Stupidity

Jan the Accuser said:

Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

You have claimed that I lied about Cell Tech
or their algae in a sentence that used the word
"delibrately".

Let's see the WHOLE sentence that had that word
in it. Let's see a WHOLE sentence that is a LIE.
Let's see the ACTUAL LIE you claim I told.

Not some statement somebody else made.
Not a statement made about the statement
in question. The ORIGINAL STATEMENT
that you claim is a LIE.

Why won't you post that, Jan?

Let's have a look at the statement in which
I used the word "delibrately".

Why won't you post that, Jan?

Is the word "delibrately" the largest fragment
from that sentence you're willing to quote?

Why won't you show the WHOLE sentence, Jan?
Is it because it would expose your accusations as LIES?

I know that's a difficult concept for you to
understand, but for me to be a LIAR, I must
have told a LIE. That's why I keep asking for
an example of one of these LIES you claim
I told.

Why won't you show me an example of a
LIE that I made?

Why won't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you
posted the original statement, everybody would see
that it is NOT a LIE?

Is it because if you posted the original statement,
everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is
the LIAR?

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan the Accuser
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 6:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Mark Thorson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker wrote:

> I just had a great idea! As of July 1, I will donate $1 to quackwatch.com
> every time Jan calls someone a LIAR, and donate $5 every time she says
> something negative about Dr. Barrett or his websites, up to a maximum of
> $100 per month, until further notice. The principle of free speech and the
> nature of the internet make it impossible to prevent her invective, but I
> can at least make it sting a little bit every time she misbehaves. If

anyone

Quoted message said:

> would like to join me, I will post the totals of the transgressions and

the

Quoted message said:

> appropriate amount at the end of each month until further notice. It is

easy

Quoted message said:

> to donate. The more who join in, the more negative reinforcement is

applied.

Quoted message said:

I'll match that -- if you count up the total each month.
I don't read every post, so I can't count them up myself.

Hey! I've got a PayPal button too!

--
Peter Bowditch

Rich and all of you will need to provide receipts.

Provide receipts to whom? I don't see where Quackwatch claims that
donations are tax deductible and donations to RatbagsDotCom certainly
aren't, so no receipts need to be supplied to taxation authorities.
Who else has the right to ask? (I do have to provide receipts to the
Australian Tax Office for the 20% of all donations that I forward on
to people doing real medical research.)

Quoted message said:

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take
people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

That would be the sort of court case brought against me by New Century
Press, I suppose.

Quoted message said:

I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions, you
would not like it.

When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed. See
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/clark4.htm

Quoted message said:

Thanks once again for showing us how evil organized medicine works.

Was the court case against me and others brought by New Century Press
an example of the workings of Blameless Disorganised Quackery? Oh, I
forgot, NCP just puts out books which coincidentally are written by
the owner of NCP, so perhaps it was an example of the activity of Evil
Organised Publishing.

Quoted message said:

The hole keeps getting deeper and wider.

Don't forget to carry spare batteries for your miner's lamp. Oh,
that's right, you would be more in favour of the traditional Davey
lamp. Don't forget to carry spare kerosine.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

<<
Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know Jan, I think it is time to chat with your attorney about getting some
of the idiots to watch their manners.

Since it seems to be the "way of life" for some of the people that post here
against people that enjoy alternative medicine, perhaps if all of them had to
explain in a court of law just what their personal experience was in all of the
stuff they post about, that maybe they'd figure out that leaving people the
hell enough alone that have personal experience instead degrading their
experience, would be the better option.

"If you're gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 8:40 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan the Accuser
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 6:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Mark Thorson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

Quoted message said:

>Rich Shewmaker wrote:
>
>> I just had a great idea! As of July 1, I will donate $1 to

quackwatch.com

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> every time Jan calls someone a LIAR, and donate $5 every time she says
>> something negative about Dr. Barrett or his websites, up to a maximum of
>> $100 per month, until further notice. The principle of free speech and

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> nature of the internet make it impossible to prevent her invective, but

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> can at least make it sting a little bit every time she misbehaves. If
anyone
>> would like to join me, I will post the totals of the transgressions and
the
>> appropriate amount at the end of each month until further notice. It is
easy
>> to donate. The more who join in, the more negative reinforcement is
applied.
>
>I'll match that -- if you count up the total each month.
>I don't read every post, so I can't count them up myself.
>
>

Hey! I've got a PayPal button too!

--
Peter Bowditch

Rich and all of you will need to provide receipts.

Provide receipts to whom?

Receipts to prove you really paid the money.

Quoted message said:

I don't see where Quackwatch claims that
donations are tax deductible and donations to RatbagsDotCom certainly
aren't, so no receipts need to be supplied to taxation authorities.
Who else has the right to ask?

I do.

Quoted message said:

(I do have to provide receipts to the
Australian Tax Office for the 20% of all donations that I forward on
to people doing real medical research.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take
people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God

Quoted message said:

That would be the sort of court case brought against me by New Century
Press, I suppose.

That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions,

you

Quoted message said:

would not like it.

When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed

Umm, diversion.

Jan

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions,

you

Quoted message said:

would not like it.

When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed

Umm, diversion.

Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She
calls my reply diversion.

Jan, when the crazy, dangerous and money-grubbing QUACK Hulda Clark
sued me through her publishing company, she did it on the basis that I
had cost her money, not that I had defamed her character. Perhaps even
Negrete understands that it would be a dangerous legal tactic to let
examination of the thief Hulda's character become an issue in court.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

DEBBEE1023 said:

<<
Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know Jan, I think it is time to chat with your attorney about getting some
of the idiots to watch their manners.

Can you provide verifiable references where manners are legally
enforceable? Or, is this just a re-hash of Debbee-the-Fascist looking to
silence people she does not agree with?

Quoted message said:

Since it seems to be the "way of life" for some of the people that post here
against people that enjoy alternative medicine, perhaps if all of them had to
explain in a court of law just what their personal experience was in all of the
stuff they post about, that maybe they'd figure out that leaving people the
hell enough alone that have personal experience instead degrading their
experience, would be the better option.

Hey, Debbee....courts do not do that in the RealWorld, but do it ine
DebbeeWorld.

Quoted message said:

The hole keeps getting deeper and wider.

Jan

Didn't James say that to you, Jan, after your honeymoon?

In said:

Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

In <[email hidden]>, Jan wrote:

# I always prove my claims.

Two lies in two lines.

Quoted message said:

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take
people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

But, interestingly, Jan posts the results right away.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

| DEBBEE1023 wrote in message...
|
| <<Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when
| to shut up.>> You know Jan, I think it is time to
| chat with your attorney about getting some
| of the idiots to watch their manners.
|
| ...perhaps if all of them had to explain in a court
| of law just what their personal experience was
| in all of the stuff they post about, that maybe
| they'd figure out that leaving people the hell
| enough alone that have personal experience
| instead degrading their experience, would be
| the better option.
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was going to change the subject line but it
really couldn't be more appropriate...

Go ahead, Jan. Talk to your lawyer...

Regards,
Snidely

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 3:30 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

>I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these

provisions,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you
>would not like it.

When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed

Umm, diversion.

Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She
calls my reply diversion

What I asked you is below.

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

Funny, I see no reply to this question, all I see is a diversion, and more
squawking about Hulda Clark.

Can you not answer Peter???

<Nonsense and lies about Hulda Clark snipped>

If fact I do not believe everthing she wrote, I however do know she is NOT
money-grubbing.

That is a LIE!!

Chalk another one up for Peter.

Jan

Jan the Accuser said:

Do take it line by line and show us the honesty of Mark Thorson.

I did. You mixed in text from at least four different authors,
without indicating which was written by me. And nowhere
in that text was a LIE or FALSE STATEMENT written by me,
although there were false statements written by other people.

And, in all of that stuff, there is only one statement (which
appears twice) that includes the word "delibrately".
This is it:

Quoted message said:

You can't do it. You can't post the original
statement in which I used the word "delibrately".

Why won't you do that, Jan? Why won't you post the
original LIE you claim I told which used the word
"delibrately"?

Let's see the WHOLE sentence that had that word
in it. Let's see a WHOLE sentence that is a LIE.
Let's see the ACTUAL LIE you claim I told.

Not some statement somebody else made.
Not a statement made about the statement
in question. The ORIGINAL STATEMENT
that you claim is a LIE.

Why won't you post that, Jan?

Let's have a look at the statement in which
I used the word "delibrately".

Why won't you do that, Jan? Is it because if you
posted the original statement, everybody would see
that it is NOT a LIE?

Is it because if you posted the original statement,
everybody would see that it is Jan Drew who is
the LIAR?

--

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan the Accuser
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 6:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Mark Thorson <[email hidden]> wrote:

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Thorson is a liar who doesn't know when to shut up.

Oops! This $ KaChing almost slipped past me, hidden in the rest of the text.

;o) Rich

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker wrote:

> I just had a great idea! As of July 1, I will donate $1 to

quackwatch.com

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> every time Jan calls someone a LIAR, and donate $5 every time she says
> something negative about Dr. Barrett or his websites, up to a maximum

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> $100 per month, until further notice. The principle of free speech and

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> nature of the internet make it impossible to prevent her invective,

but I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> can at least make it sting a little bit every time she misbehaves. If

anyone

Quoted message said:

> would like to join me, I will post the totals of the transgressions

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

> appropriate amount at the end of each month until further notice. It

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

easy

Quoted message said:

> to donate. The more who join in, the more negative reinforcement is

applied.

Quoted message said:

I'll match that -- if you count up the total each month.
I don't read every post, so I can't count them up myself.

Hey! I've got a PayPal button too!

--
Peter Bowditch

Rich and all of you will need to provide receipts.

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take
people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these

provisions, you

Quoted message said:

would not like it.

Thanks once again for showing us how evil organized medicine works.

The hole keeps getting deeper and wider.

Jan

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 3:30 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

>>I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these

provisions,

Quoted message said:

>you
>>would not like it.
>
>When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed

Umm, diversion.

Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She
calls my reply diversion

What I asked you is below.

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

No, Jan, what you said was (see quote above): "I am just sure if
anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions, you would
not like it".

My reply to that was "When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed".

Quoted message said:

That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

Funny, I see no reply to this question, all I see is a diversion, and more
squawking about Hulda Clark.

Well, it was Hulda Clark who sued me and who I laughed at. You wanted
to know how I would react if something happened to me. It happened to
me, Hulda Clark did it, I laughed at the crone.

Quoted message said:

Can you not answer Peter???

<Nonsense and lies about Hulda Clark snipped>

That would be the LIES about how she sued me because I supposedly
(according to the documents filed in court) adversely affected her
income. As well as me being a terrorist, trespasser and briber of
Mexicans, of course.

Quoted message said:

If fact I do not believe everthing she wrote, I however do know she is NOT
money-grubbing.

Then why did she not sue for defamation? Why did she sue for lost
income?

I am glad that you do not believe everything she wrote. Would you care
to tell us about where she went wrong?

Quoted message said:

That is a LIE!!

Ka-ching!

Quoted message said:

Chalk another one up for Peter.

Chalk up more money for Quackwatch.

Quoted message said:

Jan

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 8:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 3:30 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

>>>I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these
provisions,
>>you
>>>would not like it.
>>
>>When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed
>
>Umm, diversion.

Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She
calls my reply diversion

What I asked you is below.

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take

Quoted message said:

>people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
>accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

No, Jan, what you said was (see quote above): "I am just sure if
anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions, you would
not like it".

Yes, that is what I said, it is not what I *asked*.

This is what I asked, see the question mark??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny, I see no reply to this question, all I see is a diversion, and more
squawking about Hulda Clark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can you not answer Peter???

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If fact I do not believe everthing she wrote, I however do know she is NOT

Quoted message said:

money-grubbing.

Quoted message said:

Then why did she not sue for defamation? Why did she sue for lost
income?

To help pay attorney fees???

It certainly was because she is money grubbing. She isn't, as I have often
stated, she has no love of money for herself.

Quoted message said:

I am glad that you do not believe everything she wrote. Would you care
to tell us about where she went wrong?

I have expressed this previously. Why are you asking again?? Mark Thorson
syndrome??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is a LIE!!

Ka-ching!

You can Ka-ching all you want. If you think that will stop me from pointing out
lies, think again.

Quoted message said:

Chalk another one up for Peter.

Chalk up more money for Quackwatch.

Quoted message said:

if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
>accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

Do tell us Peter, are you in favor of courts making judgments with *little or
no evidence*??? Judging from accusation only??

Why is that so hard to answer???

Why do you keep danicing all around it??

BTW, You also haven't answered my others questions, about Peter Moran's not
being able to see, any fraud, any lies, any cover-ups, or any dishonesty. Why
is that Peter???

Ah??

Jan

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 8:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

>Subject: Re: Stupidity
>From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
>Date: 7/3/2003 3:30 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>
>[email hidden] (Jan) wrote:
>
>>>>I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these
>provisions,
>>>you
>>>>would not like it.
>>>
>>>When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed
>>
>>Umm, diversion.
>
>Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She
>calls my reply diversion

What I asked you is below.

But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take
>>people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
>>accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

No, Jan, what you said was (see quote above): "I am just sure if
anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions, you would
not like it".

Yes, that is what I said, it is not what I *asked*.

This is what I asked, see the question mark??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny, I see no reply to this question, all I see is a diversion, and more
squawking about Hulda Clark.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can you not answer Peter???

The words I wrote were in response to a paragraph which came after
that question. It would have been obvious to anyone with a minimal
grasp of comprehension what i was talking about.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If fact I do not believe everthing she wrote, I however do know she is NOT

Quoted message said:

money-grubbing.

Quoted message said:

Then why did she not sue for defamation? Why did she sue for lost
income?

To help pay attorney fees???

Court costs are awarded at the end of the court action, and she could
have expected costs to be awarded in her favour if she had won.
Therefore she did not go to court to recover the costs of going to
court, because she could have saved the money by not going to court in
the first place. Is all that too hard to understand?

Quoted message said:

It certainly was because she is money grubbing. She isn't, as I have often
stated, she has no love of money for herself.

Can I get a free treatment in Tijuana?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am glad that you do not believe everything she wrote. Would you care
to tell us about where she went wrong?

I have expressed this previously. Why are you asking again?? Mark Thorson
syndrome??

Why do you ask that? Has Mark also been asking you to point out where
Hulda Clark is wrong? Why don't you just list, say, three mistakes she
has made (of a medical nature, not of a book title nature)? That
should be easy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is a LIE!!

Ka-ching!

You can Ka-ching all you want. If you think that will stop me from pointing out
lies, think again.

Quoted message said:

Chalk another one up for Peter.

Chalk up more money for Quackwatch.

Quoted message said:

if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take

Quoted message said:

>>people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
>>accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

Do tell us Peter, are you in favor of courts making judgments with *little or
no evidence*??? Judging from accusation only??

Why is that so hard to answer???

It isn't hard to answer. I would just like to be given an example of
it happening. An example relevant to the topic of this newsgroup, of
course. Actually, I think I have just thought of an example myself. I
seem to remember someone posting something here the other day about
how a witness was on trial and this showed that the witness was a
liar. No evidence was offered, just accusations.

By the way, are you in favour of selling "medications" with "little or
no evidence" of their efficacy, even when the manufacturer proudly
admits that the preparations contain "little or no" active
ingredients?

Quoted message said:

Why do you keep danicing all around it??

BTW, You also haven't answered my others questions, about Peter Moran's not
being able to see, any fraud, any lies, any cover-ups, or any dishonesty. Why
is that Peter???

Ah??

I do not know what is in Peter Moran's mind (I am not God, after all),
but the words from him that you seem to repeat ad nauseum talk about
the imperfections of medicine. I thought that this was what you wanted
to hear. Unless you are going to judge someone just on accusation and
prejudice.

--
Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 10:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Stupidity
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 7/3/2003 8:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Stupidity
>>From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
>>Date: 7/3/2003 3:30 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>>
>>[email hidden] (Jan) wrote:
>>
>>>>>I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these
>>provisions,
>>>>you
>>>>>would not like it.
>>>>
>>>>When New Century Press sued me, I just laughed
>>>
>>>Umm, diversion.
>>
>>Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She
>>calls my reply diversion
>
>What I asked you is below.
>
>But, if you want to support some one who thinks he should be able to take
>>>people to court without little or no evidence, and just be judged on
>>>accusations, go ahead, it isn't me who judges these things, it is God.

No, Jan, what you said was (see quote above): "I am just sure if
anyone of you were taken to court under these provisions, you would
not like it".

Yes, that is what I said, it is not what I *asked*.

This is what I asked, see the question mark??

Quoted message said:

>That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

Quoted message said:

>Funny, I see no reply to this question, all I see is a diversion, and more
>squawking about Hulda Clark.

Quoted message said:

>Can you not answer Peter???

The words I wrote were in response to a paragraph which came after
that question. It would have been obvious to anyone with a minimal
grasp of comprehension what i was talking about.

The words you wrote were:

Quoted message said:

Priceless! Jan asks me how I would feel about something. I reply. She

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>calls my reply diversion

There was no question in this statement you were replying to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am just sure if anyone of you were taken to court under these

provisions, you would not like it.

Then I asked:

Quoted message said:

That's what Barrett purposes, do you think it is a good thing Peter??

You still have not answered.

You must be afraid to??

Evidently.

Your diversion to Hulda Clark, was for the sole purpose to take the heat off
Barrett.

Can you answer or not??

You know what Barrett said, why can't you answer if you think that is a good
legal basis for judgment in a lawsuit??

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do tell us Peter, are you in favor of courts making judgments with *little

or

Quoted message said:

no evidence*??? Judging from accusation only??

Why is that so hard to answer???

Quoted message said:

It isn't hard to answer.

Then please do.

Without more diversion.

Jan