Peter Moran Shows His Anger

(Jan) said:

Nah, nah, na- na, nah

Quoted message said:

He is an *organized medicine* brainwashed sock puppet.

Quoted message said:

<snip more anger and opinon from an *organized medicine* brainwashed sock
puppet>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

> Your insult in noted.
>
> It is also a character weakness. Work on it.
>
> Jan

Quoted message said:

>I have seen darn little in the way of civilized discussion.

Jan

Quoted message said:

(Jan) said:

There is no need to make a post personal just because you disagree. We have
far too much of this here.

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

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

Quoted message said:

The websites posted have nothing whatsoever to do with Jan's mind.

On the contrary!! They show that you approve, or ar least do not condemn,
cancer patients being induced to forgo potentially curable medical
treatment.

They show you approve of the propagation of lies to achieve that end.

The posting of the web sites without comment shows that you have
insufficient grasp of the issues to contribute anything.

It shows that, despite such admirable and unexpected self-awareness and
despite the depth of that ignorance you still will support anything that
you think somehow damages doctors and conventional medicine, ignoring the
possibility that the only people being harmed are cancer patients.

Need I go on?

Quoted message said:

thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of organized
medicine.

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I don't
much care if you think I have been nasty.

Peter Moran

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:59:16 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of organized
medicine.

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I don't
much care if you think I have been nasty.

It is certainly understandable why you are angry Peter. You are trying
to honestly discuss important issues regarding alternative health care
methods and you are being gratuitously attacked by Jan Drew. What else
is new.

Take it as a compliment when Jan Drew attacks you. If she is not
attacking you then it is likely that you are not expressing the
appropriate degree of skepticism about various alternative claims
especially when the claims involve having someone forego a proven
conventional treatment in place of some quackery.

Jan Drew's tactics are well known. She is completely unable to discuss
anything. She will badger and bear false witness against those who
express skepticism about alternative medicine. She will badger
endlessly until the person she is badgering gets angry and expresses
this anger in one way or another. Then Jan latches on to the angry
comments and uses it against that person. She often will save these
angry expressions to repost at some later point in order to discredit
that poster.

Jan Drew is an individual with no integrity. Her rage at conventional
medicine has resulted in her trying to bash conventional medicine at
all costs. She has absolutely no interest in whether negative
comments about CM are true or not. What is of paramount importance to
Jan Drew is whether the comments can damage the credibility of CM. Jan
Drew also has absolutely no concern about people forgoing conventional
treatments in favor of alternative even if they die in the process.
That is clear.

Jan Drew has repeatedly shown herself to be a bitter, paranoid,
obsessed ugly old lady who only cares about herself. She has
absolutely no insight into how sick (in every sense of the word) she
is. What is the saddest is how numerous enablers of this group serve
to support her egregious behavior and delusional ideas. These enablers
are Jan's worst enemies.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Peter Moran Shows His Anger (again)
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 12/24/2003 4:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

The websites posted have nothing whatsoever to do with Jan's mind.

On the contrary!!

Wrong.

Quoted message said:

They show that you approve, or ar least do not condemn,
cancer patients being induced to forgo potentially curable medical
treatment.

Keywords.

Potentially curable

Quoted message said:

They show you approve of the propagation of lies to achieve that end.

No, I have NEVER approve of lies.

Quoted message said:

The posting of the web sites without comment shows that you have
insufficient grasp of the issues to contribute anything.

No, you are showing your judging and insulting.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

ignorance

ZZzz.

Quoted message said:

you still will support anything that
you think somehow damages doctors and conventional medicine,

Wrong, wrong and wrong. I appreciate good doctors and good conventional
medicine.

I don't appreciate or support nutcases such as Paul Lee.

Quoted message said:

ignoring the possibility that the only people being harmed are cancer

patients.

I never ignore suffering people.

Quoted message said:

Need I go on?

No, so far it is your ususal, ZZzz.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of organized
medicine.

Quoted message said:

Of course I am angry.

Quoted message said:

Having been a regular target of your venom, I don't
much care if you think I have been nasty.

Peter Moran

Yes, I know. Control your anger, I con't appreciate the nastiness on *any*
website of (sicko) Paul Lee.

Jan

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much care if you think I have been nasty.

Jan Drew's tactics are well known.

She's crazy. Almost anyone can see this. So I gotta ask you dudes: What
is the threshold, beyond which, you assume that so many sentient beings can
see that a person is so deranged that it's pointless trying to explain it to
them as if they were idiots? If you actually believe that this caricature
of a human writes anything worth reading, show me the really crazy stuff
that you think isn't worth bothering with. Show me a crazy person's ravings
that you wouldn't bother responding to. Are there any? Hello?? Or do you
think that you're the only ones capable of alerting the unwashed masses that
she's a lunatic? I'm genuinely curious. How stupid do you think your
audience is?

arf

(Jan) said:

I don't appreciate or support nutcases such as Paul Lee.

As far as I know, Paul Lee has never posted anything to this
newsgroup.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Peter Moran Shows His Anger (again)
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 12/25/2003 6:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

I don't appreciate or support nutcases such as Paul Lee.

As far as I know, Paul Lee has never posted anything to this
newsgroup.

His site was posted, and I have talked with him via e-mail.

Jan

(Jan) said:

The websites posted have nothing whatsoever to do with Jan's mind. However,
thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of organized
medicine.

Says the notorious liar and forger Jan Drew, who himself had posted
those links. As he had posted those links, he had an intention to post
them. The selection he chose clearly shows his state of mind.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers

-----

Quoted message said:

Subject: The wonders of Jan's mind and more on cancer
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 12/23/2003 3:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.sumeria.net/health/rectcan.html

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_501613.html

http://www.geocities.com/freee80/map.html

http://www.geocities.com/freee80/

http://www.cancerinform.org/motive.html

http://www.cancerinform.freewebsites.com/docs.html

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/beatcancer_frm.html

http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu:8052/utcam/default.htm

http://www.preventcancer.com/

That's the entire post.

Did you want more??

Are you angry because I posted *alternative/complementary* methods???

This is Jan applying the very elegant "I got more web sites than you!!!

Nope. It is Cancer treatment, who can you believe?

You see, it's not just *your* beliefs.

Nah, nah, na- na, nah"

From a surgeon, no less.

rebuttal to what I said at
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/Hardin_Jones.html

Anything written by Paul Lee will be rebutted by me.

He is an *organized medicine* brainwashed sock puppet.

Much like Barrett and you.

Calling CAM s(CAM) is all one needs to know. I have engaged in some private
e-mail with him.

Jan

<snip more anger and opinon from an *organized medicine* brainwashed sock
puppet>

--
World Conference
"Health Care Systems: Public and Private Management"

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_p0.htm

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much care if you think I have been nasty.

Jan Drew's tactics are well known.

She's crazy. Almost anyone can see this. So I gotta ask you dudes: What
is the threshold, beyond which, you assume that so many sentient beings

can

Quoted message said:

see that a person is so deranged that it's pointless trying to explain it

to

Quoted message said:

them as if they were idiots?

Well, I once thought that was somewhere short of Hulda Clark, but was proved
wrong. But you are half right. A lot more people would be coming to
grief if it were not for the general good sense of people.

Peter

Peter Bowditch said:

Happy Dog said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I

don't

Quoted message said:

>much care if you think I have been nasty.

Jan Drew's tactics are well known.

She's crazy. Almost anyone can see this. So I gotta ask you dudes: What
is the threshold, beyond which, you assume that so many sentient beings can
see that a person is so deranged that it's pointless trying to explain it to
them as if they were idiots? If you actually believe that this caricature
of a human writes anything worth reading, show me the really crazy stuff
that you think isn't worth bothering with. Show me a crazy person's ravings
that you wouldn't bother responding to. Are there any? Hello?? Or do you
think that you're the only ones capable of alerting the unwashed masses that
she's a lunatic? I'm genuinely curious. How stupid do you think your
audience is?

Sometimes debating with close-minded people can be educational.

Indeed. And if anyone should be aware of this it is Happy. He
"debated" endlessly with John Bain who could arguably be considered as
much a loon as Jan Drew. The only reason Happy no longer debates with
the loon Bain is because Bain is not posting here anymore.

In fact note how Jan quotes John Bain to add validity to her
assertion that I have been "stalking" her. It was Bain's original idea
and Jan just latched onto it. Jan has a predisposition to latching
onto things and not letting go. Wild horses could not get her to let
go of certain ideas, even if they are completely irrational and shown
to be false.

But according to Happy, Bain was "polite". Actually Bain was just
extremely passive aggressive and expressed his anger indirectly. Jan
is more direct in her expression of anger. But both Bain and Jan
shared one thing in common: It was a complete exercise in futility to
discuss anything with them.

The answer to Jan Drew is *not* to ignore her. That is exactly what
she wants. The answer is to continue to confront her about her lies
and misinformation recognizing that you will never change Jan Drew's
mind but you may help someone (lurker) from accepting her claims. For
example to allow Jan Drew to assert that she had mercury poisoning
from dental amalgams and that the reason she knows this is because she
did not begin to regain her health until *after* her mercury level
dropped, and not refute it, may result in some lurker to mistakenly
have their amalgams removed. Refuting her assertion may reduce this
possibility.

The other possibility is that if Jan gets enough negative attention
(deservedly so) and less positive (enabling) reinforcement she may
decide (Ok, it is a long shot) to find a better place to indulge her
apparent somatic hypervigilance and paranoia/delusional thinking and
leave the group in peace; although she would likely be replaced by an
equally loony person soon. In the ten years I have participated here
there was always at least one loquacious loon who attracted much
attention.

But again, the key in dealing with Jan Drew is accepting that it is
pointless to *directly* debate with her or even consider that you may
change her mind. Whether she is delusional or just a shill (or maybe a
bit of both) is not clear. In either case one needs to accept that
they are "powerless" over JD. Think of it as the first step in a multi
step program.

Aloha,

Rich

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Show me a crazy person's ravings
that you wouldn't bother responding to. Are there any? Hello?? Or do

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

think that you're the only ones capable of alerting the unwashed masses

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she's a lunatic? I'm genuinely curious. How stupid do you think your
audience is?

Sometimes debating with close-minded people can be educational.

OK. Show me when it isn't. Are you following this?

As an>

Quoted message said:

example, any thread with Roger Schlafly in it reminds me of watching
ice dancing. What Roger does is essentially useless

As were my debates with John Bain. But we're talking about a lunatic. At
what point do you abandon them?

Quoted message said:

Debates with people whose arguments are based not on facts but on
blind faith can seldom be productive if the object is to change the
believer's beliefs. Examples are anti-vaccination liars, creationists,
holocaust deniers, chemical voodoo believers, and anti-psychiatry
nuts. All that can be hoped for here is to provide a rational point of
view and point out the inconsistencies and nonsenses in their
arguments.

Please. Now thousands of posts to make this point?

Quoted message said:

I have a long-standing zero-tolerance policy on personal
attack.

Bad idea. You're resources are being wasted.

Quoted message said:

This is precisely the same reason I always respond to the insane
rantings of William O'Neill.

Different animal entirely. You make a parallel betwen O'Neilll and Drew at
your intellectual peril. *Everybody* gets it.

Quoted message said:

My policy with regard to Jan for the next few weeks is to employ these
tactics only:

1) When she calls ma a liar, I will ask for the exact words of the
lie.

Waste of time.

Quoted message said:

2) When she cites Scientologists as support for her anti-Ritalin

Jesus, this is a consideration?

Quoted message said:

3) When she repeats the lie about mercury in MMR, I will remind her
that she has been shown evidence by someone on her side that there
never was any mercury in MMR.

OK. You're on record. Find ANYONE who disagrees with you. Then argue with
them.

Quoted message said:

4) When she repeats the lie about the origin of the word "quack" being
a derogatory term for dentists who used amalgam in the early 19th
century, I will quote Thomas Browne's use of the expression in 1646.

Just start a thred every day doing this. It will have the same effect.

Quoted message said:

5) When she edits what I say in order to reply to her own fiction, I
will simply reply with a 100%, non-edited quote of the message to
which she is responding.

Godlike. When will you stop wasting your valuable resources on this [censored]?
Have you received any praise for it?

I ask, again, at what point do you guys simply write someone off as a
lunatic? Can you show me? I have asked you guys this question repeatedly
and received no response. And please don't embarrass yourselves with
something that looks like it was written by Schlafly.

moo

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

The websites posted have nothing whatsoever to do with Jan's mind.

On the contrary!! They show that you approve, or ar least do not

condemn,

Quoted message said:

cancer patients being induced to forgo potentially curable medical
treatment.

They show you approve of the propagation of lies to achieve that end.

The posting of the web sites without comment shows that you have
insufficient grasp of the issues to contribute anything.

It shows that, despite such admirable and unexpected self-awareness and
despite the depth of that ignorance you still will support anything that
you think somehow damages doctors and conventional medicine, ignoring the
possibility that the only people being harmed are cancer patients.

Need I go on?

Quoted message said:

thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of organized
medicine.

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I

don't

Quoted message said:

much care if you think I have been nasty.

Peter, if you were not angry with the way Jan has continually insulted you,
you would be abnormal. Anger is appropriate in these circumstances.

I do not expect Jan, or I...., or anyone of their ilk to understand this, as
they are of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much care if you think I have been nasty.

Jan Drew's tactics are well known.

She's crazy. Almost anyone can see this. So I gotta ask you dudes: What
is the threshold, beyond which, you assume that so many sentient beings

can

Quoted message said:

see that a person is so deranged that it's pointless trying to explain it

to

Quoted message said:

them as if they were idiots? If you actually believe that this caricature
of a human writes anything worth reading, show me the really crazy stuff
that you think isn't worth bothering with. Show me a crazy person's

ravings

Quoted message said:

that you wouldn't bother responding to. Are there any? Hello?? Or do

you

Quoted message said:

think that you're the only ones capable of alerting the unwashed masses

that

Quoted message said:

she's a lunatic? I'm genuinely curious. How stupid do you think your
audience is?

There are those who have posted here who believe her. With lurkers far
outnumbering posters, the audience is vast.

Quoted message said:

I ask, again, at what point do you guys simply write someone off as a
lunatic?

Its not so much a matter of whether or not we classify Jan as a lunatic. We,
and all other good people, have written her off as such.

The question, as I understand it, is whether we are lighting a candle to curse
Jan's darkness, or are we merely giving the moth an attractive flame?

Jan is to be repeatedly rebuked. I repeat, re-rebuked for her bigotry and
multitude of other failings. By so doing, we are making an example of Jan as
an exorcisable demon.

Let her psychoses AND the rebuke of the MHA faithful be as cautionary example
to all of usenet, even to the least (perceptive) of our brothers.

Quoted message said:

Can you show me? I have asked you guys this question repeatedly
and received no response. And please don't embarrass yourselves with
something that looks like it was written by Schlafly.

Look toward the Toddster...

Quoted message said:

moo

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sometimes debating with close-minded people can be educational.

Indeed. And if anyone should be aware of this it is Happy. He
"debated" endlessly

The dude's been gone for years.

Quoted message said:

with John Bain who could arguably be considered as
much a loon as Jan Drew.

OK Take a poll. IMO, Bain was an inoffensive kook who developed

untenable

Quoted message said:

theories. You see Drew do this?

There is NO comparison. Jan has far more problems that JB, who is, AFAIAC, a
basicly nice person, who I could enjoy lifting a few brews with.

If you are saying that a conversation with

Quoted message said:

Bain is about the same as a conversation (LOL! A "conversation"?).

Sorry,

Quoted message said:

mid sentence pause. Bain posted crank science and attempted to debate it.
Findme ANYONE who thinks that the experiences are identical.

Not me.

snip of rest

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>Sometimes debating with close-minded people can be educational.

Indeed. And if anyone should be aware of this it is Happy. He
"debated" endlessly

The dude's been gone for years.

Quoted message said:

with John Bain who could arguably be considered as
much a loon as Jan Drew.

OK Take a poll. IMO, Bain was an inoffensive kook who developed

untenable

Quoted message said:

theories. You see Drew do this?

There is NO comparison. Jan has far more problems that JB, who is, AFAIAC, a
basicly nice person, who I could enjoy lifting a few brews with.

Mark, this is the exact same reasoning that led you to believe that Jan Drew
was bascially a nice person.

There is nothing affable about Bain. He is as loathsome a creature as Atlas,
DrCee, or the Evil One, JDrew herself. With malice of forethought and totally
without remorse, he takes every opportunity to Sodomize Logic. The only time
he'll willingly forgo an opportunity to Sodomize logic is if by so doing he
avails himself of greater and/or more frequent opportunities to, well, Sodomize
logic.

Plus, he's a passive-aggressive, lying [censored] who pushes expensive magnets, &
Fool, uh, Fuel conditioner, both on false pretenses.

Mark, if you buy him a brew, make sure its a brew of hemlock, SeaSilver, L*mu,
N*ni, & C*ral C*alcium, administered in the form of an Enema.

"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
> >Sometimes debating with close-minded people can be educational.
>
> Indeed. And if anyone should be aware of this it is Happy. He
> "debated" endlessly

The dude's been gone for years.

> with John Bain who could arguably be considered as
> much a loon as Jan Drew.

OK Take a poll. IMO, Bain was an inoffensive kook who developed

untenable

Quoted message said:

theories. You see Drew do this?

There is NO comparison. Jan has far more problems that JB, who is,

AFAIAC, a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

basicly nice person, who I could enjoy lifting a few brews with.

Mark, this is the exact same reasoning that led you to believe that Jan

Drew

Quoted message said:

was bascially a nice person.

Disagree. I gave Drew the benefit of the doubt. She promptly and dutifully
removed all doubt.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing affable about Bain.

I have seen nothing inherently evil about Bain, like there is with Drew. I
feel that, givien an opportunity to reject her bigotry, etc. he will do so.
Rod, et al openly support it.

Quoted message said:

He is as loathsome a creature as Atlas,

That has yet to be shown.

Quoted message said:

DrCee, or the Evil One, JDrew herself. With malice of forethought and

totally

Quoted message said:

without remorse, he takes every opportunity to Sodomize Logic.

Sodomizing logic as he does is not the same sort of 'bad to the bone'
evilness of atlASS or Drew.

The only time

Quoted message said:

he'll willingly forgo an opportunity to Sodomize logic is if by so doing

he

Quoted message said:

avails himself of greater and/or more frequent opportunities to, well,

Sodomize

Quoted message said:

logic.

Plus, he's a passive-aggressive, lying [censored] who pushes expensive

magnets, &

Quoted message said:

Fool, uh, Fuel conditioner, both on false pretenses.

Mark, if you buy him a brew, make sure its a brew of hemlock, SeaSilver,

L*mu,

Quoted message said:

N*ni, & C*ral C*alcium, administered in the form of an Enema.

Who said I would buy him one? Dutch treat.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Peter Moran Shows His Anger (again)
From: "Mark ProbertDecember 26, 2002" [email hidden]
Date: 12/26/2003 8:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden].

com.au...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

The websites posted have nothing whatsoever to do with Jan's mind.

On the contrary!! They show that you approve, or ar least do not

condemn,

Quoted message said:

cancer patients being induced to forgo potentially curable medical
treatment.

They show you approve of the propagation of lies to achieve that end.

The posting of the web sites without comment shows that you have
insufficient grasp of the issues to contribute anything.

It shows that, despite such admirable and unexpected self-awareness and
despite the depth of that ignorance you still will support anything that
you think somehow damages doctors and conventional medicine, ignoring the
possibility that the only people being harmed are cancer patients.

Need I go on?

Quoted message said:

thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of organized
medicine.

Of course I am angry. Having been a regular target of your venom, I

don't

Quoted message said:

much care if you think I have been nasty.

Peter, if you were not angry with the way Jan has continually insulted you,
you would be abnormal. Anger is appropriate in these circumstances.

I do not expect Jan, or I...., or anyone of their ilk to understand this, as
they are of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

ZZzz.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...
> "Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
> > >Sometimes debating with close-minded people can be educational.
> >
> > Indeed. And if anyone should be aware of this it is Happy. He
> > "debated" endlessly
>
> The dude's been gone for years.
>
> > with John Bain who could arguably be considered as
> > much a loon as Jan Drew.
>
> OK Take a poll. IMO, Bain was an inoffensive kook who developed
untenable
> theories. You see Drew do this?

There is NO comparison. Jan has far more problems that JB, who is,

AFAIAC, a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

basicly nice person, who I could enjoy lifting a few brews with.

Mark, this is the exact same reasoning that led you to believe that Jan

Drew

Quoted message said:

was bascially a nice person.

Disagree. I gave Drew the benefit of the doubt. She promptly and dutifully
removed all doubt.

Quoted message said:

There is nothing affable about Bain.

I have seen nothing inherently evil about Bain, like there is with Drew. I
feel that, givien an opportunity to reject her bigotry, etc. he will do so.
Rod, et al openly support it.

Quoted message said:

He is as loathsome a creature as Atlas,

That has yet to be shown.

Quoted message said:

DrCee, or the Evil One, JDrew herself. With malice of forethought and

totally

Quoted message said:

without remorse, he takes every opportunity to Sodomize Logic.

Sodomizing logic as he does is not the same sort of 'bad to the bone'
evilness of atlASS or Drew.

The only time

Quoted message said:

he'll willingly forgo an opportunity to Sodomize logic is if by so doing

he

Quoted message said:

avails himself of greater and/or more frequent opportunities to, well,

Sodomize

Quoted message said:

logic.

Plus, he's a passive-aggressive, lying [censored] who pushes expensive

magnets, &

Quoted message said:

Fool, uh, Fuel conditioner, both on false pretenses.

Mark, if you buy him a brew, make sure its a brew of hemlock, SeaSilver,

L*mu,

Quoted message said:

N*ni, & C*ral C*alcium, administered in the form of an Enema.

Who said I would buy him one? Dutch treat.

I'll pay for it if you'll administer it.