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: <3fea1a43$0$902$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>

"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 ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

(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: <3fe8aea6$0$889$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>

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

Quoted message said:

sumeria.netrectcan.htmlOpen ↗

ananova.comsm 501613.htmlOpen ↗

geocities.commap.htmlOpen ↗

geocities.comfreee80Open ↗

cancerinform.orgmotive.htmlOpen ↗

cancerinform.freewebsites.comdocs.htmlOpen ↗

cancerdecisions.combeatcancer frm.htmlOpen ↗

sph.uth.tmc.edudefault.htmOpen ↗

preventcancer.compreventcancer.comOpen ↗

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 geocities.comHardin Jones.htmlOpen ↗

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"

ariplex.comama p0.htmOpen ↗

@. said:

On 25 Dec 2003 10:00:43 GMT, [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:43:08 GMT Rich said:

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.

And then right on cue only hours later on Christmas Day:

(Jan) said:

More of Happy's past posts.

Quoted message said:

<snip list of out of context comments that Jan has saved to discredit
people>

Some things are so predictable.

... and they are wellknown. Wellknown as Scientologists' warfare.

Merry Christmas,

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

ariplex.comama p0.htmOpen ↗

"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

Happy Dog 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 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. As an example, any thread with Roger
Schlafly in it reminds me of watching ice dancing. What Roger does is essentially useless, but his
command of weasling and non sequitur is so masterful that it is highly entertaining to watch.
Debates with money-driven scamsters like Spammin' Ginseng Dave can also be useful because they
provide the opportunity to produce arguments based on facts.

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.

I rarely respond to any "original" drivel that Jan posts because we have heard it all before and it
has been debunked many times. I do respond when she personally insults me or edits my words to
change their meaning, not because I think I can change her "mind" or get her to recognise analogy
and other non-concrete styles of language, but because I have a long-standing zero-tolerance policy
on personal attack. I respond to get a reply into the Google archives, so that anyone reading the
threads in the future will not think that I have no answer to what she says.

This is precisely the same reason I always respond to the insane rantings of William O'Neill.
He obviously has a severe mental health problem and is so deluded that he probably believes
what he says, but I don't want people reading lies about me and my family in the future and
finding no rebuttal.

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.

2) When she cites Scientologists as support for her anti-Ritalin campaign, I will remind her of her
remarks about how my atheism informs my opinions about quackery and I will also quote Hubbard's
statement that Jesus was a pedophile.

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.

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.

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.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project ratbags.comrsolesOpen ↗
The Green Light ratbags.comgreenlightOpen ↗
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 ratbags.comloonOpen ↗
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

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

"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 theories. You see Drew do
this? If you are saying that a conversation with Bain is about the same as a conversation (LOL! A
"conversation"?). Sorry, mid sentence pause. Bain posted crank science and attempted to debate it.
Findme ANYONE who thinks that the experiences are identical.

Quoted message said:

The only reason Happy no longer debates with the loon Bain is because Bain is not posting here
anymore.

Gee Rich. I guess that then same logic would apply to my debates with Drew. You awake?

Quoted message said:

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.

The mother of self referential statements.

Quoted message said:

But according to Happy, Bain was "polite".

"Ambition should be made of sterner stuff"

Quoted message said:

But both Bain and Jan shared one thing in common: It was a complete exercise in futility to
discuss anything with them.

Lost on you. Apparent to everyone else.

Quoted message said:

The answer to Jan Drew is *not* to ignore her. That is exactly what she wants.

LOL! Ineducable moron. She replies to a fraction of what I write compared to you-all.

Quoted message said:

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.

I aspire to such a lofty post.

Quoted message said:

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

Is crazy. Everyone gets it dude.

Quoted message said:

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

A "long shot"? "One's reach should exceed one's grasp. But this is unconcionable." (Somebody, maybe
Mordecai Richler, made me cry with laughter when he said that. A double scotch to the poster who
finds me the reference.)

Quoted message said:

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.

advocate for her posted views. C'mon. First point of your evidence. Something that anyone here who
thinks like you will back. In fact, anyone at all.

moo, le 3

"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.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Peter Moran Shows His Anger (again) From: "Mark ProbertDecember 26, 2002"

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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:20031223192820.01860.00001433@mb-
m18.aol.com...
> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you think somehow damages doctors and conventional medicine, ignoring

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

possibility that the only people being harmed are cancer patients.

Need I go on?

> thanks for showing us once again the angers and nastiness of

organized

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

ZZzz.

humanticsfoundation.comPropagandistProbert.htmlOpen ↗

I mention that Jan posts insults and abuse, and she posts a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
Even John (whale.to) Scudamore agrees that this URL is a pure ad hominem attack. See:

whale.topropaganda3.htmlOpen ↗

Happy Dog 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.

Years. Does not seem that long. In any case what does that have to do with the price of rice in
China? My point above stands.

Quoted message said:

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 theories. You see Drew do
this? If you are saying that a conversation with Bain is about the same as a conversation (LOL! A
"conversation"?). Sorry, mid sentence pause. Bain posted crank science and attempted to debate it.
Findme ANYONE who thinks that the experiences are identical.

Read with comprehension. I said that it is pointless to debate (more than a few days or so) with
*either*. In each case it becomes obvious that the person is incapable of having a logical
discussion. Jan Drew more often gives advice that could be very dangerous if accepted. For example
she often posts links to sites that recommend foregoing proven conventional treatment for life
threatening illnesses.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only reason Happy no longer debates with the loon Bain is because Bain is not posting here
anymore.

Gee Rich. I guess that then same logic would apply to my debates with Drew. You awake?

Drew really pushed your buttons and you could not handle the anger that she aroused in you. That is
likely why you stopped debating with her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The mother of self referential statements.

When Jan claims that she had mercury poisoning I refute it by posting her lies. If you don't like my
posts then feel free to kill file me. You are unwittingly enabling Jan by confronting those of us
who confront her. To the extent that you are successful in convincing others to ignore her dangerous
advice you are playing into her hand.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But both Bain and Jan shared one thing in common: It was a complete exercise in futility to
discuss anything with them.

Lost on you. Apparent to everyone else.

Huh? It is obvious you are very angry at me. Not really sure why. What do you care if I confront
Drew about her lies and false claims. I am not trying to directly discuss anything with her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The answer to Jan Drew is *not* to ignore her. That is exactly what she wants.

LOL! Ineducable moron. She replies to a fraction of what I write compared to you-all.

How do you know what she replies to you if you have her kill filed?? If your intention is to not get
her to reply to your posts then you are correct that ignoring her will likely achieve that result.
But that is exactly what Jan wants. She wants her critics to stop confronting her.

Jan engages in behavior modification. She gives negative reinforcement to those who criticize her in
the hope that they will stop. She gives positive reinforcement to those who agree with her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I aspire to such a lofty post.

Gratuitous insult noted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Is crazy. Everyone gets it dude.

I thought you said she had a personality disorder. When I asked you what that nature of that
disorder was you did not answer.

In any case saying that she is "crazy" is too simplistic. Jan is a somatically hypervigilant person
who is easily suggestible, not well educated and very angry on top of her bigotry, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

A "long shot"? "One's reach should exceed one's grasp. But this is unconcionable." (Somebody, maybe
Mordecai Richler, made me cry with laughter when he said that. A double scotch to the poster who
finds me the reference.)

Ignoring her will certainly increase the chances that she will stay. Just because you have given up
does not mean that we all should join you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

advocate for her posted views. C'mon. First point of your evidence.

Calm down Happy. I said she *might* be a shill. In any case one can be a shill without being
monetarily compensated. Jan Drew is obviously extremely angry at conventional medicine. She believes
that by bashing CM and promoting alternative medicine she could achieve her goal. So it is not so
far a stretch to think that she pretends to be a happy customer in order to induce others into
having alternative instead of conventional medicine.

How else do you explain why Jan Drew would lie about knowing the reason why she had mercury
poisoning was because she did not begin to regain her health until after her mercury level
dropped?? Jan Drew clearly understands that the temporal relationship between her mercury level
dropping and feeling better is important. She also knows that she began to regain her health
*before* her mercury level dropped. This knowing deceitful statement suggests more than just a
"crazy" person (eg a shill).

Quoted message said:

Something that anyone here who thinks like you will back. In fact, anyone at all.

I have explained my reasoning above. Comments welcome.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

moo, le 3

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

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

"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

Rich' said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only reason Happy no longer debates with the loon Bain is because Bain is not posting here
anymore.

Gee Rich. I guess that then same logic would apply to my debates with

Drew.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You awake?

Drew really pushed your buttons and you could not handle the anger that she aroused in you. That
is likely why you stopped debating with her.

Not. There was no debate. She called me names. I called her names back. It became obvious that it
was a complete waste of time so I killfiled her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The mother of self referential statements.

When Jan claims that she had mercury poisoning I refute it by posting her lies. If you don't like
my posts then feel free to kill file me. You are unwittingly enabling Jan by confronting those of
us who confront her. To the extent that you are successful in convincing others to ignore her
dangerous advice you are playing into her hand.

As I asked before, where are the posts from people you've saved from her misinformation? I
haven't seen any. It's my position that she's so obviously deranged that very few people pay any
attention to her.

Quoted message said:

Huh? It is obvious you are very angry at me. Not really sure why. What do you care if I confront
Drew about her lies and false claims. I am not trying to directly discuss anything with her.

It isn't anger. I enjoy many of your posts and make it a habit of reading them often. But it's so
distracting that so many of them are pointless flame wars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you know what she replies to you if you have her kill filed??

I see the responses in other's posts.

Quoted message said:

If your intention is to not get her to reply to your posts then you are correct that ignoring her
will likely achieve that result. But that is exactly what Jan wants. She wants her critics to stop
confronting her.

I doubt that. She expends most of her energy on flame wars. Very little on discussion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I aspire to such a lofty post.

Gratuitous insult noted.

Well, it is more than a tad presumptuous. Do you get many emails from people who enjoy reading your
flame wars with JD? Does anyone? I'm truly curious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is crazy. Everyone gets it dude.

I thought you said she had a personality disorder. When I asked you what that nature of that
disorder was you did not answer.

Narcissistic. Probably a couple of others.

Quoted message said:

In any case saying that she is "crazy" is too simplistic. Jan is a somatically hypervigilant
person who is easily suggestible, not well educated and very angry on top of her bigotry, etc.

I suspect that the vast majority of the lurkers you claim to be helping simply conclude that
she's bent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

A "long shot"? "One's reach should exceed one's grasp. But this is unconcionable." (Somebody,
maybe Mordecai Richler, made me cry with laughter when he said that. A double scotch to the
poster who finds me

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reference.)

Ignoring her will certainly increase the chances that she will stay.

She craves attention. Ignore her and she'll go somewhere else to get it.

Quoted message said:

Just because you have given up does not mean that we all should join you.

I've given my reasons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

advocate for her posted views. C'mon. First point of your evidence.

Calm down Happy. I said she *might* be a shill. In any case one can be a shill without being
monetarily compensated.

To even suggest that she's a shill is utterly absurd. The question begging doesn't change this.

Quoted message said:

How else do you explain why Jan Drew would lie about knowing the reason why she had mercury
poisoning was because she did not begin to regain her health until after her mercury level
dropped?? Jan Drew clearly understands that the temporal relationship between her mercury level
dropping and feeling better is important. She also knows that she began to regain her health
*before* her mercury level dropped. This knowing deceitful statement suggests more than just a
"crazy" person (eg a shill).

No Rich. It's exactly the way someone with a personality disorder would behave. They're delusional.
Repeated attempts at reasoning is ultimately met with extreme anger. I wish we had a shrink here who
works with PD patients. They are maddeningly difficult to treat. With respect, I think that you
should avail yourself of some training (personal or otherwise) on this condition. I'd be interested
in discussing it further. It's fascinating stuff.

le moo