 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2008Mark Thorson the REPEATED LIAR CANNOT SHUT up!
Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal: "Frank" has frequently joined Myrl & Coleah and the Snake-oil Vigilantes when they need reinforcements in their campaigns against me. http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=AylsnBMAAACtINl73zYlEdvvIfqgCbc 9h-kUg4S0n7nbF1Te82ZIng He first showed up in August, 2004, when Coleah joined the Snake-oil Vigilantes & Myrl as they augmented their attacks on me ... and it seems that perhaps every one of his posts is obsessing about me and trying to harm me and my reputation. This was the same time as the SBIPrivate Club was raging against me ... and "Frank" bopped in to slam me here & there. Posting this time from Raleigh, North Carolina ... hmmm ... who lives near there? Only one with Quack Logic could imagine that Amalgam Awareness Activist, Ms Jan Drew, and myself, Ilena Rosenthal are the same person. We are however, both targets of this team ... who excel at hiding behind aliases for their attacks. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm > Only one with Quack Logic could imagine that Amalgam Awareness > Activist, MsJanDrew, and ...IlenaRosenthal are the same > person. Is Jan Drew really Jean Wootton? >> Only one with Quack Logic could imagine that Amalgam Awareness >> Activist, MsJanDrew, and ...IlenaRosenthal are the same >> person. >> > Is Jan Drew really Jean Wootton? No -- you have to think of anagrams. Obviously "she" is the infamous Bond villain, Jaw Rend (sometimes known as Jaw Nerd.) | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > No -- you have to think of anagrams. Obviously "she" is > the infamous Bond villain, Jaw Rend (sometimes known as > Jaw Nerd.) Was wondering if you, Andrew, richie Rich, and Probert were the same person? You know, kind of like, one sock fits all? > > No -- you have to think of anagrams. Obviously "she" is > > the infamous Bond villain, Jaw Rend (sometimes known as > > Jaw Nerd.) > > Was wondering if you, Andrew, richie Rich, and Probert were the > same person? You know, kind of like, one sock fits all? How many times do I have to say it? The only actual person on MHA is Peter Bowditch. All the rest of us are sock-puppets. : How many times do I have to say it? The only actual person on MHA is : Peter Bowditch. : All the rest of us are sock-puppets. We are all Rich Rosen. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > In article > <687f9849-a5f0-4c9c-8549-4b71c017f173@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We are all Rich Rosen. Rich Rosen is off-topic. Proving PeterB's point--that never stopped you before. Don't ya just hate that...... > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" :> In article :> <687f9849-a5f0-4c9c-8549-4b71c017f173@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> : Peter Bowditch. :> : All the rest of us are sock-puppets. :> We are all Rich Rosen. : Rich Rosen is off-topic. If you knew anything at all about usenet, you would know that Rich Rosen is *always* on-topic. : PeterB Is not the subject. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > In article <uezMj.541$ix6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Jan Drew <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If you knew anything at all about usenet, you would know that Rich > Rosen is *always* on-topic. I'm sure you'd rather be Rich Rosen than Rich Schultz. Rich Schultz is well known for his inability to read the NIH consensus, lies about what webpages others have cited, and lies about his own views. Yup, the idea being someone else would be pretty sweet; but its just wishful thinking for you. > : PeterB > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." > -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ :> :> We are all Rich Rosen. :> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : I'm sure you'd rather be Rich Rosen than Rich Schultz. I see that demonstrating your cluelessness remains a favorite pastime. : Rich Schultz is well known for his inability to read the NIH consensus, : lies about what webpages others have cited, and lies about his own views. I specifically stated the *current NCCAM acupuncture web page* which is *not* the web page that contains the NIH consensus. Which (if any) of these statements is untrue: (1) The NIH consensus statement about acupuncture dates from 1997 (2) The web page with that statement includes a disclaimer that it is more than five years old (3) The most current NCCAM web page on acupuncture dates from after 1997 (4) The most current NCCAM web page on acupuncture contains a section on the current status of acupuncture research (5) That section refers to the 1997 consensus statement (6) That section does not quote any positive results that are cited in the 1997 consensus statement (7) I quoted that section of the most current NCCAM acupuncture web page in full and without editing (8) I asked you for an explanation of why you cite the 1997 consensus statement instead of an up-to-date web page (9) You continue to cite the 1997 consensus statement even though I specifically cited URL of the more recent web page that I was quoting, and did not answer the question that I asked. The correct answer is, of course "none of them." I'm guessing that you would have needed such a hind. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" Off-topic. > In article <c09de147-bc08-41ad-995a-a88841dfc...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I see that demonstrating your cluelessness remains a favorite pastime. I know who he is and it makes perfect sense why you'd rather be him than Rich Schultz. > : Rich Schultz is well known for his inability to read the NIH consensus, > : lies about what webpages others have cited, and lies about his own views. > > I specifically stated the *current NCCAM acupuncture web page* which is > *not* the web page that contains the NIH consensus. That still doesn't explain why in the recent past you didn't find the statement on efficacy despite the fact I quoted it directly and repeatedly. You simply claimed that the page I *cited* contained no such thing. Fact is, you were lying because: A. It was right where I said it was B. You in fact cited a different website and lied about me citing it. You did it repeatedly even though I told you that I knew you were being dishonest. When I proved that by showing I NEVER cited that page, you didn't apologize for making a mistake, much less for lying. Of course, you do that a lot. You've accused me on 3 occasions of saying that acupuncture can only work when done by an L.Ac. The first time I caught you, and said I could prove I didn't say that, you didn't apologize for your error (or lie), you wanted me to prove a negative. I quoted what I did say and yet you took that as a green light to repeat that same statement twice more. The first time may have been a mistake. The following two were done with malice of forethought. That is a clear pattern with you. > Which (if any) of these statements is untrue: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The correct answer is, of course "none of them." I'm guessing that you > would have needed such a hind. None of that has any bearing on the efficacy of acupuncture nor on the NIH's endorsement thereof. I guess you have to make that "argument" because you don't have any evidence that the NIH has abandoned its support of acupuncture. Instead of trying to discuss something that might invalidate acupuncture, you try to make the prima-facia argument that the changes in their website proves that they have abandoned their consensus statement. That is pretty pathetic, but what should I expect from a man that would prefer to be Rich Rosen? > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your > truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" :> : I'm sure you'd rather be Rich Rosen than Rich Schultz. ? :> I see that demonstrating your cluelessness remains a favorite pastime. : I know who he is I seriously doubt that (although it is true that he has a Wikipedia entry), since the joke dates to a time long before you were likely to have had any awareness of usenet. : and it makes perfect sense why you'd rather be him than Rich Schultz. As I said, demonstrating your cluelessness is a favorite pastime of yours. Or is it lying? I can't remember. I never said that I would *prefer* to be Rich Rosen. I was merely stating a fact -- we are all Rich Rosen. If you think about it, since we are all Rich Rosen, it doesn't really matter whether we would prefer it that way or not. :> Which (if any) of these statements is untrue: :> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] : None of that has any bearing on the efficacy of acupuncture nor on the : NIH's endorsement thereof. It does, however, have a bearing on your claims about what I was and was not citing. I would be most interested in seeing your evidence that the NIH "endorses" acupuncture. Their disclaimer (I leave it to you to find that web page) seems to indicate that they don't endorse much of anything. I look forward to your providing citations to the posts in which I said (a) the most recent NCCAM web page about acupuncture "repudiated" the 1997 consensus statement; (b) I would "prefer" to be Rich Rosen. I believe that you have told us that someone who makes an incorrect claim about what another person has posted is a liar. I wouldn't want you to have to admit to being one of those. I also look forward to your responding to the list of journal articles that I posted that discuss experiments testing the efficacy of acupuncture, and for your response to my question about whether the essay on Qi that I cited contains any errors of fact. (cue "crickets chirping") ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> Off-topic <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> Off-topic > :> In article > :> <687f9849-a5f0-4c9c-8549-4b71c017f173@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you knew anything at all about usenet, you would know that Rich > Rosen is *always* on-topic. Thanks for showing you LIE. Rich Rosen is NOT the subject. > : PeterB > > Is not the subject. That's correct. However, you proved him correct. What's more you are a hypocrite. > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il :> :> We are all Rich Rosen. :> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : Rich Rosen is NOT the subject. Since we are all Rich Rosen, Rich Rosen is always on-topic. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ Thanks for showing you LIE. >: If you Is not the subject >: Rich Rosen Is not the suject. > : PeterB That's correct. > ----- > Richard Schultz <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: >How many times do I have to say it? The only actual person on MHA is >Peter Bowditch. I duuno, how many times do you need to lie? >All the rest of us are sock-puppets. All of the *gang* are just plain proven liars. > All of the *gang* are just plain proven liars. I joined the gang last night at the secret handshake party---- I am not a liar, Jan, and I do not appreciate your comment. On Apr 13, 7:18 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > All of the *gang* are just plain proven liars. I joined the gang last night at the secret handshake party---- I am not a liar, Jan, and I do not appreciate your comment. - Once again. I do not call people liars, or say they lie, without proving them. I can indeed prove you are, is that what you want, Debbee? http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/f1120a54c938e69f > On Apr 13, 7:18 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can indeed prove you are, is that what you want, Debbee? |
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.