 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / May 2005The Webby is a L I A R and Deceitful
The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in message Liars and deceitful people always get caught. http://tinyurl.com/agwyd Once again, *I* didn't right that. LL/Jan . > The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > . did you left it? >> The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > did you left it? Sorry, meant *write*. Thanks for catching my error. LL/Jan I for one, never thought you did. After all, it is signed "The Webby". Maybe the part that says "this or that person wrote:" is something that isn't written by the person replying to a post. For example, I am using Google groups to write this reply and since I'm using the reply box at the bottom of your post, I don't have any way to edit whatever else comes out. Jorge Bonilla, DMD >I for one, never thought you did. After all, it is signed "The Webby". > Maybe the part that says "this or that person wrote:" is something that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > comes out. > Jorge Bonilla, DMD Give me a break. As I reply, you can clearly see that you wrote it. It clearly states, my name as who wrote it, that clearly is a lie, furthermore she clearly tried to block it. LL/Jan Ll/Jan > >I for one, never thought you did. After all, it is signed "The Webby". > > Maybe the part that says "this or that person wrote:" is something that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ll/Jan Hello, JAAAAN! Webby's name is signed at the bottom of the post. Yep, she deleted something you wrote, but your name is in one color and her name and her words are in another color. No seasoned newsgroup reader would have any trouble whatsoever understanding that Webby wrote those words. Go take your nap. >> >I for one, never thought you did. After all, it is signed "The > Webby". [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Webby's name is signed at the bottom of the post. Yep, she deleted > something you wrote, Wrong. Liars and deceitful people always get caught. http://tinyurl.com/agwyd Once again, *I* didn't write that > The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LL/Jan So now you're calling Webby names, too? She has been on Usenet a LOT longer than almost anyone else on SMD and has written many well-considered opinions. Not everyone agrees with each of her opinions, but that makes for interesting discussion, which in turn sheds more light on the subject. Discussion is always more elightening than just calling "Liar! Liar!" whenever a different -- or even BETTER -- opinion is posted. You may not agree with her, but that does *NOT* make her a liar. - dentaldoc LadyLollipop wrote: > The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in message > Liars and deceitful people always get caught. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LL/Jan So now you're calling Webby names, too? I guess if someone lied about you, you would remain silent. I think not. She has been on Usenet a LOT longer than almost anyone else on SMD and has written many well-considered opinions. Not everyone agrees with each of her opinions, but that makes for interesting discussion, which in turn sheds more light on the subject. Discussion is always more elightening than just calling "Liar! Liar!" whenever a different -- or even BETTER -- opinion is posted. You may not agree with her, but that does *NOT* make her a liar. - dentaldoc It has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the above mentioned. She clearly lied and then tried to block it. The fact you condone lying and deceitfulness says a lot about you. of course, I already knew that as you did it will you added deceitful words about DR. Jacobson. Liars and deceitful people stick together. We see plenty examples on this dental newsgroup. LL/Jan > LadyLollipop wrote: > > The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So now you're calling Webby names, too? > I guess if someone lied about you, you would remain silent. I think not. We agree! Last fall, somebody lied about me. They said that I had made "false accusations!" I asked them to show any such "false accusations" I had made. They couldn't -- because I hadn't made any. They had been caught lying. > She has been on Usenet a LOT longer than almost anyone else on SMD and > has written many well-considered opinions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - dentaldoc > It has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the above mentioned. > > She clearly lied and then tried to block it. > > The fact you condone lying and deceitfulness says a lot about you. There you go AGAIN! Nowhere, did I "condone lying and deceitfulness." If so, show us! You can't, because I did NO such thing! The fact that you accuse others of things that only you IMAGINE certainly says far more about you than about them. of > course, I already knew that as you did it will you added deceitful words > about DR. Jacobson. NO. You're lying again. I added NO deceitful words. Your claim that I did is your LIE. I challenged you on your lie last year, and you could show no place where your deceitful claim could be backed up. You got CAUGHT in your lies AGAIN. > Liars and deceitful people stick together. We see plenty examples on this > dental newsgroup. > > LL/Jan How true -- but not in the way you intended! - dentaldoc LadyLollipop wrote: > > The Webby" <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnos...@san.rr.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So now you're calling Webby names, too? > I guess if someone lied about you, you would remain silent. I think not. We agree! Last fall, somebody lied about me. They said that I had made "false accusations!" I asked them to show any such "false accusations" I had made. They couldn't -- because I hadn't made any. They had been caught lying. There's a BLATANT LIE. http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf YOUR WORDS:: This article states: "But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing' charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his license." If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury," then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson? Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of laws that did not relate to mercury. One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry. Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an overwhelming pattern of substandard practice. If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams. His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases tends to refute the point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other eleven cases show that he wasn't. Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair prosecution? - dentaldoc It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not? Plus the words, violations of the law?? What overwhelming pattern of substandard practice? Substandard and overwhelming are your choice of words, are they not? Which is overwhelming and which is substandard?? >>His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases Say what?!?! Using no mercury is malpractice?????? >I never said that. >The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he >was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board. Well, no, those are your words. >Since >these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the >non-mercury cases. Oh??? Like what? >Like the three cases you list below. He didn't wash his hands. Not seeing decay. Yelled at a patient. That's malpracitice/substandard??? >Who made these charges??? >Didn't you know that when you posted the reference? Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints. >Generally, charges >are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is >the government's dental board. Uh huh, *organized dentistry* > The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it >> clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called >> *investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used >> the >> words *mercury free*. Concocted charges, such as: He didn't wash his hands. Not seeing decay. Yelled at a patient. >Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken >lightly. LOL!!! My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct. > (I don't know what an *investion* is.) Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out. >With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems >unlikely to result in a loss of license. Yes. Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay. Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they? >But if his patients all >rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had >yelled at a patient? It was made up! Did any of his patients say that?? >Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt >that the state had any other way of >learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the board. Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at them. You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the complaints. Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wanted nothing to do with it. >With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious. >Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have >any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it, >serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a >dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted. In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused. >By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands." >In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of >infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health >care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple >act of washing one's hands has a dramatic effect in lowering the rate >of disease transmission in the healthcare setting. Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom?? I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses, we would have very few licensed people in any field. Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license. <snip> Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercury free is EXACTLY why he was harassed and the investigators worked mighty hard to come up with this trumpeted up charges. It took them over twelve years. The board members made it clear they were upset with his refusal of the use of mercury. >Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair >> >prosecution? WOW!!!!! The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL. >Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what about the other eleven charges? I didn't see eleven, did you? >It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without >examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam. No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these charges made up!!! >Was it true >that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even >wash his hands? B I N G O!!!! Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room?? WHAT does that tell you? Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and DISHONEST tactics.?? *Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to free them of mercury poisoning* It all comes back to the gag order. YOU learn the LIES well from dental school. >Is this meant as an ad hominem attack? No, it is the TRUTH. >What "lies" are in my posting?? >I can't find any. WOW!!!! Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE.. Your choice of words and ..DECEIVING are LIES. There was NO fraud!!! There was NO incompetence!!!!! There was NO Malpractice!! There was NO substandard. PATHETIC!! Jan . > She has been on Usenet a LOT longer than almost anyone else on SMD and > has written many well-considered opinions. > > Not everyone agrees with each of her opinions, but that makes for > interesting discussion, which in turn sheds more light on the subject. > Discussion is always more elightening than just calling "Liar! Liar!" > whenever a different -- or even BETTER -- opinion is posted. > > You may not agree with her, but that does *NOT* make her a liar. > > - dentaldoc > It has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the above mentioned. > > She clearly lied and then tried to block it. > > The fact you condone lying and deceitfulness says a lot about you. There you go AGAIN! Nowhere, did I "condone lying and deceitfulness." If so, show us! You can't, because I did NO such thing! The fact that you accuse others of things that only you IMAGINE certainly says far more about you than about them. of > course, I already knew that as you did it will you added deceitful words > about DR. Jacobson. NO. You're lying again. I added NO deceitful words. Your claim that I did is your LIE. I challenged you on your lie last year, and you could show no place where your deceitful claim could be backed up. You got CAUGHT in your lies AGAIN. We just saw them above! And YOU are LYING AGAIN. > Liars and deceitful people stick together. We see plenty examples on this > dental newsgroup. > > LL/Jan How true -- but not in the way you intended! - dentaldoc EXACTLY the way I intended, and YOU just proved yourself a LIAR all over AGAIN! Furthermore, you never could answer my questions! malpractice DECEITFUL WORD violations of the law DECDITFUL WORDS overwhelming pattern of substandard practice DECEITFUL WORDS *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct DECEITFUL WORDS Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what about the other eleven charges? DECEIFUL WORDS I didn't see eleven, did you? YOU DIDN'T ANSWER Webby Lied and was deceitful, you lied and are deceitful!! LL/Jan > Furthermore, you never could answer my questions! > > I didn't see eleven, did you? YOU DIDN'T ANSWER Yes, I saw eleven. Anybody can see eleven. Do the math. And I already answered -- no matter how much you prefer to ignore it. I'll answer AGAIN. The basic math is simple. Let the listed number of cases against the "alternative dentist" equal x. Let the number of cases involving amalgam equal y. Therefore, the number of cases against the "alternative dentist" that did NOT involve amalgam can be represented by z where z = (x - y). So when I demonstrate clearly that (x - y) = z , that is NOT "deceitful," no matter HOW much simple math you don't understand. > Webby Lied and was deceitful, you lied and are deceitful!! > > LL/Jan No, Jan -- you're the one being deceitful, as shown above. - dentaldoc >> Furthermore, you never could answer my questions! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And I already answered -- no matter how much you prefer to ignore it. NO, you did NOT, YOU are lying AGAIN. ><snip total lies> YOU did NOT answer it, you say you did, so you can prove it with the post you made at the time we discuss it. >> Webby Lied and was deceitful, you lied and are deceitful!! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - dentaldoc The above you made up and was a total lie. You can now prove you answered with your post at time of discussion. You can't of course. You are a L I A R!!! LL/Jan |
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
|
©2010 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.