Now for the PROOF Of Dan's LIES

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Jan - 09 Dec 2004 00:50 GMT

My post in full.

Dan is a L I A R!!!

From: Jan (jdrew63...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: A request for the Janster
View: Complete Thread (5 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2004-10-07 22:39:28 PST

>Subject: A request for the Janster
>From: "carabelli" huer...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 10/7/2004 7:43 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Message-id: <o1o9d.507325$OB3.380...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>Jan, would it be possible for you to learn how to properly annotate and
>attribute when cutting and pasting?

Sorry, I already know how, could you please show us whatever it is you are
talking about??

Any thing else you can invent that might suit your purpose.

Of cyberstalking??

You really should get over your resentments, Dan.

It was your decision to lie.

Mine was to call your lie.

You lied and said you had answered my questions. You didn't. below is the
proof.

From: carabelli (redsl...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2003-01-13 13:59:53 PST

"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote.........

Emission of mercury
vapors in the oral cavity increased with the number of fillings.

(why is that?)

> >I don't know - yet

With ALL your EDUCATION, and you don't know YET??????

>I don't know if this was a valid study - you haven't posted enough

information to evaluate it.

>However, that sounds like an interesting article. Where was it published,
>who wrote it, how was it reviewed?
> How was mercury vapor measured? How was the amount of amalgam measured?
> How was the accuracy of this device ensured? How were
> >control measurements taken to ensure other factors did not influence
> >results. What statistical analysis was employed - was it the appropriate
> >method to analyze the results?

With ALL your Education, go the Medline and find out!!!!
My conclusion is you do NOT want to know.

YOU are the DENTIST, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THESE
THINGS!!!!!!!!

>NO - I'm an orthodontist - you brought this to the table to discuss and I

asked for details. Medline doesn't provide this information - it very
seldom links to the complete article.

>Post the original article and I will give you my opinion of it.

>I will check the link you provided later when I have time.

carabelli

From: carabelli (redsl...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2003-01-13 15:00:01 PST

"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> .......>

Umm. You have forgotten what YOU posted. Something about my not educating
myself. And how well educated you were.

Then I presented questions which ALL of you are afraid to answer.

>I have been trying to answer one of you questions. The information is

incomplete. I am not going to spend time wading through your cut and paste
post. It looks like a collage a 2nd grader did with their eyes closed.

>Show me the entire original article. If you can't locate it post another

complete article supporting your position and I will give you an honest
assessment of it and why. If you post an abstract again for evaluation I
will give you an honest label for yourself also.

>Don't shotgun me with a bunch of citations. I'm not going to drop

everything and read everything you want because it suits you. If that is
what you want - buy a dog and teach it to chase sticks.

carabelli

From: carabelli (HUER...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2003-01-13 20:39:13 PST

"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote.........

WHY ARE ABSTRACTS ON MEDLINE?????????

That does NOT take a study to answer, so just answer it!!

>I will take a brief respite from denial and tell the truth. Medline was

invented by Al Gore, it was a deceptive ploy conceived behind closed doors
with the Republican Party to provide partial information to idiots. This
may seem contradictory, however it is not. Evidentally, partial information
overload for the uneducated or intelligence challenged seemed to be a
benefit for both parties and reduced voting for fringe party candidates.

>I feel better already, free at last from denial.

>So that people don't waste their time and money going to school. In just

minutes and a few clicks you can become more knowledgeable than people that
have been programmed by 10+ years of higher education.

>An easier example is the next awarding of the Emmys. This time the awards

will not be given by people that have actually watched the shows. A group
of 10 people with a pile of TV Guides will make the decisions.

>I hope this answers your question.

carabelli

From: carabelli (HUER...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2003-01-14 15:52:19 PST

"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030114183632.12074.00000725@mb-bg.aol.com...

(Now as is the norm here, Dr Steve jumps in to cover for Dan)

> >Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> >From: "Dr. Steve" drst...@home.msen.com
> >Date: 1/14/2003 8:21 AM Central Standard Time

> >Message-id: <v2874l18pnq...@corp.supernews.com>
> >For other lay-people (not our favorite troll who won't believe it
> >anyway)...........

> >Med-Line is a research tool from which to find articles. The abstract is
> >supposed to give just enough information to quickly let you know if you want
> >to read that particular article or not. Abstracts are often written by the
> >article's author, and can, therefore, have a bias to them. If the article
> >looks like it meets the needs of your information search, you then order
> >(and pay for) the complete article. After reading the complete article, you
> >have the opportunity to agree with the author, or disagree, depending on how
> >well the author made his/her argument. Many articles are done with very
> >poor research methods. The conclusions drawn by the authors cannot be
> >inferred by the data they present. Yet, the conclusion will be listed in
> >the abstract. Another point not listed in the abstract is where the funding
> >came from to do the research. One must be suspicious of any articles
> >written where the product being evaluated, is paying for the research.

> >An abstract is just the author's very brief summary of what his/her article
> >is about. Med-Line does not filter what abstracts to list. They list any
> >and all abstracts they can find. Infotrieve and other on-line research
> >sites all do the same thing. If you want to read the entire article, you
> >get the privilege of driving to the local medical library, or paying about

> >$30 for each re-print, due to the copyright fees.
> Wonder Why Steve can't answer the questions, taken from Abstracts?????

>It was written in plain English right above your question. If what he wrote

won't sink in you'll have to be content wandering around in the twilight. I
guess you're not capable of reading with comprehension.

See ya later - back to blocking Jan

carabelli

Reply to this Message

Joel M. Eichen - 09 Dec 2004 02:10 GMT

>My post in full.
>
>Dan is a L I A R!!!

......but ... always a gentleman.

Joel

>From: Jan (jdrew63...@aol.com)
>Subject: Re: A request for the Janster
[quoted text clipped - 195 lines]
>
>carabelli

Reply to this Message