Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'



"Hawki63" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
> >From: "Anth" [email protected]
> >Date: 5/16/2004 1:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>

>
> >Bash conventional medicine? Since when is medicine that doesn't work
> >medicine?
> >These guys are crooks I have a _every_ right to bash it.
> >Anth

>
> Anth....I believe Most of us would agree that Pfizer was/is wrong...and

that
> they got what they deserve
>
> Codex on the other hand...is an entirely different topic...



CODEX is run by the same muppets who run the pharma companies.
'Would you like someone who poisonsed someone to dish out your food?'
Anth

> hawki.....
 
>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>Date: 5/16/2004 12:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>(Are you saying CODEX has nothing to do with misc.health.alternative?)

>
>The original article had nothing to do with Codex and everything to do
>with Pfizer paying a large fine for criminal behavior. You are trying
>to justify your posting by dragging in Codex. It won't wash. You're
>as bad as Ilena or Jan, who seem to feel the actual purpose for this
>newsgroup is to bash conventional medicine. Well, it ain't.


Neither is it to bash alterative or personally trash those who use it, have had
REAL diseases and success.

Jan
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bash conventional medicine? Since when is medicine that doesn't work
>medicine?
>These guys are crooks I have a _every_ right to bash it.


Do you have a right to bash them on soc.singles? How about
rec.camping? Or alt.humor?

M.h.a is not your personal playground, Anth. That's why newsgroups
have charters, to define what is or isn't appropriate for discussion
there. Your Pfizer-bashing is off topic. I don't care how much you
hate them or how little you trust them -- the article was off topic
for m.h.a and no weaselly explanation you give is going to change that
fact.

And while I'm taking you to task, it would be really nice if you could
learn to trim posts and stop top-posting. Or is that also outside your
feeble capabilties, along with understanding what "off topic" means?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)


>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >(Are you saying CODEX has nothing to do with misc.health.alternative?)

>>
>> The original article had nothing to do with Codex and everything to do
>> with Pfizer paying a large fine for criminal behavior. You are trying
>> to justify your posting by dragging in Codex. It won't wash. You're
>> as bad as Ilena or Jan, who seem to feel the actual purpose for this
>> newsgroup is to bash conventional medicine. Well, it ain't.
>>
>> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >Pharma can't be trusted, they are disinformation experts, and soon
>> >through
>> >> >CODEX they will control vitamin access.
>> >>
>> >> Good attempt at dodging, Anth, but ineffective. I repeat, why did you
>> >> post the story when it had nothing to do with alternative health?
>> >>
>> >> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:p[email protected]...
>> >> >> In article
>> >>

>>
>>><40a717b5$0$20551$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com

>.
>> >a
>> >> >u>,
>> >> >> Peter Moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in

>message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >>
>> >http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=21870&sectionid=
>> >> >> >> Pfizer Inc will plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $430
>> >million
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >> fines to settle charges that a company it bought four years ago
>> >> >illegally
>> >> >> >> promoted non-approved uses for a drug by flying doctors to lavish
>> >> >resorts
>> >> >> >> and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Drug companies in Australia are not allowed by law to give doctors
>> >gifts
>> >> >> >over a value of $10.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Either way, this news story had nothing to do with alternative

>health
>> >> >> and thus didn't belong on m.h.a in the first place. What's with

>you,
>> >> >> Anth? Have you been taking lessons in "how to post inappropriately"
>> >> >> from Ilena?
 
Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
against the charter - typically name calling etc..
Anth

"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Bash conventional medicine? Since when is medicine that doesn't work
> >medicine?
> >These guys are crooks I have a _every_ right to bash it.

>
> Do you have a right to bash them on soc.singles? How about
> rec.camping? Or alt.humor?
>
> M.h.a is not your personal playground, Anth. That's why newsgroups
> have charters, to define what is or isn't appropriate for discussion
> there. Your Pfizer-bashing is off topic. I don't care how much you
> hate them or how little you trust them -- the article was off topic
> for m.h.a and no weaselly explanation you give is going to change that
> fact.
>
> And while I'm taking you to task, it would be really nice if you could
> learn to trim posts and stop top-posting. Or is that also outside your
> feeble capabilties, along with understanding what "off topic" means?
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
>
>
> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >(Are you saying CODEX has nothing to do with misc.health.alternative?)
> >>
> >> The original article had nothing to do with Codex and everything to do
> >> with Pfizer paying a large fine for criminal behavior. You are trying
> >> to justify your posting by dragging in Codex. It won't wash. You're
> >> as bad as Ilena or Jan, who seem to feel the actual purpose for this
> >> newsgroup is to bash conventional medicine. Well, it ain't.
> >>
> >> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >Pharma can't be trusted, they are disinformation experts, and soon
> >> >through
> >> >> >CODEX they will control vitamin access.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good attempt at dodging, Anth, but ineffective. I repeat, why did

you
> >> >> post the story when it had nothing to do with alternative health?
> >> >>
> >> >> >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:p[email protected]...
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >>
> >>

>
>>><40a717b5$0$20551$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.co

m
> >.
> >> >a
> >> >> >u>,
> >> >> >> Peter Moran <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in

> >message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >>
> >>

>http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=21870&sectionid=
> >> >> >> >> Pfizer Inc will plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $430
> >> >million
> >> >> >in
> >> >> >> >> fines to settle charges that a company it bought four years

ago
> >> >> >illegally
> >> >> >> >> promoted non-approved uses for a drug by flying doctors to

lavish
> >> >> >resorts
> >> >> >> >> and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Drug companies in Australia are not allowed by law to give

doctors
> >> >gifts
> >> >> >> >over a value of $10.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Either way, this news story had nothing to do with alternative

> >health
> >> >> >> and thus didn't belong on m.h.a in the first place. What's with

> >you,
> >> >> >> Anth? Have you been taking lessons in "how to post

inappropriately"
> >> >> >> from Ilena?

>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
>against the charter - typically name calling etc..


Sorry, Anth, but whining "Oh yeah?? Well, you're another one!" is not
going to get you off the hook. Occasionally, I am off topic, and in
that case, you'd be entitled to call me on it. But responding to
postings, well, that's generally on-topic.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)



>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Bash conventional medicine? Since when is medicine that doesn't work
>> >medicine?
>> >These guys are crooks I have a _every_ right to bash it.

>>
>> Do you have a right to bash them on soc.singles? How about
>> rec.camping? Or alt.humor?
>>
>> M.h.a is not your personal playground, Anth. That's why newsgroups
>> have charters, to define what is or isn't appropriate for discussion
>> there. Your Pfizer-bashing is off topic. I don't care how much you
>> hate them or how little you trust them -- the article was off topic
>> for m.h.a and no weaselly explanation you give is going to change that
>> fact.
>>
>> And while I'm taking you to task, it would be really nice if you could
>> learn to trim posts and stop top-posting. Or is that also outside your
>> feeble capabilties, along with understanding what "off topic" means?
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eHWpc.18973$%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
> >against the charter - typically name calling etc..

>
> Sorry, Anth, but whining "Oh yeah?? Well, you're another one!" is not
> going to get you off the hook. Occasionally, I am off topic, and in
> that case, you'd be entitled to call me on it. But responding to
> postings, well, that's generally on-topic.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net


Geez, when Jan posts on ASBI she interacts, responses,
berates and bickers......then accuses other people of 'stalking' her.
Then she declares people killfiled for a day and then bingo,
she's right back at it again. Typical?
 
>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>From: "Anth" [email protected]
>Date: 5/16/2004 7:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
>against the charter - typically name calling etc..
>Anth


And proof he is a hypocrite.

>When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it

generates comments about your own.
David Wright
 
>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>From: "Coleah" [email protected]
>Date: 5/16/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <CVXpc.63596$536.10664946@attbi_s03>
>
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)

>>
>> David is way off base, trying to tell others what they can post.
>> While belittling.
>> His belittle is *0ff topic*
>> Jan

>
>Here comes 'da Judge, here comes 'da Judge..........


Yes. David does much judging, while Coleah does cyberstalking.

*M.h.a is not your personal playground, Anth. That's why newsgroups
have charters, to define what is or isn't appropriate for discussion
there. Your Pfizer-bashing is off topic. I don't care how much you
hate them or how little you trust them -- the article was off topic
for m.h.a and no weaselly explanation you give is going to change that
fact.

And while I'm taking you to task, it would be really nice if you could
learn to trim posts and stop top-posting. Or is that also outside your
feeble capabilties, along with understanding what "off topic" means?*

Coleah the stalker of Jan was silent.
 
>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>From: "Coleah" [email protected]
>Date: 5/16/2004 9:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <x0Ypc.63636$536.10669197@attbi_s03>
>
>
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:eHWpc.18973$%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
>> >against the charter - typically name calling etc..

>>
>> Sorry, Anth, but whining "Oh yeah?? Well, you're another one!" is not
>> going to get you off the hook. Occasionally, I am off topic, and in
>> that case, you'd be entitled to call me on it. But responding to
>> postings, well, that's generally on-topic.
>>
>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

>
>Geez, when Jan


This post isn't about Jan.
 
In article <CVXpc.63596$536.10664946@attbi_s03>,
Coleah <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)

>>
>> David is way off base, trying to tell others what they can post.
>> While belittling.
>> His belittle is *0ff topic*
>> Jan

>
>Here comes 'da Judge, here comes 'da Judge..........


Yes, it seems that in Jan's universe, telling people that they're
off-topic is off topic.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <x0Ypc.63636$536.10669197@attbi_s03>,
Coleah <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:eHWpc.18973$%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
>> >against the charter - typically name calling etc..

>>
>> Sorry, Anth, but whining "Oh yeah?? Well, you're another one!" is not
>> going to get you off the hook. Occasionally, I am off topic, and in
>> that case, you'd be entitled to call me on it. But responding to
>> postings, well, that's generally on-topic.
>>
>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

>
>Geez, when Jan posts on ASBI she interacts, responses,
>berates and bickers......then accuses other people of 'stalking' her.
>Then she declares people killfiled for a day and then bingo,
>she's right back at it again. Typical?


Yep. When Jan uses "plonk" it doesn't mean the same thing as when
anyone else uses it. For example.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>Date: 5/17/2004 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <CVXpc.63596$536.10664946@attbi_s03>,
>Coleah <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>>>
>>> David is way off base, trying to tell others what they can post.
>>> While belittling.
>>> His belittle is *0ff topic*
>>> Jan

>>
>>Here comes 'da Judge, here comes 'da Judge..........


Poor Coleah has done much judging while accusing others. She is even so low as
to post, such things as IIena is laid up F*cking some Tom **** or Mary.

>Yes, it seems that in Jan's universe, telling people that they're
>off-topic is off topic.


Wow!!! David has turned into a terrible liar.

We all know who screams off topic.

Results 1 - 10 of about 270 for [email protected] off topic.

He is competing with Joel Eichen

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,460 for Joel Eichen off topic.

BTW. *Jan* is on topic for David, but not crooks from drug companies.
 
>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>Date: 5/17/2004 5:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>In article <x0Ypc.63636$536.10669197@attbi_s03>,
>Coleah <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:eHWpc.18973$%[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >Of course you have room to talk, since a terrible lot of your posts are
>>> >against the charter - typically name calling etc..
>>>
>>> Sorry, Anth, but whining "Oh yeah?? Well, you're another one!" is not
>>> going to get you off the hook. Occasionally, I am off topic, and in
>>> that case, you'd be entitled to call me on it. But responding to
>>> postings, well, that's generally on-topic.
>>>
>>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

>>
>>Geez, when Jan posts on ASBI she interacts, responses,
>>berates and bickers......then accuses other people of 'stalking' her.
>>Then she declares people killfiled for a day and then bingo,
>>she's right back at it again. Typical?


Results 1 - 10 of about 513 for [email protected] Jan
 
>>Subject: Re: Big Pharma is fined 'pocket change'
>>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>>Date: 5/17/2004 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>>
>>In article <CVXpc.63596$536.10664946@attbi_s03>,
>>Coleah <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>>>>
>>>> David is way off base, trying to tell others what they can post.
>>>> While belittling.
>>>> His belittle is *0ff topic*
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>>Here comes 'da Judge, here comes 'da Judge..........

>
>Poor Coleah has done much judging while accusing others. She is even so low
>as
>to post, such things as IIena is laid up F*cking some Tom **** or Mary.
>
>>Yes, it seems that in Jan's universe, telling people that they're
>>off-topic is off topic.

>
>Wow!!! David has turned into a terrible liar.
>
>We all know who screams off topic.
>
>Results 1 - 10 of about 270 for [email protected] off topic.
>
>He is competing with Joel Eichen
>
>Results 1 - 10 of about 2,460 for Joel Eichen off topic.
>
>BTW. *Jan* is on topic for David, but not crooks from drug companies.


Results 1 - 20 of about 1,870 English messages for jan drew is satan.
 
[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


> Results 1 - 10 of about 513 for [email protected] Jan


What Jan apparently wants to ignore is that many of those posts are
NOT Coleah's. They include ANY post where the search words appear.
Many of these are JAN'S posts, as shown quite clearly in the archives.
If someone is responding to a post & leaves the search words in the
header or in any of the text in order to maintain logical order in the
thread, it comes up as a hit. This applies to Jan's dishonest tallies
for other people's posts as well. Definitely in keeping with Jan's
penchant for not telling the truth.
 
"Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> > Results 1 - 10 of about 513 for [email protected] Jan

>
> What Jan apparently wants to ignore is that many of those posts are
> NOT Coleah's. They include ANY post where the search words appear.
> Many of these are JAN'S posts, as shown quite clearly in the archives.
> If someone is responding to a post & leaves the search words in the
> header or in any of the text in order to maintain logical order in the
> thread, it comes up as a hit. This applies to Jan's dishonest tallies
> for other people's posts as well. Definitely in keeping with Jan's
> penchant for not telling the truth.


Gee, Jan is researching me for a tally sheet ? Good! It keeps her
busy for a short while and give her a purpose bigger than herself.
Kinda gets back to the 'you ate more cookies than I did'
daycare behavior, doesn't it?