e-mail to Mark. Is that any of your business whatsoever? Why >don't you keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong? Have you considered the possibility that if Jan Drew was like Pinocchio that her nose would be so long that it would be virtually impossible to keep it out of anything? Cue Jan to call me a liar and post her picture demonstrating my speculation as false. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>>>>> --Rich >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Yes. I sent an e-mail to Mark. Is that any of your business whatsoever? > Why don't you keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong? Once again you just PROVED yourself a LIAR. *Perhaps Mark and I are discussing ways to reduce medical errors in hospitals* Subject: Jan Drew/ LadyLollipop's New Tactic ======= Furthermore YOU don't tell me what my business is, nor where my nose belongs, get over your control problem. > --Rich >> Yes. I sent an e-mail to Mark. Is that any of your business whatsoever? >> Why don't you keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >*Perhaps Mark and I are discussing ways to reduce medical errors in >hospitals* This is fascinating. Rich says "I sent an e-mail to Mark". And he said "Perhaps Mark and I are discussing ways to reduce medical errors in hospitals". Jan seems to think that the two statements contradict themselves. Jan is much sicker than I thought. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance >>> Yes. I sent an e-mail to Mark. Is that any of your business whatsoever? >>> Why don't you keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Jan seems to think that the two statements contradict themselves. Jan > is much sicker than I thought. Jan has not even a rudamentary understanding of elementary logic. I don't know that that's a sickness, but her remarkable compulsion to display that ignorance may be. --Rich --"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain Subject: Jan Drew/ LadyLollipop's New Tactic ======= Furthermore YOU don't tell me what my business is, nor where my nose belongs, get over your control problem. -------------- Then I shall tell you! Just as I told you to stop advocating acupuncture (your endorsement is very harmful!), I'm telling you to abandon EXPRESSING your bigotry. I would tell you to stop feeling it, but that would leave you completely insensate. DO AS I HAVE SAID! > Subject: Jan Drew/ LadyLollipop's New Tactic > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > DO AS I HAVE SAID! LOL >>>>>>>>>>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>>>>>>>>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >> > <snip misspelled back peddling> Yes, Jan, rich wrote that. What makes you "think" that it was not posted just to get your goat? Baaa-Baaa Chuckle. > *And, of course, reading Rich's posts do not give anyone a hint that there > are emails being passed back and forth* > > Poor pathetic, Mark. Jan does not like being played with. Lollypop wrote: >> <snip misspelled back peddling> Doncha just love PKB? "Pedalling" is the word. Cue Jan to call me a LIAR and say that typos don't count. Cue me to say "solecism", not "typo". 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 > Lollypop wrote: > >>><snip misspelled back peddling> > > Doncha just love PKB? "Pedalling" is the word. SuperSpeller tp Jan's rescue.... Jan was referring to chiropractic advertising. > Cue Jan to call me a LIAR and say that typos don't count. Cue me to > say "solecism", not "typo". > > >> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > > >> > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > since "alternative" is logically whatever has arrived latest on the > scene, ie., pharmaceutical innovations. No. Luddite. I suppose the general US population is alternative because they aren't Amish? alternative (l-tr'n-tv, l-) adj. 1. Allowing or necessitating a choice between two or more things. 2. a. Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle. b. Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards. However, since PeteyB is fond of giving words his own idiosyncratic definitions, what-everr. > Natural medicine, by contrast, > is millions of years old and has evolved with Man to provide > homeostatic balance without dangerous side effects. Strange, isn't it then, that average lifespan has only increased tremendously in the last couple of centuries? > In terms of > metabolic function, genetics, and adaptation, therefore, you are the > "whacko," not me. Bless. Cathy > PB >>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their >>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PB Wasn't one of the tactics of the bloggers to 'use ridicule'? And what tactic did you just use? Could it be I'm wrong an you're not an alt-blogger, but a guy who gets paid by 'the industry' to make alt-med folks look bad? Could it? *P*ontificating*B*ullshitter wrote: > Ah, perhaps you should look into Probert's comedy class, there may > still be openings. Don't tell me, you're already a graduate? Is that > why I'm always laughing at you...? Sorry *P**B* but we do not do alternative comedy (comedy that is not funny). 5 minutes here and resident troll noted :-) <snip> > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Maintain Their > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while > denigrating the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I am glad you mentioned industry. Is not the natural medicine group an industry? Don't they make their money denigrating mainstream medicine? I refer to > these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers"(*). Pharma Bloggers on > usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns of > behaviour in posting. Who are the natural health industry bloggers? > Here are a few points to remember while participating in usenet > newsgroups: > > 1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to > silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. Natural medicine bloggers use denigation and insults of conventional medicine. You can't see any comment from the natural health alternative group that doesn't start off with conventional medicine is in it for the money and never cures anything. > 2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the > effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management > "healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine. Natural people attack conventional medicine as paid for by the industry and full of biased scientific studies paid for by pharm companies. They then state that no studies are needed for showing effictiveness with their products. > 3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses > simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to > have the last word. They rarely fail at either. Most of the posts here and other NG are almost composed entirely about natural health alternatives and for good reason. This is where the alternative people can have a say. They use it as a sales pitch. > 4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual > participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, > question, or observation. ??? Fater at responding to negative posts? Natural health people are very original in their sales pitches for new products or treatments. They are the first to post these. > 5. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay > fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to > isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You > will see this tactic used more often than any other. Are you saying that their is no consensus that conventional medicine is good. Oh, I see the real consensus is that conventional medicine is bad. Alternative med people always hide behind the conspiracy theory. The Kevin T theory of how to make money by telling people they have the answer to health issues that mainstream medicine doesn't want you to know about. If you have an idiotic treatment that most people would laugh at then you have to jump and hide the conspiracy theory in order to sell it. Tell me how do you cure cancer again? > 6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to > "quack-busting" websites designed to denigrate natural medicine > approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer > protection," the extreme bias of these promoters of mainstream medicine > belies their ties to industry. There are no alternative health care websites? Give me a break. Why not sign up for KT newsletter that only costs $6 a month? > Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense of mainstream > medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward > others, and if that response is an attempt to denigrate natural > medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a "Pharma Blogger." Who's defense of mainstream medicine? Mainstream medicine needs no defense. If you think it does then you are in big trouble. I feel I must warn you that hospitals are full of doctors that practice mainstream medicine. Don't get sick buddy. > Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to usenet on > a daily basis than virtually anyone else, which is why I am posting > this alert. If you find it odd that so few people on health-related > usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it > isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been > intimidated into silence. Here's a handy clue and one you did not notice. Sci. stands for Science. Sci.med. stands for the science of medicine. Don't post to medical newsgroups. Post to misc.health. alternative where it belongs. Get out of the kitchen. >Natural medicine bloggers use denigation and insults of conventional >medicine. You can't see any comment from the natural health alternative >group that doesn't start off with conventional medicine is in it for the >money and never cures anything. Like this? Gabe Mirkin, M.D. Many recent studies show that most gastroenterologists may be wrong when they do not prescribe antibiotics to treat Crohn's disease (1-30). When a person has bloody diarrhea and doctors find ulcers in the intestines, they look for cancer, infection or parasites. When they can't find a cause, they should say that they don't have the foggiest idea why the person has intestinal ulcers. Instead, they deceive their patients by saying that the person has Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, and explaining that the person's immunity is so stupid that it punches holes in the intestines, rather than doing its job of killing germs. They prescribe medications that suppress immunity or cut out parts of intestine. The immunities of these patients may not be so stupid that they attack and kill their own intestinal cells. Normal intestines are so loaded with bacteria that doctors can't possibly tell which belong there and which may be causing disease. This treatment offers no cure and is associated with many complications that shorten life (4). Exciting research from France show that a variant of E. Coli, a bacteria that lives in normal intestines, sticks to the intestinal lining and produces an alpha hemolysis that punches holes in the intestines to cause at least some cases of Crohn's disease (1). Further studies show that heat shock protein can be removed from the common intestinal bacteria, E. Coli, and when given to mice, causes terrible bloody ulcers to form in the intestines (1a). The intestines looked under the microscope exactly the same as those of people who suffer from ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease (1a). Extensive data show that people with this condition have leaky intestines that allow germs to pass into the bloodstream (2) and their immunities are trying to kill these germs (3). Antibiotics can reduce swelling and ulcers in Crohn's disease. Crohn's disease is contagious as people married to partners with ulcerative colitis are more likely to develop that disease (5). Dr. Joel Taurog of the University of Texas in Dallas has shown that a bacteria called bacteroides causes ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease in mice who are genetically programmed to have a HLA-B27, a special gene that causes arthritis (6,7). Special tissue staining techniques show that tissue taken from patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis contain parts of two common bacteria called E. Coli and streptococci (8). Many studies show that infections may cause Crohn's disease and that antibiotics, particularly, Cipro with or without metronidazole control ulcerative colitis and Crohns (9,10,11,12,13,14,15, 16,17,18,20). Although many doctors disagree, I treat Crohn's disease with Cipro 500 mg twice a day continuously and metronidazole 250 mg four times a day on alternate weeks and check liver tests monthly (21). I tell patients to stop metronidazole if they feel any strange nerve sensations. This treatment is highly controversial and not accepted by most doctors; discuss it with your doctor. Recent studies show that Crohn's disease can be controlled by probiotics and prebiotics, introduced into the colon by eating a diet rich in vegetables and whole grains and taking specific good bacteria such as lactobacillus GG. (25) Cipro and metronidazole cannot be given to children because they can cause cartilaginous and liver damage. In Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, researchers showed that clarithromycin may control Crohn's disease in children (26). http://www.drmirkin.com/morehealth/G213.htm > >Natural medicine bloggers use denigation and insults of conventional > >medicine. You can't see any comment from the natural health alternative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gabe Mirkin, M.D. Where is natural health mentioned below? Are you saying that natural health food stores should be able to sell antibiotics in order to treat Crohn's? Most of your health food friends post in sci.med NG's stating how conventional medicine sucks and how great eating alpha sprouts are for curing Crohn's and if anyone doesn't agree then they must be pharm reps. Tell them to get their a.ses off the sci med groups and post in their own misc.alternative.i cured my cancer eating carrots groups. >> >Natural medicine bloggers use denigation and insults of conventional >> >medicine. You can't see any comment from the natural health alternative [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Tell them to get their a.ses off the sci med groups and post in their own >misc.alternative.i cured my cancer eating carrots groups. No, all i'm saying is that those with crohn's should be given the information that it's possible they have an infection. Why they are not I can only gue$$. While I doubt alpha sprouts can cure crohn's Mirkin does mention the use of yogurt. If an infectious organism is the cause (the evidence is substantial) than erradicating that organism and replacing it with beneficial flora I would think is a good idea. In other words, in this case misc.health.alt and sci.med apparently have something in common. > >> >Natural medicine bloggers use denigation and insults of conventional > >> >medicine. You can't see any comment from the natural health alternative [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > In other words, in this case misc.health.alt and sci.med apparently > have something in common. Where are the clinical studies showing effectiveness of antibiotics? Misc.health and sci.med have speculation only. Alternative health sells things entirely on speculation based on what if, could be, and why not. >> >> >Natural medicine bloggers use denigation and insults of conventional >> >> >medicine. You can't see any comment from the natural health [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Misc.health and sci.med have speculation only. Alternative health sells >things entirely on speculation based on what if, could be, and why not. This looks promising. http://ibd.patientcommunity.com/features/Shafranupdate.cfm?link_id=2291 What would you do if you had IBD? Take steroids the rest of your life? Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have commented on. Thanks for the effort. Tim >Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are >self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have >commented on. >Thanks for the effort. > >Tim Ditto. His post should be sent to the alt.support groups who are also infiltrated. >>Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are >>self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > His post should be sent to the alt.support groups who are also > infiltrated. And still not one of you idiots has ever been able to show any evidence, save your own opinion, that anyone is paid to post here. Did you notice that "observed pattern"? moo >>>Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are >>>self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >moo It's possibile we have a group of highly oraganized lunatics roaming around usenet. point taken and agreed upon. >>>>Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are >>>>self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's possibile we have a group of highly oraganized lunatics roaming > around usenet. Obviously, and they are the natural health whackos. > point taken and agreed upon. >>>>Nicely done Peter! You have indeed observed patterns that are >>>>self-evident. Anyone can go back and see for themselves what you have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >It's possibile we have a group of highly oraganized lunatics roaming >around usenet. Oraganized? Is that something to do with oregano? Oregon? Orgone? We do have a number of lunatics roaming around Usenet (yourself, PeterB, Scudamore, Jan Drew, etc), but they don't appear to be organized at all. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >And still not one of you idiots has ever been able to show any evidence, > >save your own opinion, that anyone is paid to post here. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > point taken and agreed upon. dali!...well stated; the most sound assessment yet... "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >And still not one of you idiots has ever been able to show any evidence, >> >save your own opinion, that anyone is paid to post here. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > dali!...well stated; the most sound assessment yet... Oh? Got any evidence that The alleged "pharmabloggers" know each other or communicate regularly? Didn't think so. moo >"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >moo Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. If this where a case, in a court of law you guys would be toast. > >"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > If this where a case, in a court of law you guys would be toast. Ah. No evidence then. And no circumstantial evidence either. (Hint: people posting here and disagreeing with you is not evidence that they are being paid to do so.) And if this were a case, you would be laughed out of court. Cathy >>"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > If this where a case, in a court of law you guys would be toast. Could you post the circumstantial evidence that you think you have? (This should be very humorous). >>>"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >(This should be very humorous). PeterB has already done an outstanding job. The amount of evidence like this thread is immense. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/3f9e d7f6e70a9793/6590174c293ccd18?q=warning+bloggers+lunatic&hl=en& >>>>"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/3f9e d7f6e70a9793/6590174c293ccd18?q=warning+bloggers+lunatic&hl=en& Thank you for admitting that you have no evidence. *P*ontificating*B*ullshitters ravings do not constitute evidence in the real world. >>Could you post the circumstantial evidence that you think you have? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/3f9e d7f6e70a9793/6590174c293ccd18?q=warning+bloggers+lunatic&hl=en& 1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. 2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine and defend disease-management "healthcare" as the only viable form of medicine. 3. Pharma Bloggers on usenet post the majority of their responses simply to bury the comments of others; they also strive obsessively to have the last word. 4. Pharma Bloggers on usenet are much faster at posting than casual participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread, question, or observation. 5. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use multiple "bloggers" in a swap-&-relay fashion to create an aura of the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who question the value of mainstream medicine. You will see this tactic used more often than any other. I post this crap just to save the casual observer from wasting time discovering that there isn't really any evidence in favour of your claims. Pick any point above and show how it is evidence that people are paid to post here or that they are organized amongst themselves. moo >1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation Mark just ATTEMTED it. Why would he go to all the trouble to find my age and where I live? Why did he state it in a "I know who you are type way?" and for proof it's easy. Simply find an issue that only a lunatic or a Pharmablogger would disagree with. which I did. >>1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation > > Mark just ATTEMTED it. Strutting aside, I raised the stakes on several issues, since you gave me the opportunity to do so. Initially, *P*ontificating*B*ullshiter posted his usual drivel about these people he imagines exist, i.e. "pharmabloggers" who are paid to post to newsgroups. This is, at a minimum, a preemptive ad hominem to discredit anyone who disagrees with his bullshit. Intermediately, it is an attempt to ensure that any factual discussion of alternatives will be deflected to defending ones independence. At worse, it is an attempt to intimidate those with whom he disagrees into silence. The tactic "works" so long as there are those who adopt the usual altie stance that they are the poor little victims of the big evil pharmaceutical industry. When others sign on to this, they expereicne mutual reinforcement. Now, in a previous post of yours, you stated: "Speaking of anonymous. How many of the alleged pharma bloggers are anonymous? I'm guessing all, that's quite telling don't you think?" Thus, clearly buying into the conspiracy crap of *P*ontificating*B*ullshiter. In response to your statements, I, and others, correctly pointed out that the fact based medicine people are hardly annonymous. In fact, I posted a list of several of the offensive things that have been heaped on those people who challenged alternative claims. I quote: "Take a look as to what has been heaped on the fact based medicine people by the AltNuts; 1. Ilena Rosenthal has posted hundreds of defamatory pages about us. 2. Ilena Rosenthal has located the families of those who do not accept her bullshit and has contacted spouses, employers, etc. 3. Jan Drew has posted business addresses of people she calls liars. 4. Jan Drew reposts all of Rosenthal's crap. 5. Jan Drew has has emailed employers of those she does not like. ...It is the alt medders, like you, etc. who hide behind munged email addresses, X:No;archive, news services where there is no NNTP posting host in the headers, etc. " To which you took exception, since you do use your real name in your email address. You took exception to my blanket statement (which was in the finest tradition of *P*ontificating*B*lowhard and the blanket claim you made that "pharmabloggers" are all annonymous) and, I did apologize, although I poorly did so. Yes, you are an exception to that. I was considerably annoyed, though, since you failed to address YOUR error, as had been pointed out to you, and, IMNSHO, I felt that it should not be allowed to stand unchallenged without giving you an example of what it is to be on the receiving end of the hate and intimidation of your fellow Alties. Obviously, you did not like it. Next time, before claiming that there are "pharmabloggers" or that they are all annonymous, remember that our families have had their privacy invaded, our employers have been contacted, our home and business addresses have been posted, etc. etc. If you remain silent, or post anything in support of these people, then you are one of these people. > Why would he go to all the trouble to find my age and where I live? > Why did he state it in a "I know who you are type way?" Dali, that is SOP for the alties. My wife's name, place of employment, my kids' names, etc have all been posted here. Jan Drew posted the business address of several people and said not to utilize their services. *You* support offensive attacks like PB does, and I feel that it sets up a climate where this happens. When it gets turned around, you do not like it. If you want peace, practice peace. > and for proof it's easy. Simply find an issue that only a lunatic or a > Pharmablogger would disagree with. > which I did. Take a moment and think. >>>1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > "Take a look as to what has been heaped on the fact based medicine people > by the AltNuts; <snip total garbage + continual whining> Now for the *truth* Mark Probert pretended to be his wife, and out of the blue, e-mailed me three times. This was AFTER he had REPEATEDLY been told NOT to e-mail me privately. He then used his famous fake names. I then told him to CEASE and DESIST right here on MHA. Mark is guilty is EXACTLY what he accuses others of!! One can clearly see this e-mail is from him, I have marked the same typos, Mark is famous for, it is claimed his wife is a English teacher. Go figure. Dear Mrs. Drew: I am using email to you since I do not wish to participate in Usenet. I trust that you *wil* respect this. I *wil* not email you again, except to forward to you other emails that Rosenthal has sent to me. She had the unmitigated gall to actually post this email to a webpage, which she acknowledges, and has since removed. She had the nerve to post my place of employment in the newsgroups and on that webpage. Frankly, I am tired of your constant blaming Mark for everything that Rosenthal has done to him. This email was sent to ME, not him, by her. He had warned her several times not to do so, but, she went ahead and emailed me. I have spoken with some of Mark's friends in government law enforcement, and they tell me that this can be construed as stalking behavior, since I have never had contact with her. Let me be blunt: I have been fully aware of Mark's activities from day one as we share *verything* in our relationship. He has NEVER posted as Will Ketcher, and we have not had an AOL account for a long time. However, Rosenthal persists in accusing him. Let me clear up this issue Mark's attempt to infiltrate her email list. He has never denied doing so, and has clearly stated his reasons, which Rosenthal rejects. When he mentioned that our younger son was about to have surgery he began receiving some very nasty email which sounded quite a bit like Rosenthal. I read them, and know that they were hate filled and mirrored her usual verbiage. Some of them actually wished ill to our son. Remember, I am an English teacher and I spend hours a day reading students' work. I also felt that they could have originated with people who were affiliated with her. Mark was deeply offended by some of the statements in these emails, and he attempted to locate the senders, but was unsuccessful. He then decided to try to read her group to see if he could identify the offending individuals. As you know, she found out what he did, and posted a message to that effect. Mark *immeidatrely* acknowledged what he did, and expressed his reasons, which she denied and said that we never received such email, even though she had absolutely no way of reading his email inbox. You have been *concistently*wrong about Mark, and even more consistently wrong about Mark. I have read many instances where it was clear that you did not *udnerstand* what he was saying. Now that you do not read his full messages (many times you respond to something that has been severely edited) or his replies, you are making assumptions based on less than all the facts. If you were my student, you would get an F. When I first received this email I was very upset by her actions, and I wanted to file complaints with Hotmail, RoadRunner and GoDaddy, her website host. Mark talked me out of it, as he does not think that such actions *wil lhelp* her. In fact, he is convinced that she *wil* become even more abusive and obsessed with "enemies." You know that I have every right to make such complaints. Several of my students have used her website about Mark in their *wrtiings* in my senior honors writing seminar. Another group has used Rosenthal in a debate in my senior debating class. They used her to demonstrate that the First Amendment, which is posted in Mark's study, protects even the most vile people. I gave them an A. I trust that this helps you get a better perspective on Mark, and on Rosenthal. As I said above, I will not email you again, but I will forward all of her current messages to me. If you wish to respond to me, please do so at SandraProb...@hotmail.com. I am using my professional email address simply because that is the address Rosenthal used. Sandra Probert SPro...@nycboe.net >>>>1. Pharma Bloggers on usenet use intimidation >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Now for the *truth* Warmongering snipped. The truth is that Dali and I had differences and we discussed them like adults. The second truth is that you do not like to see peace as proven by this post. "dali" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>Oh? Got any evidence that The alleged "pharmabloggers" know each other or >>communicate regularly? Didn't think so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If this where a case, in a court of law you guys would be toast. Hey stoopid: Circumstantial evidence is not considered when direct evidence should be readily available. In this case, the only direct evidence is, well, there isn't any. It's just innuendo. Got anything other than the opinion of a few kooks like yourself? moo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message