Mark Thorson Is A Cyberstalker

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

Quoted message said:

When you see him posting after my posts, please know he is
stalking. He is

a

Quoted message said:

proven liar and sends posts to alt test rather than here
which is totally dishonesty.

Back in my killfile he goes,

Calling someone a criminal is actionable defamation.

Quoted message said:

When you see him posting after my posts, please know he is
stalking. He is a proven liar and sends posts to alt test
rather than here which is totally dishonesty.

Translation: I, Jan Drew, got schooled & yet did not learn
any lessons.

Quoted message said:

Back in my killfile he goes,

That killfile is as porous as Jan's skull.

Quoted message said:

Jan

Jan said:

When you see him posting after my posts, please know he is
stalking. He is a proven liar and sends posts to alt test
rather than here which is totally dishonesty.

Back in my killfile he goes,

Jan

Where's the PROOF, Jan? Where is an example of one of these
LIES you claim I told?

Why don't you post an example of an ORIGINAL statement I
made about Cell Tech or their algae which was false?

Even Cell Tech did not accuse me of making any false
statements, nor does the retraction say any of my statements
were false.

You persist in making this accusation against me, but you
have not shown EVEN ONE example of a statement I made which
is false, much less a LIE.

Why don't you post an example, Jan? Then everybody could see
for themselves what one of these statements looks like, and
decide for themselves whether or not it was a LIE. Why don't
you want people to do that, Jan? Why do you want to prevent
people from reaching their own conclusions about whether
anything I said was a LIE?

Is it because any example you could choose would OBVIOUSLY
NOT be a false statement? And then, people would see it was
not me who makes LIES.

Do you need help seeing what a LIE looks like, Jan?

Here is an example:

To see Jan's ORIGINAL POSTING, go here:w.google.com/groups?selm=20040310000815.25804.00001173%40mb-
m01.aol.com

Jan said:

Quoted message said:

From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]

Instead of responding to what you say, Jan is trying to
discredit you by making insinuations about who you are or
what your motives may be.

Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the
pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works.

That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have
NEVER accused

anyone of

Quoted message said:

any such thing.

So do prove your claim Mark!!!!!

You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!!

----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid
shills -----

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-
fn.aol.com

Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing
starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-
fw.aol.com

Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives
off his wife.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-
ct.aol.com

As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-
mn.aol.com

As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names
when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his
own people.

Jan said:

When you see him posting after my posts, please know he is
stalking. He is a proven liar and sends posts to alt test
rather than here which is totally dishonesty.

Back in my killfile he goes,

Jan

How can you call me a PROVEN liar, when you have not offered
any PROOF?

Why don't you post an example of an ORIGINAL statement I
made about Cell Tech or their algae which was false?

Even Cell Tech did not accuse me of making any false
statements, nor does the retraction say any of my statements
were false.

You persist in making this accusation against me, but you
have not shown EVEN ONE example of a statement I made which
is false, much less a LIE.

Why don't you post an example, Jan? Then everybody could see
for themselves what one of these statements looks like, and
decide for themselves whether or not it was a LIE. Why don't
you want people to do that, Jan? Why do you want to prevent
people from reaching their own conclusions about whether
anything I said was a LIE?

Is it because any example you could choose would OBVIOUSLY
NOT be a false statement? And then, people would see it was
not me who makes LIES.

Do you need help seeing what a LIE looks like, Jan?

Here is an example:

To see Jan's ORIGINAL POSTING, go here:w.google.com/groups?selm=20040310000815.25804.00001173%40mb-
m01.aol.com

Jan said:

Quoted message said:

From: Mark Thorson [email hidden]

Instead of responding to what you say, Jan is trying to
discredit you by making insinuations about who you are or
what your motives may be.

Soon, she may accuse you of being on the payroll of the
pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's the way Jan works.

That would be ANOTHER LIE from Mark Thorson. I have
NEVER accused

anyone of

Quoted message said:

any such thing.

So do prove your claim Mark!!!!!

You can't YOU JUST LIED AGAIN!!!!!!!

----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid
shills -----

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-
fn.aol.com

Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing
starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-
fw.aol.com

Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives
off his wife.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-
ct.aol.com

As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-
mn.aol.com

As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names
when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his
own people.

On 21 Apr 2004 07:01:58 GMT, [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

<quote> Lines: 7 X-Admin: [email hidden] From:
[email hidden] (Jan) Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 21 Apr 2004 07:01:58 GMT Organization: AOL
aol.comaol.comOpen ↗ Subject: Mark Thorson Is A Cyberstalker
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

When you see him posting after my posts, please know he is
stalking. He is a proven liar and sends posts to alt test
rather than here which is totally dishonesty.

Back in my killfile he goes,

Jan </quote>

----- example quotes of Jan accusing people of being paid
shills -----

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030415173745.18794.00000646%40mb-
fn.aol.com

Any time alt. health is mentioned the personal trashing
starts. Mostly comes from paid shill Mark Probert.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030412210802.08778.00000680%40mb-
fw.aol.com

Internet bully Mark Probert who is a paid shill and lives
off his wife.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030410170838.14245.00000347%40mb-
ct.aol.com

As for Mark, he is a paid shill and lives off his wife.

Quoting from this ORIGINAL posting from Jan Drew:w.google.com/groups?selm=20030325123827.25124.00000246%40mb-
mn.aol.com

As long as Mark is here, the paid shill will call names
when in fact he is the one who is a bigot. Speaking of his
own people.

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

Jan Drew is a notorious liar and forger.

Jan Drew is a danger for unknowing persons and should be put
into jail. As soon as possible. And as long as possible.

The FAQ about Jan Drew :

geocities.comQuackery.htmlOpen ↗

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Vollalternative Schmerzbehandlung

ariplex.comamalanc1.htmOpen ↗

<< Calling someone a criminal is actionable defamation. >>

Interesting point, Probert. Calling people bigots, and
accusing them of being anti-semetic, is surely a bigger form
of defamation, and there are LOTS of people reviewing the
information that has been spewed out here with regard to
this. Just because someone doesn't like someone's religion
doesn't mean, they are anti-semetic, and just because
someone doesn't share in the support of what happened years
ago, doesn't make them anti-semetic. Every culture or
religious group has been over the years attacked. As I was
told the other day, you don't move into someone's
neighborhood, and attack the religion that is the
predominate religion in that neighborhood, because you feel
your religion is superior. Nor should you move into a
country, and try to change the religious principles of that
country. Nor should you use your religion as a platform for
any organization.

I was speaking with some people the other day that are anti
ACLU, and trying to understand their viewpoint. They
basically told me that the U.S. has acknowledged freedom of
speech for a long time, and there was really no need for an
organization such as this one, to protect our speech,
because it was already protected. This people went further
to state that they felt that the ACLU was trying to further
protect the rights of a certain group of people. I'd like to
get your opinion of this Probert. Whatever are they
attempting to reference?

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

<< Even Cell Tech did not accuse me of making any false
statements, nor does the retraction say any of my statements
were false. >>

Thorson, I was so tired of this whole Cell Tech issue that I
have sent your postings to Cell Tech. This obsessive-
compulsive issue with Cell Tech is beyond OLD. I even sent
the post I made about it, trying to get clarification.
Perhaps someone can make a determination, and kill off the
need to keep all of this Cell Tech information from being
posted, and reposted.....it is OLD, and those that keep
posting about it, are equally as old....

Can you find another subject to post about? Perhaps
something that you have personal experience in. I know you
do not have personal experience in MCS, and I have yet to
figure out your need to try squelch the information, and
post studies that go against MCS. If you don't have it
Thorson, you fail to understand it all. By posting
information (studies), of individuals that believe it
doesn't exist, makes me wonder what is your point?

I'd like to see you post information that you have real
personal experience in, for which you have first handed
knowledge....perhaps Engineering?

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

<< Jan Drew is a notorious liar and forger.

Jan Drew is a danger for unknowing persons and should be put
into jail. As soon as possible. And as long as possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, that is real nice thing to say....Oyster
Boy.....grow up

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

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan Drew Is A Cyberstalker
From: [email hidden] (DEBBEE1023)
Date: 4/24/2004 7:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

<< Jan Drew is a notorious liar and forger.

Jan Drew is a danger for unknowing persons and should be
put into jail. As soon as possible. And as long as
possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, that is real nice thing to say....Oyster
Boy.....grow up

He has a srew loose, has said same about others. Everyone
knows he is nuts.

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,

DEBBEE1023 said:

<< Even Cell Tech did not accuse me of making any false
statements, nor does the retraction say any of my
statements were false. >>

Thorson, I was so tired of this whole Cell Tech issue that
I have sent your postings to Cell Tech.

Ah, there we go. Debbee gets annoyed, so she falls back on
the old "I'm telling Mom!" approach. Thorson only posts in
response to Debbee's buddy Jan's repeated slurs, but Debbee
can't be bothered with trivia like facts. Just another
reason nobody is likely to believe she's a "journalist."

Quoted message said:

I have yet to figure out your need to try squelch the
information, and post studies that go against MCS.

I haven't seen Thorson squelch anything. You're the one
who's trying to shut him down. Hypocrite.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<< Jan Drew is a notorious liar and forger.

Jan Drew is a danger for unknowing persons and should be
put into jail. As soon as possible. And as long as
possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, that is real nice thing to say....Oyster
Boy.....grow up

Debbee, Jan is calling lots of people cyberstalkers these
days because they respond to her posts.

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<< Calling someone a criminal is actionable defamation. >>

Interesting point, Probert. Calling people bigots, and
accusing them of

being

Quoted message said:

anti-semetic, is surely a bigger form of defamation, and
there are LOTS of people reviewing the information that
has been spewed out here with regard

to

Quoted message said:

this.

There ya go again with your imaginary people. Saying someone
is committing a crime, when they are not, is actionalbe
defamation. Look it up journalist wannabe.

Calling someone a bigot is not a crime, and, with using your
own words, it can be proven to be true. BTW, in such cases
of defamation, you would have to prove damages,and, since
your reputation around here is zero, you would owe me money.

Just because someone doesn't like someone's religion
doesn't mean,

Quoted message said:

they are anti-semetic, and just because someone doesn't
share in the

support of

Quoted message said:

what happened years ago, doesn't make them anti-semetic.

Sure, Debbee.

Quoted message said:

Every culture or religious group has been over the years
attacked. As I

was

Quoted message said:

told the other day, you don't move into someone's
neighborhood, and attack

the

Quoted message said:

religion that is the predominate religion in that
neighborhood, because

you

Quoted message said:

feel your religion is superior.

Who, other than you said anything about superior?

Nor should you move into a country, and try to

Quoted message said:

change the religious principles of that country.

Just who is doing this? BTW, Jews moved here in the
earliest of days.

Nor should you use your

Quoted message said:

religion as a platform for any organization.

I guess you are in favor of banning the Christian Coalition,
the National Council of Churches, etc.

Quoted message said:

I was speaking with some people the other day that are
anti ACLU, and

trying to

Quoted message said:

understand their viewpoint. They basically told me that
the U.S. has acknowledged freedom of speech for a long
time, and there was really no

need

Quoted message said:

for an organization such as this one, to protect our
speech, because it

was

Quoted message said:

already protected.

It may be protected on paper, but, with the likes of you, it
has to be protected in practice. There are many
infringements on our rights every day.

Quoted message said:

This people

"This" implies one persom. So, was it a group, or a single
person? Please try to make up your stories straight.

went further to state that they felt that the

Quoted message said:

ACLU was trying to further protect the rights of a certain
group of

people.

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get your opinion of this Probert. Whatever
are they

attempting to

Quoted message said:

reference?

They are referencing a sheer stupid argument, your favorite
kind. Visit the national ACLU, and the local chapter
websites and see how speech is being infringed.

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<< Even Cell Tech did not accuse me of making any false
statements, nor does the retraction say any of my
statements were false. >>

Thorson, I was so tired of this whole Cell Tech issue that
I have sent

your

Quoted message said:

postings to Cell Tech. This obsessive-compulsive issue
with Cell Tech is beyond OLD. I even sent the post I made
about it, trying to get

clarification.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps someone can make a determination, and kill off
the need to keep

all of

Quoted message said:

this Cell Tech information from being posted, and
reposted.....it is OLD,

and

Quoted message said:

those that keep posting about it, are equally as old....

We are all awaiting your posting of their response.

Of course, if you do not post a response from them, we
know you lied.

In article <[email hidden]>,
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 24, 2004 <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t

Quoted message said:

"DEBBEE1023" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<< Jan Drew is a notorious liar and forger.

Jan Drew is a danger for unknowing persons and should be
put into jail. As soon as possible. And as long as
possible.

Quoted message said:

>

Now, that is real nice thing to say....Oyster
Boy.....grow up

Debbee, Jan is calling lots of people cyberstalkers these
days because they respond to her posts.

See? I told you my approach was safer. That's one charge she
can't level at me.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

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

Quoted message said:

Neither her rapid deterioration nor rapid
improvement could

reasonably/logically

Quoted message said:

be explained by anything other than psychologic factors.

Aloha, Rich

=================
I sometimes think of the conversations that the Great
Minds had back when the theory about the shape of the
world was discussed. Opinions about whether the world was
flat or round had two sides. Of course each side
perceived the other to be off-base. Wonder if they chose
to have differing points of view, like ladies and
gentlemen, or if they greeted each other's points of view
with 'LIAR, LIAR, LIAR' ???

If they didn't, was it because they were Great Minds? Just
a thought.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:37:13 GMT, "Coleah" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<Rich.@.> wrote in message news:40a2e38d.147116156@news-
server.hawaii.rr.com...

Quoted message said:

Neither her rapid deterioration nor rapid
improvement could

reasonably/logically

Quoted message said:

be explained by anything other than psychologic factors.

Aloha, Rich

=================
I sometimes think of the conversations that the Great Minds
had back when the theory about the shape of the world was
discussed. Opinions about whether the world was flat or
round had two sides. Of course each side perceived the
other to be off-base. Wonder if they chose to have
differing points of view, like ladies and gentlemen, or if
they greeted each other's points of view with 'LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR' ???

If they didn't, was it because they were Great Minds? Just
a thought.

Cue Jan to make a gratuitous attack against me since someone
responded to my post. Just watch.

Do you have any opinion about whether Jan truly had mercury
poisoning as she alleges?? I realize that you don't know for
sure but what is your opinion.

With respect to accusations of lying I believe someone
should be called on lying when it is clear that they lied.
Specifically for someone to be accused of lying there must
be three conditions:

1. The statement is not true
2. The person knows that the statement is not true
3. The purpose of the statement is to mislead or deceive.

Unless all three conditions are met with clear and
convincing evidence I think it inappropriate to allege
someone as lying. However if there *is* clear and
convincing evidence I think it quite appropriate to call a
spade a spade.

You see I am not calling Jan a liar because I disagree with
her POV. I am calling her a liar because she lies, plain and
simple. And unlike Jan Drew who *claims* that she proves all
lies with poster's own words, I actually do that.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance

In article said:

On 25 Apr 2004 03:52:33 GMT, [email hidden] (Jan)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Jan Drew Is A Cyberstalker From:
[email hidden] (David Wright) Date: 4/24/2004
7:00 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

See? I told you my approach was safer. That's one charge
she can't level at me.

Oh, you do your share eagerly. However, wouldn't it be
great if those who just wish to belittle would
killfile me.

That is exactly what Jan Drew wants. She wants to be able
to spout her lies without anyone challenging her.

She also wants to be able to insult freely without having to
worry that the targets of her venom will read it. Jan, of
course, would deny that she insults anyone, but we all know
otherwise. She's also accusing me of being a cyberstalker
above, but she's so clueless I doubt she realizes that's the
implication of what she wrote.

Note that she also declines to killfile others -- she just
wants them to killfile *her*.

Quoted message said:

Much to Jan's chagrin there are many of us who just won't
let her get away with her lies and bigotry, not to mention
her hijacking of discussions in this newsgroup.

Yeah, right -- how many threads degenerate into discussions
of Jan, and her lies and pschoopathy and all those other
topics you guys love to raise? Jesus, all Jan has to do is
contribute to a thread and it'll be all about her in two
shakes. But you guys aren't contributing to that...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The truth has always caused unrest to the guilty.

I doubt it. It doesn't seem to cause Jan much unrest.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Coleah said:

I sometimes think of the conversations that the Great Minds
had back when the theory about the shape of the world was
discussed. Opinions about whether the world was flat or
round had two sides. Of course each side perceived the
other to be off-base. Wonder if they chose to have
differing points of view, like ladies and gentlemen, or if
they greeted each other's points of view with 'LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR' ???

If they didn't, was it because they were Great Minds? Just
a thought.

Sailors, or anyone who had been at sea, knew that the earth
was not flat. If you had ever been at sea, you would know
that the horizon is curved.

"The earth is flat' theory is a foolish holdover that never
was believed even in ancient times.

In other words, you have been lied to. The sailors of the
time never believed that the earth was flat.
--

W_B

Take out the G'RBAGE
[email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>,

W_B said:

Coleah said:

I sometimes think of the conversations that the Great
Minds had back when the theory about the shape of the
world was discussed. Opinions about whether the world was
flat or round had two sides. Of course each side perceived
the other to be off-base. Wonder if they chose to have
differing points of view, like ladies and gentlemen, or if
they greeted each other's points of view with 'LIAR, LIAR,
LIAR' ???

If they didn't, was it because they were Great Minds? Just
a thought.

Sailors, or anyone who had been at sea, knew that the earth
was not flat. If you had ever been at sea, you would know
that the horizon is curved.

"The earth is flat' theory is a foolish holdover that never
was believed even in ancient times.

Depends who and where. The ancient Greeks knew it was round,
and so did any educated European in 1492, popular myth
notwithstanding.

However, I've read that when explorers first met up with
Chaka Zulu, *he* thought the world was flat and came up with
most of the stock arguments for the proposition on the spot.
In fairness to him, he was a landlocked fellow and didn't
have access to sailors' information.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)