 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2006WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their Monopolies
WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their Monopolies To : All participants and readers of sci.med, misc.health.alternative, uk.people.health, talk.politics.medicine 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 attempting to shape public sentiment about the risks of mainstream medicine while attacking the benefits and validity of natural medicine. I refer to these individuals broadly as "Pharma Bloggers" (see footnote). For obvious reasons, pharma bloggers on usenet don't promote a specific company or product, as might be the case with standard "blogging" on a weblog, but there is a common thread between industry blogging in a web blog and industry participation in a newsgroup: both are done under the pretense that the poster is not professionally affiliated. Most of these people are likely to be associated with a PR project whose "blogging" efforts are underwritten anonymously by the media or marketing groups of industry. They are not difficult to identify due to specific patterns in their posting. Please familiarize yourself with these tactics so you can identify them. See: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q1/monger.html See: http://emord.com/stories/cherish.htm What to look for 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. They actively discourage a scientific discussion and disrupt ongoing discussions that explore alternative treatments in healthcare. 2. Pharma Bloggers on usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of mainstream medicine, asserting that disease-management "healthcare" is the only viable form of treatment. Their comments are frequently embedded in pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting scientific documentation. 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 express interest in natural medicine approaches. You will see this tactic used more often than any other. 6. Pharma Bloggers on usenet refute numerous quality studies published in major medical journals showing the benefits of natural medicine applied in naturopathic healthcare, including nutrient supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, biofeedback, accupuncture, accupressure, reflexology, and other approaches. You can find the science supporting a variety of natural medicine methods at http://www.newstarget.com. 7. Pharma Bloggers on usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting" websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme bias of these promoters belies their true motives and reveals their ties to industry. 8. Pharma Bloggers on usenet rely on junk science references to support their attacks on natural healing methods. They decline to provide meaningful scientific references in support of their defense of most conventional treatments. Since most conventional medicines are either marginally effective, unproven, or dangerous, it is not suprising that purely anecdotal or observational studies (usually sponsored by the drug makers) are the only "science" available to them. 9. Pharma Bloggers on usenet assert that conventional medicine is "evidence based," however the lack of corroborating science disproves that claim. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority of cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use as "experimental trial" medications, as has been the case for more than thirty years. For most cancer patients, there is no proven benefit in the use of these expensive and toxic chemicals. 10. Pharma Bloggers on usenet ignore iatrogenic studies that show the dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (ie., at least 100,000 deaths annually), as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved drugs. They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease relationship to use of such drugs and other unsafe medical treatments. 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 attack 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 almost 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-sponsored media grunts, and they are very good at it. * Comment on objections about use of the word "blogging" in this newsgroup >From Wikipedia: "An internet forum is not a blog (technically speaking), but a blog can function as an internet forum. Internet forums typically allow any user to post (into the discussion). Blogs typically limit posting to the blogger or to the blogger and approved others. The distinction between blogs and forums is sometimes gray. Sites such as Slashdot, Indymedia and Daily Kos combine elements of the two...many bloggers differentiate themselves from the mainstream media, while others are members of that media working through a different channel. Some institutions see blogging as a means of "getting around the filter" and pushing messages directly to the public. Some critics worry that bloggers respect neither intellectual property nor the role of the mass media in presenting society with credible news." Also from Wikipedia: "A blog is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order. The term blog is a shortened form of weblog or web log. Authoring a blog, maintaining a blog or adding an article to an existing blog is called "blogging". Individual articles on a blog are called "blog posts," "posts" or "entries". A person who posts these entries is called a "blogger". A blog comprises hypertext, images, and links (to other web pages and to video, audio and other files). Blogs use a conversational style of documentation. Often blogs focus on a particular "area of interest", such as Washington, D.C.'s political goings-on. Some blogs discuss personal experiences." While the advent of blogging was preceded by newsgroups, there are more similiarities in the nature of interaction between posters in these venues (mainly distinguished by their software platforms) than there are differences. Also note that I didn't refer to the newsgroup itself as a weblog, I referred to individual posters as "blogging" here on behalf of industry. While my focus is on behaviour and science, the pharma bloggers rely on semantic arguments, non sequiturs, and personal attacks in their effort to distract from the real issues. Pharma Blogger: An individual who uses the Internet, and Usenet newsgroups, to: 1) promote and defend maintstream medicine and disease management; 2) attack those who express a preference for natural 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. > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their > Monopolies ... Prove it... and while you are at it, please tell us how "blogging" works in Usenet. > > WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their > > Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Prove it... and while you are at it, please tell us how "blogging" works in > Usenet. Disprove it... and while you are at it, please learn to read. >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their >> Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Prove it... and while you are at it, please tell us how "blogging" works > in Usenet. GO get an education. Blogging was in use before internet was popular. Personal blather. Personal log. Research not considered. Personal opinions usually prompted by propaganda systems (paid lies). FACT The medical community is made up of pseudo-intellect, academia and from what I have seen, people who washed out in engineering. There is almost ZERO effort to prevent illness, only treat it and then not necessarily cure it. > >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their > >> Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There is almost ZERO effort to prevent illness, only treat it and then not > necessarily cure it. You've outdone yourself, Vernon. Suggest you find a dictionary, and then think about (just once!) actually providing some evidence to back up one of your half-witted assertions. In German, perhaps. >>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their >>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > then think about (just once!) actually providing some evidence to back > up one of your half-witted assertions. In German, perhaps. I've tried to get a response from Vernon by asking him questions in German (which I really do happen to speak, though I keep messing up der, dem, den, die and das) but nothing so far. Makes you wonder. > >>>>WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their > >>>>Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > German (which I really do happen to speak, though I keep messing up der, > dem, den, die and das) but nothing so far. Makes you wonder. Or simply confirms that he is a Walter Mitty. Difficult to decide which of his claims is the funniest, although I particularly like the ones about his education; he shows those up as lies with every post, and doesn't seem to notice what they say about his self-respect. The NASA story was a good one... > > >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their > > >> Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > then think about (just once!) actually providing some evidence to back > up one of your half-witted assertions. In German, perhaps. Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the first entry for a given word. That's on a good day. I guess being a book editor (wink wink) means you have to use every word economically, while quoting reported measles cases need not be within 1000% of the actual number. *chuckles* PeterB >> > >> WARNING: Industry is Blogging These NewsGroups to Protect Their >> > >> Monopolies [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > first entry for a given word. For a given word in common vernacular of 2006. She probably doesn't know what the true meaning of "gay" is and thinks rap is a song style, not knowing the reason it is called rap. "Someone is raping on the door" "I don't hear any song. How can they rap on a door?" >That's on a good day. I guess being a > book editor (wink wink) means you have to use every word economically, > while quoting reported measles cases need not be within 1000% of the > actual number. *chuckles* > > PeterB >> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the >> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"Someone is raping on the door" >"I don't hear any song. How can they rap on a door?" I love it!! PeterB is lecturing someone on the meaning of words and he says "passed" instead of "past". Vern agrees with him, but says "raping" instead of "rapping". Watta pair of maroons.  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 > >> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > >> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Watta pair of maroons. "Watta" is not even a word, you idiot. >>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the >>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "Watta" is not even a word, you idiot. I cannot conceive of anything more ironic (or moronic, for that matter) than your comment. >>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the >>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I cannot conceive of anything more ironic (or moronic, for that matter) >than your comment. You didn't think that PeterB would be aware of such icons of popular culture as Mr Bunny, did you Mark? Ignorance of such matters is a hallmark of alternuttery. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2006/03bugs.wav 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 > >>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > >>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > culture as Mr Bunny, did you Mark? Ignorance of such matters is a > hallmark of alternuttery. whooooooooshhh! Your use of "watta" was self satirizing in this context, meaning you ended up making yourself the butt of your own joke. Ignorance in such matters is a hallmark of those who lose in court. And pharma bloggers. PeterB >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2006/03bugs.wav I assumed that he is not aware of the utterings of Mr. Bunny, and that he assumed that you coined the word "Watta". He then goes on to criticize you for using a "word" that is not a word. It remineded me of pharmablogger. > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > criticize you for using a "word" that is not a word. It remineded me of > pharmablogger. You guys are hilariously dopey. I guess you have to be. I am well aware of the line spoken by bugs bunny. The point was that Bowditch's silly taunts were completely undone by using that reference. And THAT was funnier than any gramatical error Vern and I could ever have made. As for "pharmablogger," I have always tried to stick with "pharma blogger," so it isn't a new word, just a new use for them. PeterB > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > PeterB You're not getting it Petey. You and Vern, by the way, didn't make grammatical errors; you made spelling errors, unconsciously, while trying to lecture people on the meaning of real words, whilst Peter Bowditch made conscious use of a cultural reference to point up your idiocy. You made a bit of a dick of yourself by explaining to everyone that "Watta" isn't a real word (duh), but I would leave it at that; you're just making it worse. Especially since you're on record as not being able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. >>>>>>>>>Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the >>>>>>>>>first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > "Watta" isn't a real word (duh), but I would leave it at that; you're > just making it worse. Leave it at that? Cathy, isn't he still claiming vitamin C converts hydrogen to oxygen and that Linus Pauling agrees with him? No way he's going to leave it at that. > Especially since you're on record as not being > able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. > >>>>>>>>>Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > >>>>>>>>>first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > hydrogen to oxygen and that Linus Pauling agrees with him? No way he's > going to leave it at that. I've always been an optimist, but PeteyB has already proved you right. Bah. Still I've a good few years before I have to cross to the dark side: "The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it, he knows too little." (Mark Twain) Cathy > > Especially since you're on record as not being > > able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. > >>>>>>>>>Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > >>>>>>>>>first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Leave it at that? Cathy, isn't he still claiming vitamin C converts > hydrogen to oxygen... Using Merriam Webster's alternative usage of the word "convert," yes. It isn't necessary to confine oneself to just the most common useage. Take the word "dope," for instance. Some people like to take dope. You, on the other hand, like to be one. > and that Linus Pauling agrees with him? As you know, I later revised my reference when I found the actual quote, showing that Dr. Klenner discussed the possible role of vitamin C as a transport mechanism for hydrogen. For all I know, Pauling was perfectly agreeable with that idea, in light of his own views. > No way he's > going to leave it at that. > > > Especially since you're on record as not being > > able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. >>>>>>>>>>>Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the >>>>>>>>>>>first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Using Merriam Webster's alternative usage of the word "convert," yes. I bet you even think that hydrogen can 'convert' to another religion. > It isn't necessary to confine oneself to just the most common useage. We know that you don't do that. You make up meanings for words as you go along. > Take the word "dope," for instance. Some people like to take dope. > You, on the other hand, like to be one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > C as a transport mechanism for hydrogen. For all I know, Pauling was > perfectly agreeable with that idea, in light of his own views. For all you know? Since we all know how little you know, that opinion doesn't carry much weight. >>No way he's >>going to leave it at that. >> >>>Especially since you're on record as not being >>>able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. > >>>>>>>>>>>Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > >>>>>>>>>>>first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > For all you know? Since we all know how little you know, that opinion > doesn't carry much weight. Yep. There's Petey assuming that a chemist would agree with Klenner's assertions about the role of vitamin C in cell metabolism not because they had been shown to be true, but because he was a proponent of vitamin C generally. Tells you everything you need to know about the boy Petey's decision-making process, hey? And what he understands about science. > >>No way he's > >>going to leave it at that. > >> > >>>Especially since you're on record as not being > >>>able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Bowditch made conscious use of a cultural reference to point up your > idiocy. Not "people," Rosalind. Just you. A spelling error is a minor thing, whereas context and useage make or break a sentence. You could learn something from Bowditch, like being funny while you demonstrate your stupidity. It would go down a lot better that way. > You made a bit of a dick of yourself by explaining to everyone that > "Watta" isn't a real word (duh)... Duh, it wasn't an explanation. > , but I would leave it at that; you're > just making it worse. Especially since you're on record as not being > able to understand dictionary references you yourself provide. No, that honor is all yours. You could never rebut the link I posted from Merriam, which proves you're a Dimwit. PeterB > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > something from Bowditch, like being funny while you demonstrate your > stupidity. It would go down a lot better that way. Oh, PeteyB still doesn't understand how Peter's use of a cultural reference simply pointed up his idiocy in trying to lecture others on their use of English while f.cking it up himself.. > > You made a bit of a dick of yourself by explaining to everyone that > > "Watta" isn't a real word (duh)... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, that honor is all yours. You could never rebut the link I posted > from Merriam, which proves you're a Dimwit. Bless. Petey thinks that no-one has noticed that he's disappeared every time I've explained to him that the link he posted from Merriam doesn't actually apply to his statement that vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen. > PeterB > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > reference simply pointed up his idiocy in trying to lecture others on > their use of English while f.cking it up himself.. Denying alternate word useage while reading it in a dictionary hardly compares to a spelling error. Even using "watta" is brilliant by comparison. Like I said, you could learn something from Bowditch, though obviously not much. > > > You made a bit of a dick of yourself by explaining to everyone that > > > "Watta" isn't a real word (duh)... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > actually apply to his statement that vitamin C turns hydrogen into > oxygen... Rosalind's use of the phrase "turns into" is a non sequitur, as it demonstrates her bias in relying only on that meaning, when those words were never used by me. She's therefore a liar, promoting vaccine and other unproven medications on behalf of her sponsors. Just another day on m.h.a. PeterB > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > comparison. Like I said, you could learn something from Bowditch, > though obviously not much. Oh, but Petey, no-one denied the alternate usage from Merriam. I even provided examples where it would be appropriate. And it's still funny that you didn't get the cultural reference. > > > > You made a bit of a dick of yourself by explaining to everyone that > > > > "Watta" isn't a real word (duh)... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > other unproven medications on behalf of her sponsors. Just another day > on m.h.a. Oh dear. Petey's still trying to claim that when he says hydrogen is converted into oxygen, it's not the same as saying it's turned into oxygen. Perhaps he should join Jan in taking remedial English. And Latin, since he seems not to understand "non sequitur" > PeterB > > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Oh, but Petey, no-one denied the alternate usage from Merriam. I even > provided examples where it would be appropriate... Rosalind wouldn't know "appropriate" if it bit her on the behind. In fact, it has bit her on the behind, resulting in a trip to the wizard for a modification to her online personality. That was truly amusing. > And it's still funny > that you didn't get the cultural reference. There was nothing to get, Dimwit. Try looking up the word "relevant," and see if you can grasp the first entry. > > > > > You made a bit of a dick of yourself by explaining to everyone that > > > > > "Watta" isn't a real word (duh)... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > converted into oxygen, it's not the same as saying it's turned into > oxygen. Of course it isn't, Dimwit. Check Merriam Webster again. It doesn't have to be used in a strictly chemical sense. Perhaps oxygen really is your problem, after all. > Perhaps he should join Jan in taking remedial English. And Latin, since > he seems not to understand "non sequitur" Definition: An inference that does not follow from the premises put forth to support it. Synonym: "Rosalind," aka "Cathy," aka "Soccer mom," aka "chemist," aka "book editor." Should we have titled this thread "the many faces of Rosalind," or what? PeterB > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > Should we have titled this thread "the many faces of Rosalind," or > what? Gosh Petey has written an entire post with no content at all! I suppose resorting to insults saves him from having to actually understand the words and concepts he is using, which must be a real difficulty for someone who wrote that hydrogen is converted into oxygen by vitamin C and doesn't understand that "turned into" and "converted into" are synonymous. Has anyone noticed that he has a real problem coping with the concept that someone can be a mother, a chemistry graduate and an editor? He seems to think it's either unlikely or insulting. What a strange constricted little life he must lead; presumably, since he works so hard at mha for his sponsors, he has no other work, family etc. and can't conceive that the rest of us have real lives... > PeterB > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > Gosh Petey has written an entire post with no content at all! That's what Rosalind says whenever she can't respond (see comments above.) > I suppose > resorting to insults saves him from having to actually understand the > words and concepts he is using, which must be a real difficulty for > someone who wrote that hydrogen is converted into oxygen by vitamin C > and doesn't understand that "turned into" and "converted into" are > synonymous. Rosalind can't grasp that *her* use of the words "turned into" has nothing to do with anything I said. My use of the word "convert," entirely consistent with MW's 2nd entry, has been dubbed "inappropriate" by her. It was, in fact, Robert Klenner who said his research suggested that vitamin C is a transport for hydrogen, ultimately leading to aerobic cellular life. > Has anyone noticed that he has a real problem coping with the concept > that someone can be a mother, a chemistry graduate and an editor? You can claim to be anyone you like, but you haven't documented these self-serving statements, so they appear to be....well, self-serving bullshit. > He > seems to think it's either unlikely or insulting. Rosalind would have readers believe that she's an expert on medical science. Claiming to be a science editor is intended to lend weight to that idea. As an unverifiable fact, her refusal to produce references is quite telling. > What a strange > constricted little life he must lead; presumably, since he works so > hard at mha for his sponsors... Unlike you, I'm here on my own behalf. Ask yourself this question: Who on mha promotes chemo, vaccines, and other costly medical treatments in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives? It isn't me. > , he has no other work, family etc. and > can't conceive that the rest of us have real lives... Who are you trying to convince, Rosalind? You spend a heck of a lot more time posting here than I do. Why is that? PeterB > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > entirely consistent with MW's 2nd entry, has been dubbed > "inappropriate" by her. Oh dear, Petey. I'm afraid you came up with the Merriam-Webster definition, twisted your own words to suit it (whilst apparently not understanding it) and came up with a sentence that was not only meaning-free, but bore no relationship to what you had originally said, which was that vitamin C converts hydrogen to oxygen. Furthermore the sentence you came up with wouldn't actually make sense if you attempted to use the word "convert" in it. Here we have it, folks: "hydrogen is altered for more effective utilization, allowing oxygen to be accessed by the organism". That bundle of nonsense is what Petey says he meant when he said hydrogen was converted into oxygen by vitamin C. It's not simply inappropriate, Petey, it's wrong. > It was, in fact, Robert Klenner who said his > research suggested that vitamin C is a transport for hydrogen, > ultimately leading to aerobic cellular life. Something for which neither he nor you have provided any evidence. Actually, you haven't provided any evidence that he even said vitamin C led to aerobic life.. What he didn't say at any point was that hydrogen is converted into oxygen. That was you, and you continued to argue it for some time, before deciding not to understand the word "convert" instead. > > Has anyone noticed that he has a real problem coping with the concept > > that someone can be a mother, a chemistry graduate and an editor? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Rosalind would have readers believe that she's an expert on medical > science. No, I would not. >Claiming to be a science editor is intended to lend weight to > that idea. Actually, it doesn't Petey, since most of the work I do is in chemistry, which is my field. > As an unverifiable fact, her refusal to produce references > is quite telling. What are you wittering on about? No-one needs references to post on usenet, Petey. Nor have I any reason to lie. I'm sorry you're stupid, Petey, but just deal with it instead of projecting. > > What a strange > > constricted little life he must lead; presumably, since he works so > > hard at mha for his sponsors... > > Unlike you, I'm here on my own behalf. I'm afraid you gave yourself away when you started talking about your lawyers, Petey. You're the only person posting here who appears to have a financial interest in doing so. And if you're the standard they can afford, they're f.cked. > Ask yourself this question: Who > on mha promotes chemo, vaccines, and other costly medical treatments in > a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives? It isn't me. I see you're still mistaking "devoted to" and "devoted to discussing". We all know you're devoted to the supplements you peddle, Petey; the rest of us spend time here to discuss things. > > , he has no other work, family etc. and > > can't conceive that the rest of us have real lives... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PeterB > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > meaning-free, but bore no relationship to what you had originally said, > which was that vitamin C converts hydrogen to oxygen. Rosalind can't grasp that *her* use of the words "turned into" has nothing to do with anything I said. My use of the word "convert," entirely consistent with MW's 2nd entry, has been dubbed "inappropriate" by her. > Furthermore the sentence you came up with wouldn't actually make sense > if you attempted to use the word "convert" in it. > > Here we have it, folks: "hydrogen is altered for more effective > utilization, allowing > oxygen to be accessed by the organism". And "altered for more effective utilization" is the precise wording Merriam uses for an alternate useage of the word "convert." As for your observation that two sentences cannot be structured identically to make use of such alternate *meanings,* duh. You can't even do that with a crossword puzzle. You do know what a crossword puzzle is, don't you, Rosalind? > That bundle of nonsense is what > Petey says he meant when he said hydrogen was converted into oxygen by > vitamin C. Kenner said that ascorbic acid was involved in transporting hyrdogen, based on his clinical work. He didn't claim to have proven it. The real focus of my discussion was about vitamin C's crucial role in human health, which doesn't depend on our compelte understanding of this remarkable nutrient. > It's not simply inappropriate, Petey, it's wrong. You must have thought I cared what you think. I don't. > > It was, in fact, Robert Klenner who said his > > research suggested that vitamin C is a transport for hydrogen, > > ultimately leading to aerobic cellular life. > > Something for which neither he nor you have provided any evidence. It wasn't a premise for my remarks on vitamin C's role in human health. You still haven't provided evidence that vaccines are safe, or that you're capable of reading a dictionary. > Actually, you haven't provided any evidence that he even said vitamin C > led to aerobic life.. That was Irwin Stone. I referenced his book, remember? > What he didn't say at any point was that hydrogen is converted into > oxygen. That was you, and you continued to argue it for some time, > before deciding not to understand the word "convert" instead. Yawn. My use of the word "convert" was entirely consistent with MW's 2nd entry, yet Rosalind has dubbed this use "inappropriate." Her rant is not suprising for someone promoting vaccine in a newsgroup devoted to alternatives, of course. I leave it to readers to decide *why* someone does this. > > > Has anyone noticed that he has a real problem coping with the concept > > > that someone can be a mother, a chemistry graduate and an editor? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Actually, it doesn't Petey, since most of the work I do is in > chemistry, which is my field. Sure it is. > > As an unverifiable fact, her refusal to produce references > > is quite telling. > > What are you wittering on about? No-one needs references to post on > usenet, Petey. Nor have I any reason to lie. Your comments are completely self serving, unless you are prepared to document your claims. If you continue making them, I will continue to remind readers that you have refused to back them up. > I'm sorry you're stupid, Petey, but just deal with it instead of > projecting. Did you make that one up all by yourself? > > > What a strange > > > constricted little life he must lead; presumably, since he works so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm afraid you gave yourself away when you started talking about your > lawyers, Petey. If you are referrring to a comment I made about "our legal team," it's a reference to legal work being done by the Alliance for Natural Health to guide development of the CODEX. I've talked about this openly quite a bit. I share a common interest with ANH because I'm devoted to natural healing and oppose undue influence by your sponsors (ie., the drug makers.) Don't tell me you're starting to see little black helicopters buzzing around your head? > You're the only person posting here who appears to have > a financial interest in doing so. And if you're the standard they can > afford, they're f.cked. The only reward for me in the newsgroups is the joy of seeing you have to work for your supper. > > Ask yourself this question: Who > > on mha promotes chemo, vaccines, and other costly medical treatments in > > a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives? It isn't me. > > I see you're still mistaking "devoted to" and "devoted to discussing". I see you're still pretending that you aren't full of it. > We all know you're devoted to the supplements you peddle, Petey; the > rest of us spend time here to discuss things. A review of my posts shows this to be nothing more than horse manure. > > > , he has no other work, family etc. and > > > can't conceive that the rest of us have real lives... > > > > Who are you trying to convince, Rosalind? You spend a heck of a lot > > more time posting here than I do. Why is that? Notice that Rosalind couldn't answer. How telling. PeterB > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Rosalind says others should use a dictionary, but can't get passed the > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> first entry for a given word. [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > entirely consistent with MW's 2nd entry, has been dubbed > "inappropriate" by her. No, Petey. It's not inappropriate. It's just plain wrong and makes no sense in the context of your having claimed that vitamin C converts hydrogen into oxygen. > > Furthermore the sentence you came up with wouldn't actually make sense > > if you attempted to use the word "convert" in it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And "altered for more effective utilization" is the precise wording > Merriam uses for an alternate useage of the word "convert." Yes, Petey. Unfortuanately the sentence you came up with, apart from not making sense, does not say what your original sentence does, Petey. > As for > your observation that two sentences cannot be structured identically to > make use of such alternate *meanings,* duh. No, Petey, but the sentence you came up with to use that alternate usage does not have the meaning of "convert". That's why you can't structure it to include the word convert--it would change its meaning. As you have when you claim it means the same thing as your original claim, Petey, that hydrogen is converted into oxygen. The fact that you cannot understand this is making you look quite foolish. > You can't even do that > with a crossword puzzle. You can, Petey. > You do know what a crossword puzzle is, don't > you, Rosalind? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > That was Irwin Stone. I referenced his book, remember? Good lord, just a couple of sentences ago you said it was Klenner. > > What he didn't say at any point was that hydrogen is converted into > > oxygen. That was you, and you continued to argue it for some time, > > before deciding not to understand the word "convert" instead. > > Yawn. My use of the word "convert" was entirely consistent with MW's > 2nd entry, yet Rosalind has dubbed this use "inappropriate." No, simply wrong. I see that you haven't managed to learn how to use and understand a dictionary definition yet, Petey. Fear not, though, everyone else can see that "hydrogen is altered for more effective utilization, allowing oxygen to be accessed by the organism" neither has any meaning in biology, nor means the same thing as your original claim that hydrogen is converted into oxygen. Or indeed that it's not an example of conversion. And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some time before you decided to forget what "convert" means. > Her rant > is not suprising for someone promoting vaccine in a newsgroup devoted > to alternatives, of course. I leave it to readers to decide *why* > someone does this. And again, Petey misunderstands the purpose of mha, confusing its function as a place to *discuss* alternative medicine with his own devotion to selling supplements for his corporate sponsors.. > > > > Has anyone noticed that he has a real problem coping with the concept > > > > that someone can be a mother, a chemistry graduate and an editor? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > document your claims. If you continue making them, I will continue to > remind readers that you have refused to back them up. You seem to be a little confused, Petey. This is not my job, so I don't need to provide references. It's easy to see why you wouldn't understand this, since you are actually paid to be here. > > I'm sorry you're stupid, Petey, but just deal with it instead of > > projecting. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > drug makers.) Don't tell me you're starting to see little black > helicopters buzzing around your head? No, Petey. I'm simply seeing your financial interest in posting here. After all, what else could bring you back day after day to embarrass yourself after being humiliated by having your ignorance of almost every topic you post on exposed so regularly? Say, Petey, why don't you come back when you've learnt some English, chemistry, maths and biology and stop embarrassing your sponsors this way? I mean, just look at the rest of this crappy post. If you've nothing to say, then just don't. > > You're the only person posting here who appears to have > > a financial interest in doing so. And if you're the standard they can [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > PeterB PeterB wrote: > > Rosalind can't grasp that *her* use of the words "turned into" has > > nothing to do with anything I said. My use of the word "convert," [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sense in the context of your having claimed that vitamin C converts > hydrogen into oxygen. Rosalind lacks the conceptual grasp to understand what alternate word useage means (except when she is promoting vaccine without a logical argument.) > > > Furthermore the sentence you came up with wouldn't actually make sense > > > if you attempted to use the word "convert" in it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes, Petey. Unfortuanately the sentence you came up with, apart from > not making sense, does not say what your original sentence does, Petey. Rosalind, here to promote vaccine on behalf of her sponsors, seems to be obsessed with my use of the word "convert." Is she just mentally unstable, or is it something else? > > As for > > your observation that two sentences cannot be structured identically to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > claim, Petey, that hydrogen is converted into oxygen. The fact that you > cannot understand this is making you look quite foolish. Poor, Rosalind. She fails to grasp alternate word usage no matter how many times it is explained to her. > > You can't even do that > > with a crossword puzzle. > > You can, Petey. Rosalind thinks alternate meanings can be used in place of words in a cross word puzzle. Amusing. > > You do know what a crossword puzzle is, don't > > you, Rosalind? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Good lord, just a couple of sentences ago you said it was Klenner. When you said *led* to aerobic life, I assumed you meant from an evolutionary standpoint, which was addressed by Irwin Stone, not Klenner. > > > What he didn't say at any point was that hydrogen is converted into > > > oxygen. That was you, and you continued to argue it for some time, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, simply wrong. I see that you haven't managed to learn how to use > and understand a dictionary definition yet, Petey. I see you have no life, Rosalind. > Fear not, though, everyone else can see that "hydrogen is altered for > more effective utilization, allowing oxygen to be accessed by the > organism" neither has any meaning in biology, nor means the same thing > as your original claim that hydrogen is converted into oxygen. Or > indeed that it's not an example of conversion. Sure it has meaning in biology. As long as hydrogen and oxygen are necessary for life, it will continue to have meaning. Vitamin C, as well. > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some > time before you decided to forget what "convert" means. Rosalind must be feeling desperate. She knows I retracted (and replaced) the post in which I said oxygen, rather than energy, was "liberated" from hydrogen. I realized my mistake, and corrected it, long before she responded. This occured long before Rosalind had a chance to respond to me. > > Her rant > > is not suprising for someone promoting vaccine in a newsgroup devoted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > function as a place to *discuss* alternative medicine with his own > devotion to selling supplements for his corporate sponsors.. Rosalind says she is here to discuss alternative medicine, but what she does and what she claims are two different things. A review of my posting history (I never instruct my posts to be deleted out of archives) proves why I am here: to share my views on nutritional science, modern medicine, and free market access to natural medicine products. > > > > > Has anyone noticed that he has a real problem coping with the concept > > > > > that someone can be a mother, a chemistry graduate and an editor? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > need to provide references. It's easy to see why you wouldn't > understand this, since you are actually paid to be here. Yet Rosalind posts here more than I do, and is forever denying my charge (see the "Warning" post), that she is here on behalf of a PR project funded by industry. She has denied this hundreds of times, and I predict she will deny it a thousand times more. She once claimed I am delusional and not worth her time, but for some reason, every word I say here is deserving of scrutiny. I am not here to tell anyone what to think. I am here to make it easier for you to see what's happening. > > > I'm sorry you're stupid, Petey, but just deal with it instead of > > > projecting. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > No, Petey. I'm simply seeing your financial interest in posting here. Care to elaborate, Rosalind? > After all, what else could bring you back day after day to embarrass > yourself after being humiliated by having your ignorance of almost > every topic you post on exposed so regularly? For someone who misquotes a single piece of data from a simple chart, getting it wrong by 1000%, in her promotion of vaccine, that's pretty amusing. > Say, Petey, why don't you come back when you've learnt some English, > chemistry, maths and biology and stop embarrassing your sponsors this > way? I mean, just look at the rest of this crappy post. If you've > nothing to say, then just don't. How s it, Rosalind, that you have such a busy life, but manage to post here more than I do, while claiming I have no work or family? How does that work, exactly? > > > You're the only person posting here who appears to have > > > a financial interest in doing so. And if you're the standard they can [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > PeterB <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry nor English. > > > > > It was, in fact, Robert Klenner who said his > > > > > research suggested that vitamin C is a transport for hydrogen, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > evolutionary standpoint, which was addressed by Irwin Stone, not > Klenner. Actually, Petey, it was you who said used the words "It was, in fact, Robert Klenner who said his research suggested that vitamin C is a transport for hydrogen, ultimately leading to aerobic cellular life." Halfwit. <snip more of Petey demonstrating that he doesn't understand English> > > Fear not, though, everyone else can see that "hydrogen is altered for > > more effective utilization, allowing oxygen to be accessed by the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > necessary for life, it will continue to have meaning. Vitamin C, as > well. Ah, so your total understanding of biology is that hydrogen, oxygen and vitamin C are involved, and you seem to think you can say anything you like about them and it will still make sense. Petey, your employers really aren't getting their money's worth. > > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > long before she responded. This occured long before Rosalind had a > chance to respond to me. Now here we have a blatant lie. Since I post through google groups, I can't even see, let alone respond to, a post that has been deleted. Moreover, you are well aware, Petey, that I responded to your post before it was removed, since it's been mentioned before. The details are available, to anyone who really gives a sh.t, in the archives. Moreover at the time, you simply continued to argue the point rather than saying you made a mistake and had removed your post. Thus, I remained unaware that it was a deleted post for some time. If you really want me to, Petey, I'll post it the relevant bits. It reflects very badly on you, but that's no surprise. It is also extremely amusing. So, in addition to Petey's quality of ignorance of chemistry, biology, maths, and dictionary usage, we can add that of deception. On a grand scale, since he knows I am not the toxicologist Rosalind Dalefield, but persists in calling me that for reasons known only to himself. <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > transport for hydrogen, ultimately leading to aerobic cellular life." > Halfwit. "...leading to aeorobic cellular life" was not a reference to evolutionary adaptation on my part, however. When you referred to this, you used the term "led to," and the past tense usage suggested its evolutionary aspects. I can't know you are quoting me unless you actually do so, dimwit. We all know you have a problem with accuracy, despite that editing career or yours (wink wink.) > <snip more of Petey demonstrating that he doesn't understand English> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > like about them and it will still make sense. Petey, your employers > really aren't getting their money's worth. Ad hominem. > > > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > > > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Since I post through google groups, I can't even see, let alone respond > to, a post that has been deleted. You can if the server hasn't actually pulled it down yet. We all know how quickly you like to respond to me, and because my actions were immediate, you could have been posting while I was editing my original post and resubmitting. Either way, I believe the time stamp will show that my correction appeared before your response. > Moreover, you are well aware, Petey, > that I responded to your post before it was removed, since it's been > mentioned before. The details are available, to anyone who really gives > a sh.t, in the archives. Knock yourself out. > Moreover at the time, you simply continued to argue the point rather > than saying you made a mistake and had removed your post. Thus, I > remained unaware that it was a deleted post for some time. If you > really want me to, Petey, I'll post it the relevant bits. It reflects > very badly on you, but that's no surprise. It is also extremely > amusing. Knock yourself out. > So, in addition to Petey's quality of ignorance of chemistry, biology, > maths, and dictionary usage, we can add that of deception. On a grand > scale, since he knows I am not the toxicologist Rosalind Dalefield, but > persists in calling me that for reasons known only to himself. If I knew that, Rosalind, I would only confine myself to calling you a Dimwit. > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> >><snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry >>nor English. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > actually do so, dimwit. We all know you have a problem with accuracy, > despite that editing career or yours (wink wink.) Oh, the hyprocisy of Vernon/ PeterB accusing others of playing semantics....... <snip> > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > actually do so, dimwit. We all know you have a problem with accuracy, > despite that editing career or yours (wink wink.) Gosh, Petey, apparently you don't even seem to understand the things you yourself have written, let alone anyone else's posts. I suggest you reread the exchange and blush. If you finally understand what you wrote. > > <snip more of Petey demonstrating that he doesn't understand English> > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ad hominem. No, Petey. It's simply rephrasing what you wrote. Again, reread 'til you understand it. > > > > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > > > > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > post and resubmitting. Either way, I believe the time stamp will show > that my correction appeared before your response. And I believe that this is another example of your simply refusing to admit to either a mistake or a lie. > > Moreover, you are well aware, Petey, > > that I responded to your post before it was removed, since it's been > > mentioned before. The details are available, to anyone who really gives > > a sh.t, in the archives. > > Knock yourself out. ??? I know what occurred, Petey. The fact that you're not willing to look is, er, telling. > > Moreover at the time, you simply continued to argue the point rather > > than saying you made a mistake and had removed your post. Thus, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Knock yourself out. No, thanks, Petey. Noted that you can't deny it, simply because the evidence is there, waiting. You did in fact continue to argue the point that you now claim you "retracted". > > So, in addition to Petey's quality of ignorance of chemistry, biology, > > maths, and dictionary usage, we can add that of deception. On a grand [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If I knew that, Rosalind, I would only confine myself to calling you a > Dimwit. You don't know why you call me Rosalind? Golly, that makes you dimmer than Jan, who does it because I have four children. Say, if you come up with a reason, do tell. > > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > reread the exchange and blush. If you finally understand what you > wrote. "...leading to aeorobic cellular life" was not a reference to evolutionary adaptation on my part, however. When you referred to this, you used the term "led to," and the past tense usage suggested its evolutionary aspects. I can't know you are quoting me unless you actually do so, dimwit. We all know you have a problem with accuracy, despite that editing career or yours (wink wink.) > > > <snip more of Petey demonstrating that he doesn't understand English> > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No, Petey. It's simply rephrasing what you wrote. Again, reread 'til > you understand it. When Rosalind paraphrases, it amounts to revisions of history, english, and science. Though she claims to be an editor, I think she should claim to be a novelist, instead. > > > > > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > > > > > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And I believe that this is another example of your simply refusing to > admit to either a mistake or a lie. I don't care what you believe. > > > Moreover, you are well aware, Petey, > > > that I responded to your post before it was removed, since it's been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ??? I know what occurred, Petey. The fact that you're not willing to > look is, er, telling. Look yourself. You have a lot more time here than I do. > > > Moreover at the time, you simply continued to argue the point rather > > > than saying you made a mistake and had removed your post. Thus, I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > evidence is there, waiting. You did in fact continue to argue the point > that you now claim you "retracted". Sure the evidence is there, Rosalind. Sort of like that data point you quoted, in which your figure was off by 1000%. How embarrassing for you. Being an editor, and all. > > > So, in addition to Petey's quality of ignorance of chemistry, biology, > > > maths, and dictionary usage, we can add that of deception. On a grand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > than Jan, who does it because I have four children. Say, if you come up > with a reason, do tell. Rosalind can't read. Poor thing. PeterB > > > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > > > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > actually do so, dimwit. We all know you have a problem with accuracy, > despite that editing career or yours (wink wink.) Gosh, Petey, apparently you don't even seem to understand the things you yourself have written, let alone anyone else's posts. I suggest you reread the exchange and blush. If you finally understand what you wrote. I have my doubts, given your recent difficulties using a dictionary. > > > > <snip more of Petey demonstrating that he doesn't understand English> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and science. Though she claims to be an editor, I think she should > claim to be a novelist, instead. Again, Petey, reread for comprehension, and if you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for you. > > > > > > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > > > > > > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I don't care what you believe. If you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for you. > > > > Moreover, you are well aware, Petey, > > > > that I responded to your post before it was removed, since it's been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Look yourself. You have a lot more time here than I do. If you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for you. > > > > Moreover at the time, you simply continued to argue the point rather > > > > than saying you made a mistake and had removed your post. Thus, I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > quoted, in which your figure was off by 1000%. How embarrassing for > you. Being an editor, and all. If you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for you. > > > > So, in addition to Petey's quality of ignorance of chemistry, biology, > > > > maths, and dictionary usage, we can add that of deception. On a grand [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rosalind can't read. Poor thing. So you still don't know? Say, if you remember, don't forget to let everyone know. And if you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for you. > PeterB > > > > > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > > > > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > > > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > wrote. I have my doubts, given your recent difficulties using a > dictionary. No, that would be your deficit, as amply demonstrated by your childish retorts. "...leading to aeorobic cellular life" was not a reference to evolutionary adaptation on my part, so your criticism is unfounded. You did not actually quote me when referring to my discussion of Klenner, so the lapse was yours, not mine. We all know you have a problem with accuracy, Rosalind, but don't feel bad. Editors like yourself (wink wink) have far exceeded the mental capacities of those who actually take time to read. Or rather, you can feel free to use that for an excuse, whenever needed, which will be often. > > > > > <snip more of Petey demonstrating that he doesn't understand English> > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Again, Petey, reread for comprehension, and if you have no reply, keep > schtum. It will be less embarrassing for you. Good luck quoting the next chart as you edit those books of yours (wink wink.) > > > > > > > And don't forget, Petey, that you argued that hydrogen was converted > > > > > > > into oxygen ("liberated from" oxygen at one point!") for quite some [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for > you. Did you think that one up all by yourself? > > > > > Moreover, you are well aware, Petey, > > > > > that I responded to your post before it was removed, since it's been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for > you. Poor Rosalind, she has deteriorated into one of those scratches on an old phonograph. People who push unproven vaccine and chemo on a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives seem to have a habit of that. Bless. > > > > > Moreover at the time, you simply continued to argue the point rather > > > > > than saying you made a mistake and had removed your post. Thus, I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less embarrassing for > you. Feeling alright, Rosalind? That's the 4th time now. And it's just as vaccuous as the first time. > > > > > So, in addition to Petey's quality of ignorance of chemistry, biology, > > > > > maths, and dictionary usage, we can add that of deception. On a grand [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > everyone know. And if you have no reply, keep schtum. It will be less > embarrassing for you. 5th time. Maybe Rosalind needs fresh batteries. Or just an argument. PeterB > > > > > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > > > > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 185 lines] > > 5th time. Maybe Rosalind needs fresh batteries. Or just an argument. Gosh Petey, you had absolutely nothing to say here apart from repeating errors of understanding you'd already made. You should have taken my advice and kept schtum. Your pitiful attempts at humour when you have no argument or have been proven wrong, stupid or dishonest again truly are an embarrassment to you, whether you notice it or not. > PeterB > > > > > > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > > > > > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] > Gosh Petey, you had absolutely nothing to say here apart from repeating > errors of understanding you'd already made. Rosalind really has no choice but to respond, which is quite funny. While claiming I am psychotic and not worth her time, she continues to respond to me, promoting vaccine and other drugs in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, proving her time here is part of a PR project funded by the media groups of industry. > You should have taken my > advice and kept schtum. But then you wouldn't have to work for your supper, Rosalind. > Your pitiful attempts at humour when you have > no argument or have been proven wrong, stupid or dishonest again truly > are an embarrassment to you, whether you notice it or not. If "no argument" is the criteria, Rosalind, I suggest you get another script. Another trip to the wizard probably wouldn't help, either, as you've run out of virtual personalities (ie., soccer mom, hellfire preacher, chemist, editor, pharma blogger. Oh look, that last one is legit.) PeterB LOLOLOL!!!! While accusing of lying.......... Rosalind LIES. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/76cf7d6ca022720b Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? Thurs, Jul 21 2005 12:29 pm ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/cbd8a5e271ee289c Thurs, Jul 21 2005 2:53 pm Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a16ec71135971762 Thurs, Jul 21 2005 4:47 pm Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/655c2412867e7b35 Fri, Jul 22 2005 12:45 pm Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield Ilena Rose" <Ilena.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1122002400.668527.322670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Is this 'comprehensibile' to you ... > are you Rosalind Dalefield hiding behind the alias of "Cathy B."? > http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield [you never did answer directly to IIena] Now what is *very telling*??? >> > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry >> > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > >> > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> [English..............ZZ.......favorite new buzz word] > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > [English..............ZZ.......favorite new buzz word] Hm. I suggest you toddle off and learn to write posts that people will understand Jan. In case you hadn't noticed, what you just wrote was incomprehensible nonsense. Again. > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > > > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > scale, since he knows I am not the toxicologist Rosalind Dalefield, but > persists in calling me that for reasons known only to himself. Hmm. NOT! http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/76cf7d6ca022720b Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? Thurs, Jul 21 2005 12:29 pm ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/cbd8a5e271ee289c Thurs, Jul 21 2005 2:53 pm Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/a16ec71135971762 Thurs, Jul 21 2005 4:47 pm Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/655c2412867e7b35 Fri, Jul 22 2005 12:45 pm Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? ... member of Quackwatch's Rag-tag Posse? http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield Ilena Rose" <Ilena.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1122002400.668527.322670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Is this 'comprehensibile' to you ... > are you Rosalind Dalefield hiding behind the alias of "Cathy B."? > http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Dalefield It is noted....once AGAIN. You did NOT EVER answer directly to IIena. [now watch for more English BS] > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry > > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Is "Cathy B" Rosalind Dalefield? No. I believe this has long been established. Your theory that because I and another woman on a different continent both have four kids, we are the same person was long ago shown to be arrant nonsense. Only the fact that you are a liar and an idiot can drive you to bring it up again. Pfui. > Thurs, Jul 21 2005 12:29 pm > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> Ya think so, Stella? http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000350.html Thread Name: Ilena Rose Stella Member posted 06-24-2000 06:06 PM ÝÝÝ Ý ÝÝ ÝÝ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ She seems to be able to find things out about me that I didn't even know myself. I found that she has alleged I am writing a book against alt med in animals. Well, actually I am against using alt med in animals, but it's news to me that I'm writing a book about it. Damn, maybe I better go find a literary agent!? Their resident, "non-biased" toxicologist, Dr. Rosalind "Stella" Dalefield is even contributing to a book on anti-alternative medicine for animals. Milloy is also hired for the anti-organic campaign they are now waging. His "Stella" wrote this vicious, inflammatory letter to the BBC: http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_589000/58... As a toxicologist, I am far more concerned about manure-derived bacteria and bacterial toxins than minute traces of pesticides. I avoid organic food on principle. the pro-organic, anti-GM lobby are motivated by genocidal racism and a hatred for the human race, particularly the poor. Rosalind Dalefield, UK Subject: need a new term in healthfraud From: Rosalind Dalefield <rdale...@rvc.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 12:13:56 +0100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Are there any language experts on the list? I am writing a review of an alt-med chapter (yes, I'm working on it, Dr. Imrie!) and I have run into one of those amazing laundry-lists of symptoms and clinical signs that the alt.meddlers like to trot out. You know the sort of thing; "chemical X has been implicated in nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, fevers, chills, depression, hyperactivity, polyuria, oliguria, arthritis, gallstones, asthma, dermatitis, hypopigmentation, melanosis, Unpronounceable's syndrome, Totallyobscure's syndrome, cancer [yes, ALL cancer] and ingrown toenails" I know that the mythical something that cures everything can be called a "panacea". Could someone do me the enormous favour of coining a term for the agent that CAUSES everything and anything? Thanks in advance, Rosalind _____________________________________________________________ Why would she be posting one story one place as "Rosalind" and the opposite as "Stella?" http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000033-2.html Stella Member posted 01-07-2000 08:31 AM Nice one, Ryan. I'll buy that...Unfortunately unlike ilena and Dee, I have a PhD in pathology. So I guess I am a pushover for your explanations. Dr. Brownlie, I imagine you have heard that the soyabean oil breast implants, something I have been very vocal against even before over 5,000 British women were implanted, are now been advised to be removed from these women. In my un-PhD opinion, they should never, ever, ever have been implanted in even one woman's body. It took harm of this magnitude to prove that oil goes rancid at 98.6 degrees? That very day of the British announcement by the way, Steve Milloy retired the Breast Implant Forum on his corporate sponsored website. If you're ever curious to see what really transpired between Dr. Dalefield and myself there, the whole history can be found at : http://www.cfis.org/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Breas... My best, Ilena Rosenthal >> > <snip Petey demonstrating again that he understands neither chemistry >> > nor English. [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] >> >> > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > Ya think so, Stella? Gosh another incomprehensible screed, apparently concerning people who don't post here, from the liar and idiot, Jan Drew. Say, Jan: remedial English. > http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000350.html > Thread Name: Ilena Rose [quoted text clipped - 215 lines] > >> > >> > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> Jan Drew wrote: > Ya think so, Stella? Gosh another incomprehensible screed, apparently concerning people who don't post here, from the liar and idiot, Jan Drew. Say, Jan: remedial English. YOU are BUSTED! AGAIN. > http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000350.html > Thread Name: Ilena Rose [quoted text clipped - 228 lines] > >> > >> > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> > Jan Drew wrote: > > Ya think so, Stella? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > YOU are BUSTED! AGAIN. Gosh another incomprehensible screed, apparently concerning people who don't post here, from the liar and idiot, Jan Drew. Say, Jan: remedial English. If you learn to express what you mean, people will know what you're talking about. > > http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000350.html > > Thread Name: Ilena Rose [quoted text clipped - 228 lines] > > >> > > >> > <snip Petey resorting to childish insult when he has nothing to say> |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message