Determining Impersonation (was, snipping to change meaning)

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Toby Jones, Feb 29, 2004.

  1. Toby Jones

    Toby Jones Guest

    From: "Mark Probert-February 29, 2004" <Mark
    [email protected]>
    Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:54 AM
    Subject: Re: snipping to change meaning, and misattributing

    > "toby jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...

    > > > > > Exactl;y the point. Jan snips to change meaning.
    > > > >
    > > > > She did not make that post and never even saw it.
    > > >
    > > > So she claims. However, she has intentionally snipped to change meaning inthe past, and has a
    > > > long track record of doing so.
    > > >
    > > > You can choose to beleive her, if you wish, but, AFAIAC, she has the credibility of George W.
    > > > Bush.
    > >
    > > At the time the statement was made, I thought that it would be easily shown and proven.
    > > Apparently not?
    > >
    > > Then is there any way to settle it, - to verify whether the post was or was not made from her
    > > computer?
    > >
    > > Here is a link to the post in question:
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/2gte5
    > >
    > >
    > p://groups.google.com/groups?q=cyberstalker+*gang*+group:misc.health.alternative&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
    > 8&group=misc.health.alternative&selm=20040224195154.19410.00000370%40mb-m16.aol.com&rnum=2
    >
    > I choose not to go wade through a thread with Janian drivel all over the place. I havce seen her
    > snip to change meaning too many times to have the slightest doubt about her antics.
    >
    > Look at the way she sips out a portion of the charter. Read the entire paragraph and see how the
    > meaning is changed. I have posted it several times. Look it up.

    My concern is this:

    Regardless of the post that was in question, it would be helpful for future discussions if there
    were a way of verifying the truth as to whether or not a post was made by the apparent author or by
    someone else, should the question arise.

    During any discussion, the claim might be made that "I did not make that post", when it appears to
    be from that person. If there is no way of verifying the truth, serious discussion is impaired.
    Ultimately, anyone could say anything and then deny it, and no-one would know.

    But if that is how it is, then it is helpful to know that is so.
     
    Tags:


  2. "toby jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > From: "Mark Probert-February 29, 2004" <Mark [email protected]> Newsgroups:
    > misc.health.alternative Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:54 AM Subject: Re: snipping to change
    > meaning, and misattributing
    >
    > > "toby jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > > > > > Exactl;y the point. Jan snips to change meaning.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > She did not make that post and never even saw it.
    > > > >
    > > > > So she claims. However, she has intentionally snipped to change
    meaning
    > > > > inthe past, and has a long track record of doing so.
    > > > >
    > > > > You can choose to beleive her, if you wish, but, AFAIAC, she has the credibility of George
    > > > > W. Bush.
    > > >
    > > > At the time the statement was made, I thought that it would be easily shown and proven.
    > > > Apparently not?
    > > >
    > > > Then is there any way to settle it, - to verify whether the post was or was not made from her
    > > > computer?
    > > >
    > > > Here is a link to the post in question:
    > > >
    > > > http://tinyurl.com/2gte5
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    ttp://groups.google.com/groups?q=cyberstalker+*gang*+group:misc.health.alternative&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
    8&group=misc.health.alternative&selm=20040224195154.19410.00000370%40mb-m16.aol.com&rnum=2
    > >
    > > I choose not to go wade through a thread with Janian drivel all over the place. I havce seen her
    > > snip to change meaning too many times to have
    the
    > > slightest doubt about her antics.
    > >
    > > Look at the way she sips out a portion of the charter. Read the entire paragraph and see how the
    > > meaning is changed. I have posted it several times. Look it up.
    >
    > My concern is this:
    >
    > Regardless of the post that was in question, it would be helpful for future discussions if there
    > were a way of verifying the truth as to whether or not a post was made by the apparent author or
    > by someone else, should the question arise.

    That woul dbe nice. usually the header can tell a lot. However, it has been my experience that Jan
    is extraordinarily sloppy (I am being charitable) in the way she quotes.

    > During any discussion, the claim might be made that "I did not make that post", when it appears to
    > be from that person. If there is no way of verifying the truth, serious discussion is impaired.
    > Ultimately, anyone could say anything and then deny it, and no-one would know.

    However, the way some people, notably Jan, deny the clearly implied meaning of their posts, makes
    serious discussion impossible. The problem is that she is utterrly incapable of understanding most
    analogies or figurative writing. Sarcasm completely escapes her. When she does not understand
    something, she stoops to calling people liars, and then all intelligent discussion is over. She
    derails many threads in just this manner.

    Also examine her gratuitous bashing of individuals in threads. She has standardized posts about me,
    Rich, etc. which she wil interject into a thread.

    When one poster is obsessed with who is saying something, and has al lthe time on her hands that she
    does, intelligent discussion is just wishful thinking.

    > But if that is how it is, then it is helpful to know that is so.

    See above.
     
  3. Eric Bohlman

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    "Mark Probert-February 29, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>
    wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > However, the way some people, notably Jan, deny the clearly implied meaning of their posts, makes
    > serious discussion impossible. The problem is that she is utterrly incapable of understanding most
    > analogies or figurative writing. Sarcasm completely escapes her. When

    I'm not so sure of that now. I used to think that, but there have been a few times when she's
    slipped up and used figurative language when it would serve her own purposes. She seems to be
    applying a double standard; it's OK when *she*, or people she agrees with, does it, but it's
    (morally) wrong when her "enemies" do it. That's a very common attitude among bigots.

    > she does not understand something, she stoops to calling people liars, and then all intelligent
    > discussion is over. She derails many threads in just this manner.
    >
    > Also examine her gratuitous bashing of individuals in threads. She has standardized posts about
    > me, Rich, etc. which she wil interject into a thread.

    She also keeps, and reposts if it will serve her purposes, collections of past perceived slights.
    Ilena also does that. That indicates an inability, or at least unwillingness, to get over grudges.
    The tendency to nurse grudges like that is also common in bigots.

    Those phenomena, and others, lead me to believe that Jan's behavior is the result of personality
    factors, not cognitive ones. I think that when she calls someone a liar, it's not because she can't
    understand what they wrote, but because she *doesn't want to* understand it because doing so would
    challenge preconceptions that she's emotionally attached to.

    The theologian Thomas Merton wrote "It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about
    evil and the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else on their minds
    except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men. They think that the world does not
    appreciate them, and this is their way of getting even." I think something like this accounts for
    Jan's tendency to hyper-moralistically criticize people she regards as "enemies," while letting
    "friends" get away with murder (e.g. saying that Hulda Clark was merely "mistaken" in titling her
    book _The Cure For All Diseases_, not retracting her apparent agreement with Debbee's endorsement of
    the Holocaust until she'd been called on it many times over a period of several months). She comes
    across to me as having an enormous chip on her shoulder.
     
  4. Rich.

    Rich. Guest

    On 1 Mar 2004 15:47:39 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >"Mark Probert-February 29, 2004" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in
    >news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> However, the way some people, notably Jan, deny the clearly implied meaning of their posts, makes
    >> serious discussion impossible. The problem is that she is utterrly incapable of understanding
    >> most analogies or figurative writing. Sarcasm completely escapes her. When
    >
    >I'm not so sure of that now. I used to think that, but there have been a few times when she's
    >slipped up and used figurative language when it would serve her own purposes. She seems to be
    >applying a double standard;

    I could not agree with you more. I also thought for a long time that Jan Drew was
    psychotic/delusional as manifested by her continued insistence that she had mercury poisoning
    despite my proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not. It became clear after reviewing many
    of her statements that Jan Drew deliberately lied about her history to convince people that she
    really had mercury poisoning and that she understood that she did not.

    For example she demonstrated that she understood the importance of the temporal relationship
    between symptomatic improvement and dropping of mercury level and then LIED about her history to
    make it appear as if she did not regain her health until AFTER her mercury level dropped. Jan knows
    that this is not true.

    I also agree with you about Jan using both figurative language (analogies) when she discusses
    things. This belies the appearance that she does not understand analogies when she accuses someone
    of diversion when they use analogies to make a point. You see when Jan Drew is unable to logically
    counter someone's point when they use an analogy, she feigns not understanding the analogy in order
    to discredit the person accusing them of diversion. She does this repeatedly. And yet her own use of
    analogies and ability to abstract quite clearly show that the problem is not with her lack of
    understanding but rather with her inability to admit she is wrong.

    >it's OK when *she*, or people she agrees with, does it, but it's (morally) wrong when her "enemies"
    >do it. That's a very common attitude among bigots.

    Indeed. And Jan is as bigoted as they come.
    >
    >> she does not understand something, she stoops to calling people liars, and then all intelligent
    >> discussion is over. She derails many threads in just this manner.
    >>
    >> Also examine her gratuitous bashing of individuals in threads. She has standardized posts about
    >> me, Rich, etc. which she wil interject into a thread.
    >
    >She also keeps, and reposts if it will serve her purposes, collections of past perceived slights.
    >Ilena also does that. That indicates an inability, or at least unwillingness, to get over grudges.
    >The tendency to nurse grudges like that is also common in bigots.

    Yes. I wonder what role her keeping judges (anger) has in the exacerbation of her physical symptoms.
    I suspect that her symptoms wax and wane based upon her emotional state.
    >
    >Those phenomena, and others, lead me to believe that Jan's behavior is the result of personality
    >factors, not cognitive ones. I think that when she calls someone a liar, it's not because she can't
    >understand what they wrote, but because she *doesn't want to* understand it because doing so would
    >challenge preconceptions that she's emotionally attached to.

    The other possibility is that she does understand it but does not want to admit it. To admit it
    would result in her admitting that she is wrong. She is too narcissistic to admit being wrong
    despite her rarely doing so in isolated cases.
    >
    >The theologian Thomas Merton wrote "It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about
    >evil and the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else on their minds
    >except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men.

    In Jan's case it is hardly unconscious. She is likely well aware of her hatred toward certain
    people. She just does not want to admit it because of her need to present herself as a loving
    Christian.

    > They think that the world does not appreciate them, and this is their way of getting even." I
    > think something like this accounts for Jan's tendency to hyper-moralistically criticize people she
    > regards as "enemies," while letting "friends" get away with murder (e.g. saying that Hulda Clark
    > was merely "mistaken" in titling her book _The Cure For All Diseases_, not retracting her apparent
    > agreement with Debbee's endorsement of the Holocaust until she'd been called on it many times over
    > a period of several months). She comes across to me as having an enormous chip on her shoulder.

    She comes across to me as a bitter old intolerant racist bigot who has not a shred of integrity. And
    those who support Jan Drew are no better than she is. Sadly most(if not all) of the alties in this
    group support Jan Drew despite her egregious bigotry. If a few alties would confront Jan about her
    behavior I bet Jan would either stop or leave the group. But this is unlikely to happen since the
    alties who support her are likely as bigoted as her. IF they are not then they could show it by
    confronting Jan.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
  5. <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > If a few alties would confront Jan about her behavior I bet Jan would either stop or leave the
    > group. But this is unlikely to happen since the alties who support her are likely as bigoted as
    > her. IF they are not then they could show it by confronting Jan.
    >

    Gymmy Bob, Rod, DEBBEE1023, and Carole have proven their bigotry "by their own words." The other
    alties are conspicuous in their silence on the matter.

    --Rich
     
  6. Rich.

    Rich. Guest

    On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:47:11 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    >
    >> If a few alties would confront Jan about her behavior I bet Jan would either stop or leave the
    >> group. But this is unlikely to happen since the alties who support her are likely as bigoted as
    >> her. IF they are not then they could show it by confronting Jan.
    >>
    >
    >Gymmy Bob, Rod, DEBBEE1023, and Carole have proven their bigotry "by their own words." The other
    >alties are conspicuous in their silence on the matter.

    But they are not truly silent. For example Anth and others complain that Jan is being unfairly
    picked on. But they completely ignore *why* she is being confronted. It makes one wonder whether
    alties have a predisposition to bigotry/racism.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    >--Rich
    >

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
  7. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:47:11 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > >
    > >> If a few alties would confront Jan about her behavior I bet Jan would either stop or leave the
    > >> group. But this is unlikely to happen since the alties who support her are likely as bigoted as
    > >> her. IF they are not then they could show it by confronting Jan.
    > >>
    > >
    > >Gymmy Bob, Rod, DEBBEE1023, and Carole have proven their bigotry "by
    their
    > >own words." The other alties are conspicuous in their silence on the
    matter.
    >
    > But they are not truly silent. For example Anth and others complain that Jan is being unfairly
    > picked on. But they completely ignore *why* she is being confronted. It makes one wonder whether
    > alties have a predisposition to bigotry/racism.

    Perhaps it is a side effect of having their brains cleansed.
     
  8. Eric Bohlman

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    [email protected] wrote in news:p[email protected]:

    > But they are not truly silent. For example Anth and others complain that Jan is being unfairly
    > picked on. But they completely ignore *why* she is being confronted. It makes one wonder whether
    > alties have a predisposition to bigotry/racism.

    Well, a lot of proponents of "alt" therapies seem to have a decidedly reactionary streak in that
    they seem to resent modernity of any sort, prefering old therapies to newer ones, and bigots also
    tend to view the future as going downhill. Credulity also correlates with prejudice, as does a
    certain tendency to stick with first impressions and not modify them in the face of new evidence. As
    Gordon Allport mentioned, there was a famous study in which people were asked "who do you fear more:
    gangsters or swindlers?" and highly prejudiced people were more likely than tolerant people to say
    "swindlers." It makes sense that someone who can't modify first impressions would be particularly
    susceptible to con artists, since they work by making a good first impression and then asking the
    victim to do something that would make most reasonable people suspicious.

    There may in fact be a subgroup of "alties" who resent conventional medicine because they regard it
    as a "Jewish-dominated" profession in much the same way that Henry Ford resented accountants (which
    led to Ford Motor, after Ford's death, being in severe financial trouble due to a serious lack of
    accounting controls, which in turn led to a "whiz kid," Robert McNamara by name, being able to
    completely turn the company around by imposing strict accounting controls, which in turn gave
    McNamara a reputation that eventually led to his being put in charge of the conduct of a war, which
    didn't go all that well).
     
  9. Toby Jones

    Toby Jones Guest

    Eric Bohlman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<Xns949F641B133CAebo[email protected]>...

    Elsewhere in this thread, you wrote:

    "There may in fact be a subgroup of "alties" who resent conventional medicine because they regard it
    as a "Jewish-dominated" profession"

    One line of "thought" which is beginning to appear on mha appears to be an attempt to align "alt
    health" with "anti-semitism".

    Given that you have presented an argument for a possible "subgroup" of such people in alt health, I
    have to ask this: Do you believe that within the Medical Profession in the US, in particular
    throughout the Southern States and the Bible Belt for example, that anti-semitism does not exist?
     
  10. "DEBBEE1023" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > << retracting her apparent agreement with Debbee's endorsement of the Holocaust until she'd been
    > called on it many times over a period of several months). She comes across to me as having an
    > enormous chip on her shoulder. >>
    >
    > Have you every thought about the chip on your own shoulder?

    That is not a "chip" but is called a *head*, the part of the body where the brain is. I understand
    why you are confused, as that is an organ that you are not familiar with.
     
  11. Anth

    Anth Guest

    An example do you consider 10 v 1 fair game? I don't. So Rich, tell me why you think it's fair that
    10 people victimise 1 person? Personally, I think you are both obsessive and hell bent at chucking
    stuff at each other in a public forum, spamming the ng with crap that isn't in the charter. Anth

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:p[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:47:11 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > But they are not truly silent. For example Anth and others complain that Jan is being unfairly
    > picked on. But they completely ignore *why* she is being confronted. It makes one wonder whether
    > alties have a predisposition to bigotry/racism.
    >
    > Aloha,
    >
    > Rich
     
  12. Rich.

    Rich. Guest

    On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:17:43 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >An example do you consider 10 v 1 fair game? I don't.

    Notice that Anth completely ignores *why* Jan is being confronted. Notice how Anth focuses on the
    unfairness to Jan rather than Jan's incredibly egregious antisemitic and homophobic statements.

    >So Rich, tell me why you think it's fair that 10 people victimise 1 person?

    Victimize?? Who is the attacker and who is the victim?? Jan spews antisemitic statements such as
    lying is second nature to Jews and calling someone a Jew Boy. While she has the right to make these
    statements (although I think she is violating AOL's TOA) , she is being appropriately (IMO) taken to
    task for these statements.

    The truly sad thing is that only 10 people are confronting her. Perhaps if more people did confront
    her she would take a good look inside herself and deal with the hatred that consumers her. Sadly
    you and the other alties choose to ignore her hateful statements and instead complain about Jan
    being the victim when she is confronted about her statements.

    It is fascinating how you spin what is going on here, to make Jan the victim. Actually Jan behaves
    in a way to become a victim and then tries to recruit alties to rush in to support her. You,Anth are
    one of her biggest enablers and her worst enemy. Jan does NOT need someone to support her
    dysfunctional behavior here. What she needs is tough love and people directly point out to her how
    inappropriate she is.

    >Personally, I think you are both obsessive and hell bent at chucking stuff at each other in a
    >public forum, spamming the ng with crap that isn't in the charter.

    Do you think that Jan spams this ng with crap that isn't in the charter. This is a group to discuss
    alternative medicine, and not a group to gratuitously bash conventional medicine. This is a group to
    discuss alternative medicine pro AND con. Whenever anyone expresses skepticism about alternative
    health Jan makes a personal attack accusing them of being a member of EOM. Is THAT in the charter??

    No one can discuss anything in this newsgroup without Jan DRew intruding and derailing discussions.
    Sadly not a single altie confronts her about her behavior.

    Aloha,

    Rich
    >Anth

    PS: If Anth responds to my post it is inevitable that IF and when Jan responds that she will ONLY
    make a personal attack and not deal with the substance of my comments.
    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
  13. Anth

    Anth Guest

    <irritating 3rd person appeals ignored x2>

    I see about 10 people spoiling threads with ad hominems, and this is how it usually starts.

    <Jan> posts unsupported assertion <Rich parrots in> <Jan/Rich> ad hominem spin etc. <whole non alt
    group jumps in> <rename thread to void>

    Now let me see this - llsa posts stuff about acupuncture (which incidently there's not a lot of
    support for) - do I see you parroting in and quoting how it's quackery - nope?

    <or a spin> Rich posts something <Jan parrots in> <Jan/Rich> ad hominem spin etc.

    <blah blah blah blah blah Jan did this> <blah blah blah blah blah Rich did that> <blah blah blah
    blah blah Peter did thist> etc. etc. etc.

    Now how many people do you see jumping in and supporting Jan with her assertion - zippo?

    Suggestions :-

    You quit calling me an 'altie' Both of you stop posting 'crap' That's all I have to say on
    the matter.

    Anth

    If you don't chuck wood on the fire it doesn't burn.

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:17:43 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >An example do you consider 10 v 1 fair game? I don't.
    >
    > Notice that Anth completely ignores *why* Jan is being confronted. Notice how Anth focuses on the
    > unfairness to Jan rather than Jan's incredibly egregious antisemitic and homophobic statements.
    >
    >
    > >So Rich, tell me why you think it's fair that 10 people victimise 1
    person?
    >
    > Victimize?? Who is the attacker and who is the victim?? Jan spews antisemitic statements such as
    > lying is second nature to Jews and calling someone a Jew Boy. While she has the right to make
    > these statements (although I think she is violating AOL's TOA) , she is being appropriately (IMO)
    > taken to task for these statements.
    >
    > The truly sad thing is that only 10 people are confronting her. Perhaps if more people did
    > confront her she would take a good look inside herself and deal with the hatred that consumers
    > her. Sadly you and the other alties choose to ignore her hateful statements and instead complain
    > about Jan being the victim when she is confronted about her statements.
    >
    > It is fascinating how you spin what is going on here, to make Jan the victim. Actually Jan behaves
    > in a way to become a victim and then tries to recruit alties to rush in to support her. You,Anth
    > are one of her biggest enablers and her worst enemy. Jan does NOT need someone to support her
    > dysfunctional behavior here. What she needs is tough love and people directly point out to her how
    > inappropriate she is.
    >
    >
    > >Personally, I think you are both obsessive and hell bent at chucking
    stuff
    > >at each other in a public forum, spamming the ng with crap that isn't in
    the
    > >charter.
    >
    > Do you think that Jan spams this ng with crap that isn't in the charter. This is a group to
    > discuss alternative medicine, and not a group to gratuitously bash conventional medicine. This is
    > a group to discuss alternative medicine pro AND con. Whenever anyone expresses skepticism about
    > alternative health Jan makes a personal attack accusing them of being a member of EOM. Is THAT in
    > the charter??
    >
    > No one can discuss anything in this newsgroup without Jan DRew intruding and derailing
    > discussions. Sadly not a single altie confronts her about her behavior.
    >
    > Aloha,
    >
    > Rich
    > >Anth
    >
    > PS: If Anth responds to my post it is inevitable that IF and when Jan responds that she will ONLY
    > make a personal attack and not deal with the substance of my comments.
    > -------------------------------------------------
    > -------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
  14. Rich.

    Rich. Guest

    On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:02:02 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    <snip>

    >
    > Notice that Anth completely (AGAIN) ignores *why* Jan is being confronted. Notice how Anth focuses
    > on the unfairness to Jan rather than Jan's incredibly egregious antisemitic and homophobic
    > statements.

    Note how Anth obviously has read the above (since he quoted it). Of course it is Anth's choice not
    to respond to above. But the failure to respond speaks volumes.

    Aloha,

    Rich
    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
  15. Anth

    Anth Guest

    It speaks nothing Rich - it shows you are being 'pissy.'. Anth

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:02:02 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > >
    > > Notice that Anth completely (AGAIN) ignores *why* Jan is being
    confronted.
    > > Notice how Anth focuses on the unfairness to Jan rather than Jan's incredibly egregious
    > > antisemitic and homophobic statements.
    >
    > Note how Anth obviously has read the above (since he quoted it). Of course it is Anth's choice not
    > to respond to above. But the failure to respond speaks volumes.
    >
    >
    > Aloha,
    >
    > Rich
    > -------------------------------------------------
    > -------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
  16. Carole

    Carole Guest

    "Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    >
    > > If a few alties would confront Jan about her behavior I bet Jan would either stop or leave the
    > > group. But this is unlikely to happen since the alties who support her are likely as bigoted as
    > > her. IF they are not then they could show it by confronting Jan.
    > >
    >
    > Gymmy Bob, Rod, DEBBEE1023, and Carole have proven their bigotry "by their own words." The other
    > alties are conspicuous in their silence on the matter.
    >
    > --Rich

    I'm not interested in getting into all this personality assassination crap. I find it unbearably
    boring and pointless. Even if you prove somebody has a personality flaw, it proves absolutely
    nothing, except perhaps they have an organic personality disfunction through consumption of too many
    toxins, hard minerals, chemicals or lack of proper nutrition.

    It would be nice if we had some more input into nature cure topics.

    Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/health.htm
     
  17. Gymmy Bob

    Gymmy Bob Guest

  18. Gymmy Bob

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    Forget it buddy. This has been going on here for longer than you are old. Just killfilter the
    jerkoffs and get on with real discussion.

    Ilness Nien is one of the worst. She has to back off from time to time because thousands have her
    on ignore.

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > <irritating 3rd person appeals ignored x2>
    >
    > I see about 10 people spoiling threads with ad hominems, and this is how
    it
    > usually starts.
    >
    > <Jan> posts unsupported assertion <Rich parrots in> <Jan/Rich> ad hominem spin etc. <whole non alt
    > group jumps in> <rename thread to void>
    >
    > Now let me see this - llsa posts stuff about acupuncture (which incidently there's not a lot of
    > support for) - do I see you parroting in and quoting how it's quackery - nope?
    >
    > <or a spin> Rich posts something <Jan parrots in> <Jan/Rich> ad hominem spin etc.
    >
    > <blah blah blah blah blah Jan did this> <blah blah blah blah blah Rich did that> <blah blah blah
    > blah blah Peter did thist> etc. etc. etc.
    >
    > Now how many people do you see jumping in and supporting Jan with her assertion - zippo?
    >
    > Suggestions :-
    >
    > You quit calling me an 'altie' Both of you stop posting 'crap' That's all I have to say on
    > the matter.
    >
    > Anth
    >
    > If you don't chuck wood on the fire it doesn't burn.
    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:17:43 -0000, "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >An example do you consider 10 v 1 fair game? I don't.
    > >
    > > Notice that Anth completely ignores *why* Jan is being confronted. Notice how Anth focuses on
    > > the unfairness to Jan rather than Jan's incredibly egregious antisemitic and homophobic
    > > statements.
    > >
    > >
    > > >So Rich, tell me why you think it's fair that 10 people victimise 1
    > person?
    > >
    > > Victimize?? Who is the attacker and who is the victim?? Jan spews antisemitic statements such as
    > > lying is second nature to Jews and calling someone a Jew Boy. While she has the right to make
    > > these statements (although I think she is violating AOL's TOA) , she is being appropriately
    > > (IMO) taken to task for these statements.
    > >
    > > The truly sad thing is that only 10 people are confronting her. Perhaps if more people did
    > > confront her she would take a good look inside herself and deal with the hatred that consumers
    > > her. Sadly you and the other alties choose to ignore her hateful statements and instead
    > > complain about Jan being the victim when she is confronted about her statements.
    > >
    > > It is fascinating how you spin what is going on here, to make Jan the victim. Actually Jan
    > > behaves in a way to become a victim and then tries to recruit alties to rush in to support her.
    > > You,Anth are one of her biggest enablers and her worst enemy. Jan does NOT need someone to
    > > support her dysfunctional behavior here. What she needs is tough love and people directly point
    > > out to her how inappropriate she is.
    > >
    > >
    > > >Personally, I think you are both obsessive and hell bent at chucking
    > stuff
    > > >at each other in a public forum, spamming the ng with crap that isn't
    in
    > the
    > > >charter.
    > >
    > > Do you think that Jan spams this ng with crap that isn't in the charter. This is a group to
    > > discuss alternative medicine, and not a group to gratuitously bash conventional medicine. This
    > > is a group to discuss alternative medicine pro AND con. Whenever anyone expresses skepticism
    > > about alternative health Jan makes a personal attack accusing them of being a member of EOM. Is
    > > THAT in the charter??
    > >
    > > No one can discuss anything in this newsgroup without Jan DRew intruding and derailing
    > > discussions. Sadly not a single altie confronts her about her behavior.
    > >
    > > Aloha,
    > >
    > > Rich
    > > >Anth
    > >
    > > PS: If Anth responds to my post it is inevitable that IF and when Jan responds that she will
    > > ONLY make a personal attack and not deal with the substance of my comments.
    > > -------------------------------------------------
    > > -------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > The best defense to logic is ignorance
     
Loading...