Proof:

Re: John encouraging lying

all

Do post the proof of both of hs lastest accusations.

Let's see how clearly you can do that.

Have anything to say *

your proven lie.

Dr Steve's having no proof of his accuastions.
Of course not, since you not only got caugth in your first lie, you got
caught
in your second one.

Subject: Re: Jan Drew's Trap
From: "John Chewter" john@LESS_SPAMchewter.f9.co.uk
Date: 11/16/2004 2:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <cndudq$3jb$1@sparta.btinternet.com>

Dr Steve - Please repost this as a Top Line Post
John C

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:18:20 GMT, Steven Fawks
<tuthjoc...@e­arthlink.net>
wrote:

coffee

Joel Eichen is a liar, just more proof.

Sad that.

Jan

===

Get a life Jan - the pills are simply not working.

My reply:

Say John, do show us that Joel lies.

Have the guts?

Do show where I have ever clamed avything bout coffee emenas. otherwise

you are condoning his lies.

Your credibility is on the line.

John's reply:

If you are ever trapped a newgroup with only Jan & a Cobra for company
- trust the Cobra.

(John couldn't show us, instead he insulted)

Proving, he has NO credibility, condones lying.

Eager to believe Richard H Jacobson's lies, even though, his pattern
and lies have been proven, and he nuked his post.

Fawks

coffee

Joel Eichen is a liar, just more proof.

Sad that.

Jan

===

Get a life Jan - the pills are simply not working.

My reply:

Say John, do show us that Joel lies.

Have the guts?

Do show where I have ever clamed avything bout coffee emenas. otherwise

you are condoning his lies.

Your credibility is on the line.

John's reply:

If you are ever trapped a newgroup with only Jan & a Cobra for company
- trust the Cobra.

(John couldn't show us, instead he insulted)

Proving, he has NO credibility, condones lying.

Eager to believe Richard H Jacobson's lies, even though, his pattern
and lies have been proven, and he nuked his post.

======The cyberstalked with a repeated Pattern wrote:

Probably the best way to debunk these claims is to demonstrate that the

person making the claim is lying.

========And Richard H Jacobson badgered and cyberstalked everyone of them, and
Rich nuked his posts. This will explain why.

(Rich is foaming at the mouth because I found all these posts in others

posts.)

*I accused Kelly of lying about having breast cancer and
being cured by chelation and pycnogenol. This is a quite remarkable
claim and her response were vague, evasive, and contradictory.*

*It is frustrating isn't it Talena to not have others believe in YOUR
reality.*

r...@cris.com (Richard Jacobson)

(Undocumented.  Everything else is hearsay.  Even what is written in
the NGis
hearsay until the facts back it up.   People can form *opinions* based
on these
comments, but we don't know if the information is accurate until we see

the
documents.  My *opinion* is that Kelly is telling the truth.  I believe

her.
Your *opinion* is that she is not.  But that's all theseare--opinions.)

( These are not *facts*.  They are hearsay unless you see her file.)

*she refuses to come clean to the newsgroup, I have decided not to
waste
my time >meeting her.OIC.*

*I already decided she was not to be believed based on her posting
OIC.*

*There is NO question that she lied. She admitted that she lied.*

*FACT?? It is your perception and not a fact although I realize that
you think
that if you believe something then it makes it true for everyone else
too.*

*The best that Kelly could say is that she "thought" that she had
breast cancer
but the doctor never told her so.*

****I certainly don't try to cram my paradigm down others' throats by
slyly
belittling or devaluing their beliefs and statements, the way you seem
to be
doing to mine.****

*The scientific method is ONE way. Why don't you give us another way to

determine is someone's observation IS universally valid. Perhaps you
believe
that if YOU observe it then it is universally valid.  This is called
universality by pathologic narcissism.*

***She's a liar she's a liar.*** She makes up stuff about pycnogenol
curing
cancer she didn't have."  **

*She read research, ***but doesn't mail it to me*** so she didn't do
the
research either.*

*I heard Kelly say a lot of things. And IMO she, and I
am being VERY kind, is not being

**completely honest**

about it. Or did not YOU read THOSE things??? Seems like you have
selective
reading.*

***It does more to indicate what kind of person you are than
anything.**

***It is true that I accused Kelly of lying about having breast cancer
and
being cured by chelation and pycnogenol.*****

*This is a quite remarkable claim and her response were vague, evasive,

and
contradictory. If it is difficult for you to believe that someone died
as a
result of rejecting conventional care since it seems like such

***an outrageous claim***

(I mean NO ONE dies from doing this do they)then I don'tknow what to
tell you.I
mean... you don't believe Kelly had breast cancer, or I am married,

No I believe you are married. I also believe that your husband has
hypertension.

***And I also think I have some insigh tinto why he has hypertension.
High
stress can cause high blood pressure. Somehow I have af eeling that
your
husband has stress in his life. I don't know from where because

****it is clear that it is not coming from you since you have
demonstrated such
empathy, compassion and caring for your fellow human being. His stress
must be
from elsewhere.***

It does seem as if you are coming apart at the seams:-)))

*Did she ALSO tell you that she
qualified showing t to me depending on what she thought of me when he
met me.
Based on her numerous contradictions and evasiveness as manifested on
this
newsgroup I determined that her

***credibility approaches zero***

*** I don't trust Kelly AT ALL and I offered MUCH evidence for this
perception.***
=  *I have decided it is a waste of time trying to discuss things with
Connie.
Several times I have confronted her with information that contradicts
what she
says and she just ignores it. It is very difficult for Connie to be
direct when
she realizes that she is wrong. When she realizes she is wrong she goes

into
her sarcastic, avoidant or play mode. We have seen her behavior over
and over
again. But what fascinates me the most is how no one calls Connie to
task over
this stuff except me. For the first time Karuna is encouraging>Connie
to answer
me but Karuna fails to tell Connie that it is WRONG to claim someone
had skin
cancer without biopsy and WRONG to avoid saying it is wrong even when
confronted with the facts.

But Connie is Connie. What can I say.

I simpy asked the question of what makes you think that you have
problem with
digestive enzymes (and instead of answering you just launched an ad
hominem).

You consider THAT interrogation??? Perhaps your psychologic problems
are
deeper than I thought.

Or are we just supposed to accept every anecdote that you present here
at face
value and not ask ANY questions that might help to evaluate the
anecdote for
its reliability and validity??

With all due respect Connie, you seem VERY defensive.

You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that
these
alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then
your
anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming

as to
be intolerable.

you are

not used to interrogation and then add a smiley. So perhaps you could
seriously
explain why you chose not to answer simple question which was very
reasonable
and instead give an ad hominem.

really

NOT interested in a discussion about alternative health and just into
posting
anecdotes and then dancing around attempts to further explore the
anecdote
through questions that could clarify points that were not clear.

for YOU

to come to conclusions such as:

for a

life threatening pancreatic disorder

adrenal

insufficiency.>>

In both of the above anecdotal experiences that you personally had, you

did NOT
have enough information to really assert either of those statements.
And yet
you did. But when I attempt through questions to> get more information
about
the situations I am met with resistance, defensiveness and sarcasm or
outright
lies. You say that you would like to discuss but your behavior is not
consistent with this statement.

It does not have to lead to liar chants. Of course when it is obvious
that you
are lying then it is difficult to resist.

health and

want to believe that these alternative treatments are going to help
prevent
serious illnesses in the future.

bits of

information that will support your contention. However your bits of
information
often indicate that you are not telling the truth.

No. You just made up the part about the blood test to make your
anecdote more
credible. But it backfired since the whole story is preposterous.

have

already exposed your lies. Perhaps now you realize that it is>better to

just
attack conventional medicine and make ad hominem arguements instead of
answering simple questions that would help to understand what we are
dealing
with. You probably realize that if you give honest answers to my
questions that
I will be able to> successfully debunk your claims. And because it is
so
important for you to have hope that these treatments work in order to
reduce
your anxiety about your future health, you must at all costs stop me
from
debunking you successfully.

conventional

medicine come in.

asymptomatic and was diagnosed as having an ulcer which was then
confirmed by
an MD. Another example of how you want to convince others that these
alternative therapies are on the up and up by adding confirmatory
claims.

If you don't want to be called a liar then I suggest that you stop
lying.

have

confirmatory information for the diagnosis such as a blood test> or
xray or
biopsy then simply answer yes or no. Don't try to make up stuff to make

your
story more credible. It does not work because you are clearly no
sophisticated
enough to make up a good story. This is>quite clear from the many
stories that
you have already told.

your

need to really believe all these alternative remedies that you take are

going
to protect you. And I understand your need to convince yourself it is
true even
if it means making up stories that will confirm your beliefs.  And now
that I
am thinking about it, it may be true that you are not really lying. You

may be
so well defended and so anxious that you may not even be aware that you

are
making up these stories in order to convince YOURSELF that these
alternative
treatments really work.

these

alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then
your
anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming

as to
be intolerable.

pathologic

lying. In either case your credibility is totally lacking

NOT mean

that I think preventative health care is a ridiculous idea OR that we
are much
better off with full scale conventional medicine blast way treatments.
You
continue to make strawman arguments which>do little for your
credibility.

disturbance or are a pathologic liar and that your anecdotes should be
taken
with a grain of salt.

readers of

this newsgroup to tread with caution before believing any anecdotes
posted
here.

confirmatory information before even believing that the anecdote
presented is
valid.

Then you

say that you never heard of an infant glucose tolerance test.

that you

are not running for political office?:-))))

Of course you should Huggy. You are a Christian and love everyone. You>

also
confess your sins (such as lying): been busy at confessional latel?:-))

who is

so paranoid about getting ill that you will take any quack remedy that
comes
down the pike because you don't have time to wait for science to
"prove" it.

question

your claims you think that I am motivated by financial incentive. Oh, I

am
sorry. You had a smiley. Does that mean that you> did not really mean
that???:-)))

conditions. In

the case of your son, there is no blood test to make such a diagnosis
(other
than gtt) and in your case you did not have such a blood test.

had:-)))

I am not saying that your infant son was not quite ill and that you
were
appropriately concerned about him. I AM suggesting that he did NOT have

the
lifethreatening pancreatic problem that you claim that he did. I am
simply
skeptical. That does NOT mean that I am pathologically paranoid.

I am attempting to get at the truth about anecdotes and to remove the
distortions and misrepresentations and lies that you tell.

Remember Connie that lying is a sin.

Perhaps your chiropractors knows more about diagnosing adrenal
insufficiency
than endocrinologists:-)))

Unfortunately alternative health providers prey upon the somatically
hypervigilant convincing them that they have caught a problem early and

are
providing treatment to prevent the problem from getting worse.

alternatives

instead of conventional    you replied that you used acupuncture and
supplements to treat strep throat.

was a

serious illness that warranted treatment with antibiotics.

husband

reminded you of how sick you were when you chose not to take
antibiotics..

HOWEVER you ALSO claim that as a result of being so extremely ill not
taking
antibiotics that the next time that you had strep throat that> you
chose to
take antibiotics.

to take

them just a few years ago how is it possible that you forgot that
acupuncture
and supplements did not work when you replied to my question about what

illness
you would treat with alternatives??

In order for you to have that serious a memory disorder you would not
be able
to function in day to day living.

I don't believe that you are being truthful about this. Others can make

their
own decision about your honesty.

With your "apparent" memory disturbance it is doubtful that you can
learn from
your past mistakes and are doomed to repeat them.

You see Connie sometimes it is not necessary for someone to have been
there to
know that what you are saying is not true. It is only necessary for
someone to
be knowledgeable enough about blood tests to know that what you are
claiming is
impossible. If you have information that contradicts what I say then
please
post it.

Others might be concerned about your credibility.

With you it is easy Connie. Just look at my critical analysis of your
claims
and your contradictory posts which strongly suggest that you are not
being
honest.

No. BELIEVING that you have caught symptoms early that will get worse
later is
the rule. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it so.

My ONLY point is that your anecdote is NOT evidence that he had a life
threatening pancreatic disorder as you CLAIMED in your original
anecdote.  That
has been my ONLY objection.

Lack of energy in a very nonspecific symptom that may very well be
amenable to
placebo responses.

part about

having a confirmatory blood test in order to add credibility to the
chiropractor's Dx. If she did not lie then how else can you explain her

assertion especially the "necessary and >beneficial" characterization.
She
claims that she had some test that was *necessary* that does not even
EXIST.
Does that not at least make you wonder if she was lying?? Or are you
100% sure
of your assertion.

So let me get this right. It is my fault that I asked you a
questionabout
whether your infant child had a GTT?? Are you not capable of thinking
Connie???

Ahola

Rich

There are some people who just are totally unable to communicate.
I think that the least that they could do is to shut the hell up.
                          Tom Lehrer
(LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!)

=====================================================================And the readers opinions.

I think you are very unfair, Connie, you must leave Rich so
frustrated.<g>>
He's probably off on one of his clifftop walks muttering and slashing
at the
vegetation trying to vent his ire.   Your form of mental jiu jitsu just

leaves
him floundering.   Unfortunately, he thinks he must have explained it
wrongly
and comes back for another go.   He doesn't seem to realise it doesn't
matter
and he's the only one hot and bothered about it.

Rich wrote: a bunch of the same stuff. why are you SOOOO taken up by

this,

richie???if connie is so beneath you and such a dishonest poster, why
bother
withher????you keep on and on and on....

Rich you believe that everything you do is reasonable.  Others can
decide if
you have been reasonable in badgering Connie.

is that

she did NOT lie.

That's only your opinion.  *WE* do not believe she lied.  I can see
you in a
room with her backing her into the corner, she sits with her arms
covering her
head while you go at her. Sorta like some police scenes.......trying to

break
down a suspected criminal. This is all so very ridiculous. People
should be
able to share with others without being put on trial.

Have you ever made a mistake in your life Rich?

Is this how you treat your family and friends?

You have already proved what kind of person you are with your
consistent
obsession with Connie.

liar.

She doesn't care enough for your opinion to lie to you.   I've seen
others who
will lie rather than admit they have made mistakes but not Connie.
She may
make mistakes, but we all do.   She doesn't hide her mistakes, if you
point
them out she will check and agree.   But she will not lie to you and
say she
has made a mistake when she hasn't. As to this test that was done by
the
doctor, did you consider he did something  which she misunderstood?
All
Connie did was report what she believed happened.   I've heard nothing
from her
that makes me consider she is lying. Except for the suggestion that she

copes
with the workload she has described. I can't believe that is possibly
true.

No Connie. Richie was being manipulative and misleading with his post

Read the above, you omitted your quote in the post which misleads the
readers. Richie the master manipulator debungler.

You know very well that Jan will not see those questions and therefore
cannot
answer.
You are a deliberate trouble-maker who targets posters here.
Without doubt you are a newsgroup stalker, Rich.

You should apologise, but for your own behavior.

Nope, for his behavior to Jan and to Connie.
His recent rant against Jan was typical.
He has said he intends to post a similar rant on a regular basis,
claiming to
be 'policing' the group.
He is undoubtedly a cyber stalker and Jan is his current target.

Jan did not mailbomb or post to ADA-D at all.   Rich did it all and
deliberately tried to deceive the posters there.

Rich is a cyberstalker and he has been stalking Jan for a long time.