BIG Question for JAN DREW!!!!!!!!

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:58:16 -0000, Rich Andrews <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

A simple question for you, Jan.

Bronwyn Hancock says that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to harm a baby by shaking it, no matter how hard the shake
is.

Is she correct?

Answer 'yes' or 'no'.

Maybe Jan can speak from personal experience.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

r

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Rich Andrews said:

A simple question for you, Jan.

Bronwyn Hancock says that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to harm a baby by shaking it, no matter how hard the shake
is.

Is she correct?

Answer 'yes' or 'no'.

I could refer her to the Hospital from where I once collected a foster
child aged 10 months. The child had recovered from a subdurral haematoma
(sp) and detached retina after having been shaken by it's father
(admitted to).

"dickinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bpm6pb$1ourjn$1@ID-
144939.news.uni-berlin.de:

Quoted message said:

Rich Andrews said:

A simple question for you, Jan.

Bronwyn Hancock says that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to harm a baby by shaking it, no matter how hard the shake
is.

Is she correct?

Answer 'yes' or 'no'.

I could refer her to the Hospital from where I once collected a foster
child aged 10 months. The child had recovered from a subdurral haematoma
(sp) and detached retina after having been shaken by it's father
(admitted to).

I am sure many other cases can be brought to her attention. One thing I
am certain of, she will ignore or attempt to divert attention away from
this simple question. Her diversions are legendary and numerous.

Ever notice how a chick will say "whatever" when proven wrong? When I
hear that sort of reply, I say "Thank you for admitting you were wrong".
It pisses them off every single time because it is the truth. The women
that never say "whatever" are usually intelligent, honest, and decent
people. Those that attempt to divert are just like the "whatever" chicks.
They can't support their statements, so they attempt to change the
subject. It is all a matter of honesty and ethics, of which, they have
none.

The Janster has not replied, and I fully expect her not to. I believe
that he/she/it would rather watch a child die than admit that many alts
are dead wrong.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Rich Andrews said:

"dickinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bpm6pb$1ourjn$1@ID-
144939.news.uni-berlin.de:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The Janster has not replied, and I fully expect her not to. I believe
that he/she/it would rather watch a child die than admit that many
alts are dead wrong.

If it wasn't the "alt cause" it would be something else. The likes of
her are *never* wrong, whatever their cause and it is never them who
"die for the cause" but their misguided disciples. The only thing that
changes is the lingo.

"Whatever" used to be "Suit yourself" which simply means, "I don't have
an appropriate response to repudiate your claims, but I am damn well not
going to admit that you may be right"

Rich Andrews said:

A simple question for you, Jan.

Bronwyn Hancock says that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to harm a baby by shaking it, no matter how hard the shake
is.

Is she correct?

Answer 'yes' or 'no'.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

concatenated