On 30 Dec 2003 17:46:33 GMT,
[email protected]OM (Ilsa9) wrote:
>>On 29 Dec 2003 16:16:08 GMT, [email protected]OM (Ilsa9) wrote:
>>
>>>I have reported Jan for this and I encourage EVERYONE to write to
>>[email protected]
>>>to ask her to stop.
>>>
>>>>On 28 Dec 2003 19:51:16 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I use Oregano tooth powder and liquid Peroxy, (both products from Hulda
>>>>Clark)
>>>>>works great.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.DrQuackClark.com
>>
>>Oh come on Ilsa. You don't think that I really was suggesting that Jan
>>is a shill. I was just making a funny. Ask Happy Dog. He will tell you
>>that the idea that Jan Drew is a shill is laughable/absurd.
>
>I thought I heard a touch of Foghorn Leghorn in your tone. Actually, I think
>that both of you are correct, depending of what your definition of "shill" is.
>Happy's definition is more along the lines of Spamming Dave while yours is more
>inclusive and not based on financial motives.
Happy never gave his definition of a shill. Of course he never gave a
definition of "delusional" either. It is difficult to discuss topics
with people who manipulate definitions of words to support their
agendas or preconceived ideas.
A shill is a person who pretends to be a satisfied customer in order
to induce others to buy the product/service. I have never seen a
requirement that a shill gets any compensation for the shilling.
Jan is a friend of Hulda Clark. She can shill for her just to help
out her business without getting a dime in return. Why is that not a
shill?? Happy never did explain why it was absurd to think Jan acts as
a shill.
I suspect shilling for friends occurs frequently on the internet and
the shill may get nothing (monetarily) in return.
>
>> Sadly Happy seems to now be enabling some of Jan's abusive/shilling
>>behavior. Ironic considering Happy accuses me of acting in a way that
>>encourages Jan to stay here.
>
>Jan is that rare bird that can live off of either positive or negative
>attention. Obviously, you are correct in that her primary motive is to bash
>conventional medicine and gain the love and admiration amongst the healthsluts.
> But, she is also willing to accept the negative attention as it gives her a
>purpose.
Willing to accept is quite different from actively going for it. In
any case Jan's behavior serves to stifle the expression of dissenting
opinion. How much more blatant does it become when she repeatedly
tries (and sometimes succeeds) in getting internet accounts closed??
Also notice that when Happy and others stopped confronting Jan about
her behavior/false ideas how her confrontational behavior toward
*him* drops off. As I said it is behavior modification. Jan gives
negative reinforcement when she is confronted. And when the
confrontational behavior stops, her negative conditioning trails off
or stops. She is good at this. It seems to come quite naturally for
her.
Operant conditioning at work.
Aloha,
Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
The best defense to logic is ignorance.