Re; The *gang* is exposed AGAIN

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Jan, Mar 15, 2004.

  1. Jan

    Jan Guest

    From: Jan ([email protected])
    Subject: Re: More Hate From the *gang*
    This is the only article in this thread
    View: Original Format
    Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    Date: 2004-03-15 12:22:52 PST

    >Subject: Re: ACAHF JANS lying continues From: "Rich
    >Andrews.." [email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:53 AM Pacific
    >Standard Time Message-id:
    ><[email protected]>
    >
    >"Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in news:KP2dnUrNM7Oe3MjdRVn-
    >[email protected]:
    >
    >>
    >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    >> m03.aol.com...
    >>>
    >>> Funny how *these Jew people* run around calling
    >>> everybody that disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have
    >>> no clue what they are even saying.
    >>
    >> *THESE JEW PEOPLE?* That alone is offensive! Why mention
    >> someone's religion when belittling or verbally attacking
    >> them? What if he were Catholic? Would you be making nasty
    >> remarks such as, "These Catholic People....?" I doubt it.
    >
    >Kim,
    >
    >I see that Jan's hatred has become clear to you. Don't let
    >her lies, mistakes, and hatred stress you too much. She
    >isn't worth it.
    >
    >What goes around, comes around. As such, Jannie will get
    >hers in the end and the really great part is that we won't
    >have to do anything. She will bring her own demise to
    >herself unaided. All we have to do is sit back and watch.
    >It will all come crashing down on her head. I just wonder
    >what her demise will be. Will it be a lawsuit that ruins
    >her? Social disgrace? Incarceration? Eternal damnation?
    >Her day will come and guess who will be blamed? Jan won't
    >fault the only person who is to blame. She would never
    >blame herself.
    >
    >
    >r

    *****Umm, this was a test, and indeed it worked.*****

    Jan Jan Jan.

    *****See how eager the gang is to take whatever they can and
    try to trash Jan. ****They also added their own
    asterisks.****

    They are exposed, once AGAIN.

    From: Gymmy Bob ([email protected]) Subject: Re: If one were
    to be an anti-Semite Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    Date: 2004-03-13 11:53:50 PST

    I doubt most of these people even are aware of any Arabs,
    Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, or
    Phoenicians, to be anti-Semitic.

    The Jews are a different story. That would be anti-Jewish or
    anti-Hebrew not anti-Semitic.

    Funny how these Jew people run around calling everybody that
    disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have no clue what they
    are even saying.
    ==
    You see *Jan* didn't say it, but the *gang* took it and ran
    and is their norm.

    It doesn't get any clearer than this.

    Those who have told the truth have always been met with this
    kind of abuse with lie after lie after lie.

    This ng has proved it. You will see more posts about Jan
    that any other subject. They expose themselves more and more
    with each post. Not a one picked up on the fact that Gymmy
    Bob said it, they are soooooooo eager trash
    Jan,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,because they KNOW they are guilty and
    they KNOW the tell lie after lie after lie. The truth bring
    unrest to the guilty, they strike back like vultures.

    This is the work of Satan.

    Jan
     
    Tags:


  2. "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > From: Jan ([email protected]) Subject: Re: More Hate From
    > the *gang* This is the only article in this thread View:
    > Original Format Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Date:
    > 2004-03-15 12:22:52 PST
    >
    >
    > >Subject: Re: ACAHF JANS lying continues From: "Rich
    > >Andrews.." [email protected] Date: 3/15/2004 12:53 AM
    > >Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    > >
    > >"Kim" <[email protected]> wrote in news:KP2dnUrNM7Oe3MjdRVn-
    > >[email protected]:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > >> m03.aol.com...
    > >>>
    > >>> Funny how *these Jew people* run around calling
    > >>> everybody that
    disagrees
    > >>> with them anti-Semitic and have no clue what they are
    > >>> even saying.
    > >>
    > >> *THESE JEW PEOPLE?* That alone is offensive! Why
    > >> mention someone's religion when belittling or verbally
    > >> attacking them? What if he were Catholic? Would you be
    > >> making nasty remarks such as, "These Catholic
    > >> People....?" I doubt it.
    > >
    > >Kim,
    > >
    > >I see that Jan's hatred has become clear to you. Don't
    > >let her lies, mistakes, and hatred stress you too much.
    > >She isn't worth it.
    > >
    > >What goes around, comes around. As such, Jannie will get
    > >hers in the end and the really great part is that we
    > >won't have to do anything. She will bring her own demise
    > >to herself unaided. All we have to do is sit back and
    > >watch. It will all come crashing down on her head. I
    > >just wonder
    what
    > >her demise will be. Will it be a lawsuit that ruins her?
    > >Social disgrace? Incarceration? Eternal damnation? Her
    > >day will come and
    guess
    > >who will be blamed? Jan won't fault the only person who
    > >is to blame.
    She
    > >would never blame herself.
    > >
    > >
    > >r
    >
    > *****Umm, this was a test, and indeed it worked.*****
    >
    > Jan Jan Jan.
    >
    > *****See how eager the gang is to take whatever they can
    > and try to trash
    Jan.
    > ****They also added their own asterisks.****
    >
    > They are exposed, once AGAIN.
    >
    >
    > From: Gymmy Bob ([email protected]) Subject: Re: If one
    > were to be an anti-Semite Newsgroups:
    > misc.health.alternative Date: 2004-03-13 11:53:50 PST
    >
    >
    > I doubt most of these people even are aware of any Arabs,
    > Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, or
    > Phoenicians, to be
    anti-Semitic.
    >
    > The Jews are a different story. That would be anti-Jewish
    > or anti-Hebrew
    not
    > anti-Semitic.
    >
    > Funny how these Jew people run around calling everybody
    > that disagrees
    with
    > them anti-Semitic and have no clue what they are
    > even saying.
    > ==
    > You see *Jan* didn't say it, but the *gang* took it and
    > ran and is their
    norm. [...]

    Why is Jan trying to claim that she didn't say "Funny how
    these Jew people run around calling everybody that
    disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have no clue what they
    are even saying."?

    It's similar to her funnily denial of the "cyberstalker
    *gang*" post.

    Message-ID: <[email protected]>

    [posted below]

    Path: nwrddc02.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gn-
    ilink.net!ngpeer.news.a ol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-
    mail Lines: 58 X-Admin: [email protected] From:
    [email protected] (Jan) Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    Date: 15 Mar 2004 03:21:39 GMT References:
    <[email protected]> Organization: AOL
    http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: ACAHF lying continues Message-
    ID: <[email protected]> Xref:
    cyclone1.gnilink.net misc.health.alternative:157297 X-Received-
    Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:22:37 EST (nwrddc02.gnilink.net)

    >Subject: Re: ACAHF lying continues From:
    >[email protected] Date: 3/14/2004 6:09 PM Pacific
    >Standard Time Message-id:
    ><[email protected]>
    >
    >From: "Orac" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 15,
    >2004 8:43 AM Subject: Re: ACAHF lying continues
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > Really. Then show me an example of a single altie
    >> > > criticizing Jan for her blatantly anti-Semitic
    >> > > remarks.
    >> >
    >> > Do a google search under my name and check out the
    >> > first two - three pages of entries which were in actual
    >> > threads (not single posts). Any or > > > all of them.
    >> > It was reading the prejudice, and seeing a need for it
    >> > to be addressed, which caused me to begin posting, more
    >> > than any "alt health" question.
    >>
    >> Which "two or three threads"? The issue of Jan's anti-
    >> Semitism has been a recurrent discussion in this
    >> newsgroup for at least a year (actually even longer than
    >> that, as it apparently was an issue long before I became
    >> a regular around here last spring). It has popped up
    >> several times under various guises just since I've been
    >> here, and Jan has confirmed my initial impression of her
    >> as having anti-Semitic tendencies many times since last
    >> March. I don't have all the time in the world to do
    >> Google searches looking (possibly in vain) for examples
    >> of an altie criticizing Jan's anti-Semitism. I very
    >> likely would have remembered such examples if they
    >> existed.

    Funny how these Jew people run around calling everybody that
    disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have no clue what they
    are even saying.

    Orac makes claims he can't back up, I call his hand, which
    shows he made them up, just as most of the *gang*.

    Jan

    >hen either you did not read anything I wrote, or you may be
    >experiencing signs of early dementia. There is no
    >requirement to read anything I or anyone else may write,
    >but please do not then make statements which would
    >misrepresent those people whose posts you have not read.
    >
    >I said "Pages" of entries: IOW pick a post, any post at all
    >that is in a discussion thread from the first two or three
    >pages of entries. (To read only, not to re-post. I don't
    >want to re-open old stuff.)
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  3. tobyjones

    tobyjones Guest

    "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > From: Gymmy Bob ([email protected]) Subject: Re: If one
    > > were to be an anti-Semite
    > >
    > > The Jews are a different story. That would be anti-
    > > Jewish or anti-Hebrew not anti-Semitic.
    > >
    > > Funny how these Jew people run around calling everybody
    > > that disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have no clue
    > > what they are even saying.
    > > ==
    > > You see *Jan* didn't say it, but the *gang* took it and
    > > ran and is their norm.
    > [...]
    >
    > Why is Jan trying to claim that she didn't say "Funny how
    > these Jew people run around calling everybody that
    > disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have no clue what
    > they are even saying."?

    I think she is trying to say, "Gymmie did it first! I only
    copied him!"

    We'd all have a field day if we could take pieces written by
    others and use them anywhere in our own posts and then say,
    "I didn't write it!"

    If attributions and quote marks were always used, then it
    would be clear. By not using them when quoting someone else,
    the quoter can have it both ways. If it works, they can take
    the credit. Where it doesn't, they can wriggle out.

    It is also a simple courtesy to acknowledge the original
    author, or even to put in quotes and write "author unknown".
    That's what I would call "straightforward".

    > It's similar to her funnily denial of the "cyberstalker
    > *gang*" post.

    Yep, the mysterious case of the vanishing impersonator.

    > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
    > [posted below]> Path: nwrddc02.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnili-
    > nk.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!ngpeer.new
    > s.a ol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 58
    > X-Admin: [email protected] From: [email protected] (Jan)
    > Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Date: 15 Mar 2004
    > 03:21:39 GMT References:
    > <[email protected]> Organization: AOL
    > http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: ACAHF lying continues
    > Message-ID: <[email protected]
    > m03.aol.com> Xref: cyclone1.gnilink.net
    > misc.health.alternative:157297 X-Received-Date: Sun, 14
    > Mar 2004 22:22:37 EST (nwrddc02.gnilink.net)
    >
    > >Subject: Re: ACAHF lying continues From:
    > >[email protected] Date: 3/14/2004 6:09 PM
    > >Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    > >
    > >From: "Orac" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 15,
    > >2004 8:43 AM Subject: Re: ACAHF lying continues
    > >
    > >> In article <[email protected]>,
    > >> [email protected] wrote:
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Really. Then show me an example of a single altie
    > >> > > criticizing Jan for her blatantly anti-Semitic
    > >> > > remarks.
    > >> >
    > >> > Do a google search under my name and check out the
    > >> > first two - three pages of entries which were in
    > >> > actual threads (not single posts). Any or > > > all
    > >> > of them. It was reading the prejudice, and seeing a
    > >> > need for it to be addressed, which caused me to begin
    > >> > posting, more than any "alt health" question.
    > >>
    > >> Which "two or three threads"? The issue of Jan's anti-
    > >> Semitism has been a recurrent discussion in this
    > >> newsgroup for at least a year (actually even longer
    > >> than that, as it apparently was an issue long before I
    > >> became a regular around here last spring). It has
    > >> popped up several times under various guises just since
    > >> I've been here, and Jan has confirmed my initial
    > >> impression of her as having anti-Semitic tendencies
    > >> many times since last March. I don't have all the time
    > >> in the world to do Google searches looking (possibly in
    > >> vain) for examples of an altie criticizing Jan's anti-
    > >> Semitism. I very likely would have remembered such
    > >> examples if they existed.
    >
    > Funny how these Jew people run around calling everybody
    > that disagrees with them anti-Semitic and have no clue
    > what they are even saying.
    >
    > Orac makes claims he can't back up, I call his hand, which
    > shows he made them up, just as most of the *gang*.
    >
    > Jan
     
Loading...