Jan the Accuser

In said:

Here are some quotes from Jan's recent postings:

Isn't it nice to know that there is someone alive
today who is completely sinless?

--
| 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

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan the Accuser
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 11:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Here are some quotes from Jan's recent postings:

Isn't it nice to know that there is someone alive
today who is completely sinless?

No, I am sorry, you are completely wrong.

As usual.

Sad that.

Jan

In said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan the Accuser
From: "D. C. Sessions" [email hidden]
Date: 7/1/2003 11:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In said:

Here are some quotes from Jan's recent postings:

Isn't it nice to know that there is someone alive
today who is completely sinless?

No, I am sorry, you are completely wrong.

But if there's nobody alive who is sinless, that would
mean that publicly-proclaimed Xtians who go around
making accusations are at the same time acting
publicly against their faith while proclaiming it.

That's the definition of blasphemy.

--
| 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

Rich Shewmaker said:

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
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.

Why not donate it to cancer research or the national heart foundation?
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

easy

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

In said:

Here are some quotes from Jan's recent postings:

Isn't it nice to know that there is someone alive
today who is completely sinless?

Not to mention someone so willing to cast the first, second, & third stones.

Quoted message said:

Why not donate it to cancer research or the national heart foundation?
Anth

They are quite worthy causes. Nothing wrong with supporting them, but it is
also important to support the effort to educate the public about health fraud.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker wrote:

In said:

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
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.

Cool idea, but that cap is gonna peg you out pretty quick.
For instance, I think you've already maxed out for July.

--
| 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

In said:

Quoted message said:

Why not donate it to cancer research or the national heart foundation?
Anth

They are quite worthy causes. Nothing wrong with supporting them, but it is
also important to support the effort to educate the public about health fraud.

Besides, they don't get Jan foaming and twitching the
way Barrett does.

--
| 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

Quoted message said:

In said:

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
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.

Cool idea, but that cap is gonna peg you out pretty quick.
For instance, I think you've already maxed out for July.

Isn't there a way to force the pro-alts to match our contributions to
Quackwatch? In either case, I vote to fund Quackwatch by levying a tax on ALL
foreigners living abroad.

--

"D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In <[email hidden]>, Rich Shewmaker wrote:

Quoted message said:

Cool idea, but that cap is gonna peg you out pretty quick.
For instance, I think you've already maxed out for July.

Naw, because I posted the warning shot a little late, I'm going to give her
July 1 for free. Any posts dated July 2 or later count.

--Rich

--

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

Quoted message said:

--

"D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In <[email hidden]>, Rich Shewmaker wrote:

Quoted message said:

Cool idea, but that cap is gonna peg you out pretty quick.
For instance, I think you've already maxed out for July.

Naw, because I posted the warning shot a little late, I'm going to give

her

Quoted message said:

July 1 for free. Any posts dated July 2 or later count.

--Rich

By the way, Jan's score for the last half of June was:

Barrett Bashes 14
Calling people liars 22

;o) Rich

--

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

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

--

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

Quoted message said:

--

"D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In <[email hidden]>, Rich Shewmaker wrote:

>
> Cool idea, but that cap is gonna peg you out pretty quick.
> For instance, I think you've already maxed out for July.
>

Naw, because I posted the warning shot a little late, I'm going to give

her

Quoted message said:

July 1 for free. Any posts dated July 2 or later count.

--Rich

By the way, Jan's score for the last half of June was:

Barrett Bashes 14
Calling people liars 22

;o) Rich

What was the 'link' count ?

I was hoping to avoid exponential notation.

;o) Rich

"D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In <[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

But if there's nobody alive who is sinless, that would
mean that publicly-proclaimed Xtians who go around
making accusations are at the same time acting
publicly against their faith while proclaiming it.

Quoted message said:

That's the definition of blasphemy.

Does not the scriptures say, "reprove ye the evil works of darkness"?
Also who was it that called the scribes and pharisees a "den of vipers",
"full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness". Who also said to them, "
Ye Serpents, ye generations of Vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
Hell? " This sounds a lot like you silly "debunker's".
Or to put it another way, if there was a Doctor going about poisoning
people, would it be the same as casting the first, second, and third stone
to warn everybody that there was a poisoner in their midst? If this Doctor
denied that he was poisoning people, which would be the greater evil, to
call him to account by insisting to him and all that he was indeed a liar,
or thinking that it would be hypocrisy to call a liar a liar because all men
are sinners and therefore the pot shouldn't call the kettle black, to just
leave him alone to continue on his evil practice of poisoning people?
What D.C.Sessions calls Blasphemy is rather to be termed speaking the
truth. His argument is a sieve that doesn't hold water.--rb

--

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

Quoted message said:

Mark Thorson said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

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:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

easy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

applied.

Quoted message said:

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

Fair enough. A five bucks to yours every time Jan reposts the Gelsinger
tirade or the FDA bash that starts "In recent years, there has been an
upsurge of . . ." to "prove" something or other about you. Max $75/month.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan the Accuser(not)-=-a sieve that doesn't hold water???
From: "rb" [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 6:55 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"D. C. Sessions" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In <[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

But if there's nobody alive who is sinless, that would
mean that publicly-proclaimed Xtians who go around
making accusations are at the same time acting
publicly against their faith while proclaiming it.

Quoted message said:

That's the definition of blasphemy.

Does not the scriptures say, "reprove ye the evil works of darkness"?
Also who was it that called the scribes and pharisees a "den of vipers",
"full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness". Who also said to them, "
Ye Serpents, ye generations of Vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
Hell? " This sounds a lot like you silly "debunker's".
Or to put it another way, if there was a Doctor going about poisoning
people, would it be the same as casting the first, second, and third stone
to warn everybody that there was a poisoner in their midst? If this Doctor
denied that he was poisoning people, which would be the greater evil, to
call him to account by insisting to him and all that he was indeed a liar,
or thinking that it would be hypocrisy to call a liar a liar because all men
are sinners and therefore the pot shouldn't call the kettle black, to just
leave him alone to continue on his evil practice of poisoning people?
What D.C.Sessions calls Blasphemy is rather to be termed speaking the
truth. His argument is a sieve that doesn't hold water.--rb

VERY well said.

Jan

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?

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

Quoted message said:

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?

My eyes are rolling about in my head.--rb

Quoted message said:

From: "rb" [email hidden]
Date: 7/2/2003 9:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

<snip>

Quoted message said:

My eyes are rolling about in my head.--rb

That's why I warned you to buckle up.

I am putting Mark back in my killfile.

He knows, and God knows he LIED.

Any statement saying someone did something *deliberately* and had NO basis for
saying it, plain and simple is a lie.

Like you stated, with that logic, we could say anything about anybody.

Using the word deliberately, makes all the difference.

Of course the debunkers who lie for each other, also seem to think it is A OK
for people to be sued with *little or no evidence* and on *accusations* alone.

What a group!!

Jan