 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005Slime ball Mark's attempt at intimidation.
>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >tend to doubt it. Do to a variety of reasons I have not kept my identity a secret. Watch as this slime ball tells me this is not some sort of veiled threat. Very LOW behaviour, even for a worthless Pharmablogger. >>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Very LOW behaviour, even for a worthless Pharmablogger. The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine people experience at the hands of those who you seem to support. I tried to explain that to you in the other threads, and you ignored it. I should have known better, as you AltScrewBalls can dish it out, but, when received, whine. > >>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I > >>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I should have known better, as you AltScrewBalls can dish it out, but, > when received, whine. For the record my name is Brent Borgers and I do live in Humble and my birth date is in May 1967. Is there any more information you would like to share? As to whining... What part of feel free and come on by do you consider whining? >>>>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >>>>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > birth date is in May 1967. Is there any more information you would like > to share? Yes, I would like to share that you support the climate which you do not like when you support PB, Jan Drew, et al. 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. > As to whining... > What part of feel free and come on by do you consider whining? >>>>>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >>>>>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > "Take a look as to what has been heaped on the fact based medicine people > by the <snip name calling> <snip lies, name calling and whining> >> As to whining... >> What part of feel free and come on by do you consider whining? >> >>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >> >>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >birth date is in May 1967. Is there any more information you would like >to share? Dunno about anyone else, but I'd like to share that revealing that much information about yourself is almost equivalent to revealing your social security number, in terms of people being able to find out more about you than you'd probably like. Your choice, of course. -- 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 >>>>>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >>>>>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > social security number, in terms of people being able to find out more > about you than you'd probably like. Your choice, of course. Dali does not have to worry, though. Since he is an altie, no one will contact his employer or complain to his ISP. His spouse is safe and will not get unsolicited emails. >>>>>>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >>>>>>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > contact his employer or complain to his ISP. His spouse is safe and will > not get unsolicited emails. From Mark Probert, pretending to be his wife. 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 >>> >>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I >>> >>tend to doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >social security number, in terms of people being able to find out more >about you than you'd probably like. Your choice, of course. Not my choice. someone outed me by tracking my ISP. If I knew then what I knew now... Doesn't matter too much. Much braver than me lyme doctors go thru a helluva lot worse. >The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine people experience. I've seen first hand what you "fact based" people do. Lyme Wise Medical Doctors: The Few, the Knowledgeable, the Harassed The plague of ignorance surrounding Lyme disease makes it very controversial within the medical community. Most MDs are ignorant about the complex nature of Lyme disease and are frequently irritated when confronted about it. There are only a few MDs in the country that are knowledgeable about Lyme disease; they are often called Lyme literate MDs (LLMDs) by the Lyme aware public and by their Lyme patients. Most LLMDs know about Lyme disease because they have studied it independently. The MD's formal training in medical school and from the established medical community regarding Lyme disease is meager. LLMDs have been and continue to be harassed by the medical community, by health officials, by their peers and colleagues, by state medical boards, and by insurance companies for diagnosing and treating Lyme patients beyond the standards set by the establishment. Unfortunately, some of these LLMDs have discontinued treating Lyme patients due to the harassment. A few LLMDs have actually had their medical license revoked because they have treated Lyme patients beyond standards set by the medical community. For example, treating patients with antibiotics for longer than the standard 4-6 week period of time can lead to harassment. If Lyme patients are lucky enough to find an LLMD and get the proper diagnosis and therapy, guess what? Many health insurance companies are declining to pay for the appropriate antibiotic treatment. Why? If it's not the standard therapy established by the ignorant medical community, the insurance companies won't pay. The Standard therapy for Lyme disease, which is considered to be a 4-6 week course of antibiotics, is too short for most Lyme cases. A basic treatment for chronic Lyme disease usually requires at least an 8 -16-month period of appropriate antibiotics. http://www.autoimmunityresearch.org/lyme-disease/ >>The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine people experience. > > I've seen first hand what you "fact based" people do. 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. > The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine > people experience... I see your comedy class is coming along nicely -- that's the funniest thing you've said in weeks. > I should have known better, as you AltScrewBalls can dish it out, but, > when received, whine. Your "dishing out" draw only laughter, as lies transcribed from a handbook make a fool out of you, not the rest of us. PB >>The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine >>people experience... > > I see your comedy class is coming along nicely -- that's the funniest > thing you've said in weeks. I see, so having my wife's privacy invaded by being sent unsolicited emails, having her place of business posted, having slanderous web pages made up about me, having my kids names posted, and having my former home addresses posted is humorous to you. This must be an example of "alternative humor." >>I should have known better, as you AltScrewBalls can dish it out, but, >>when received, whine. > > Your "dishing out" draw only laughter, as lies transcribed from a > handbook make a fool out of you, not the rest of us. Petey, you cannot project with a refrigerator bulb. > >>The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine > >>people experience... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > made up about me, having my kids names posted, and having my former home > addresses posted is humorous to you. Not that part, the part about you being one of the "fact based medicine people..." PB >>>>The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine >>>>people experience... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not that part, the part about you being one of the "fact based medicine > people..." Agreed. Reaility is sometimes funny. |
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.