Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose

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

Quoted message said:

There's the first lie.
Other lies snipped.

Jan

$ KaChing $18

(Jan) said:

Subject: Re: [FAQ about Jan Drew's advertizing for quackery] 20031111
From: "Gil" [email hidden]:7503
Date: 11/11/2003 8:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Happy Oyster said:

Hello,

in this and other news-groups a person who calls himself Jan Drew

There's the first lie. As everyone knows I am NOT a he.

There is no proof at all for Jan Drew's claim to be female. In
contrast, Jan Drew claimed to be Dr. Mercola. Strange, isn't it ?

Quoted message said:

Other lies snipped.

Jan

Jan Drew calls it lies if he is proven a liar.

Very funny, indeed.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
The big "gmt"-scam

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_gmt1.htm

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/13/2003 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Subject: Re: [FAQ about Jan Drew's advertizing for quackery] 20031111
From: "Gil" [email hidden]:7503
Date: 11/11/2003 8:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Happy Oyster said:

Hello,

in this and other news-groups a person who calls himself Jan Drew

There's the first lie. As everyone knows I am NOT a he.

There is no proof at all for Jan Drew's claim to be female

Wrong.

All kinds of proof in the archives. Plus, I just posted the URL showing my
pictuure on smd.

Then there is Bill Ross who has met me.

You are behind the times and one HUGE liar, with a loose screw.

From: JDrew63929 ([email hidden])
Subject: Re: medical profession
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2001-06-13 18:16:50 PST

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Just three weeeks ago I had a breast biopsy. Everyone was super. Thank God it

was OK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,however the new thing now is to put a tiny piece of
stainless steel in the targeted area in case they need to do surgery. They
didn't tell me this until ten mimnutes before. I objected and told the doctor
my concerns, he assured me he wouldn't do it unless it was necessary. Well now
I am greatly relieved that everything was OK and am now wondering if I should
have surgery away to remove this piece of metal in my body?

Quoted message said:

Seems to me it was put there for the convenience of the surgeon!!! Now if the

doctor who did the biopsy knew where to put it from the x-ray, why can't the
surgeon read the x-ray and tell where to go??

Quoted message said:

These are the kind of things I object to, expecially when he knew I had just

had ALL the metal removed from my mouth!

Quoted message said:

So I may have to have surgery after all!

Quoted message said:

GGGrrrrrrrr.

Quoted message said:

Jan

Quoted message said:

In contrast, Jan Drew claimed to be Dr. Mercola

Absurd.

Learn to read.

Quoted message said:

Strange, isn't it ?

You are indeed, very strange, and making a fool of yourself. Everyone knows I
am not Dr Mercola.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Other lies snipped.

Jan

Jan Drew calls it lies if he is proven a liar.

What you post about me is ALL lies, and I am NOT a he.

Quoted message said:

Very funny, indeed.

You are, please get help.

Jan

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's the first lie. As everyone knows I am NOT a he.

There is no proof at all for Jan Drew's claim to be female

Wrong.

All kinds of proof in the archives. Plus, I just posted the URL showing my
pictuure on smd.

All of this is just make-up. It is NO proof.

Quoted message said:

Then there is Bill Ross who has met me.

That is no proof.

Quoted message said:

You are behind the times and one HUGE liar, with a loose screw.

Oh, Jan Drew is angry because his scam breaks apart.

Quoted message said:

From: JDrew63929 ([email hidden])
Subject: Re: medical profession
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2001-06-13 18:16:50 PST

Jan Drew quotes himself and claims his old scam is a proof. Very
funny.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In contrast, Jan Drew claimed to be Dr. Mercola

Absurd.

Learn to read.

Everybody can read what Jan Drew wrote. I put it into the FAQ about
Jan Drew. The case is absolutely clear.

Quoted message said:

You are, please get help.

Jan Drew has a problem : Each time he opens his mouth, people see what
a liar he is.

Jan Drew is a naturopath mafia advertizing agency and as such his
words are rhetoric warfare. Because that is the game --- as Jan Drew
persuades people to go to charlatans and quacks.

**********************************************************************

W A R N I N G

Believing Jan Drew's lies can lead to the death
of your children and of yourself.

**********************************************************************

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose
§ Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er §

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

Quoted message said:

From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/15/2003 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

It is noted this obsessed posted snipped the proof that I am NOT a male.

It is also noted he is STILL calling me a male.

Proof, he has a screw loose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All kinds of proof in the archives. Plus, I just posted the URL showing my
pictuure on smd.

All of this is just make-up. It is NO proof.

Yes, it *IS* proof., and NONE of it is made up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then there is Bill Ross who has met me.

That is no proof.

I suggest you e-mail hime and ask him. Unlike you, he is an honest man.

[email hidden]

Now for the part this obsessed poster snipped:

JDrew63929 ([email hidden])
Subject: Re: medical profession
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 2001-06-13 18:16:50 PST

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Just three weeeks ago I had a breast biopsy. Everyone was super. Thank God it

was OK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,however the new thing now is to put a tiny piece of
stainless steel in the targeted area in case they need to do surgery. They
didn't tell me this until ten mimnutes before. I objected and told the doctor
my concerns, he assured me he wouldn't do it unless it was necessary. Well now
I am greatly relieved that everything was OK and am now wondering if I should
have surgery away to remove this piece of metal in my body?

Quoted message said:

Seems to me it was put there for the convenience of the surgeon!!! Now if the

doctor who did the biopsy knew where to put it from the x-ray, why can't the
surgeon read the x-ray and tell where to go??

Quoted message said:

These are the kind of things I object to, expecially when he knew I had just

had ALL the metal removed from my mouth!

Quoted message said:

So I may have to have surgery after all!

Quoted message said:

GGGrrrrrrrr.

Quoted message said:

Jan

Quoted message said:

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

>There's the first lie. As everyone knows I am NOT a he.

There is no proof at all for Jan Drew's claim to be female

Wrong.

All kinds of proof in the archives. Plus, I just posted the URL showing my
pictuure on smd.

All of this is just make-up. It is NO proof.

Quoted message said:

Then there is Bill Ross who has met me.

That is no proof.

Quoted message said:

You are behind the times and one HUGE liar, with a loose screw.

Oh, Jan Drew is angry because his scam breaks apart.

Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely conclude that
other things you say about her are not true.

Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

(Ilsa9) said:

Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely conclude that
other things you say about her are not true.

Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Dear Ilsa9,

their is a petite point to make here : IF Jan Drew is NOT Mercola,
then Jan Drew admits to be an imposter and a liar. ;O)

Either way, Jan Drew is stuck.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose
§ Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er §

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

Quoted message said:

(Ilsa9) said:

Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely conclude

that

Quoted message said:

other things you say about her are not true.

Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Dear Ilsa9,

their is a petite point to make here : IF Jan Drew is NOT Mercola,
then Jan Drew admits to be an imposter and a liar. ;O)

Either way, Jan Drew is stuck.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--

Aribert, it is true that Jan's gender is of very little relevance as far as her
motives & actions go. Jan is a scientifically illiterate liar, bigot,
health-[censored], and all around nuisance.

Whatever Jan may be, we can conclude with 100% certainty, she is a female.
Pity the long-suffering fool, James, who is her husband.

Oh, and by the way, Jan is NOT Mercola, she just quotes without attributions,
which many consider plaigarism. Whatever faults Dr Mercola may have, he can
count his blessings that being Jan Drew is NOT one of them.

Regards,

Ilsa Nein

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Ilsa9) said:

Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely conclude

that

Quoted message said:

other things you say about her are not true.

Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Dear Ilsa9,

their is a petite point to make here : IF Jan Drew is NOT Mercola,
then Jan Drew admits to be an imposter and a liar. ;O)

Either way, Jan Drew is stuck.

Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Ilsa9) said:

Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely conclude

that

Quoted message said:

other things you say about her are not true.

Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Poor, poor ANDREW goofs AGAIN.

Andrew and I exchanged pictures,

ilsa9 is Andrew Kingoff.

Chicken, and despicable liar.

Jan

Cue for his enabler to appear, one Richard H. Jacobson who also lies about who
he is, birds of a feather.

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Ilsa9) said:

Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely
conclude

that

Quoted message said:

other things you say about her are not true.

Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Poor, poor ANDREW goofs AGAIN.

Andrew and I exchanged pictures,

ilsa9 is Andrew Kingoff.

Chicken, and despicable liar.

Jan

Cue for his enabler to appear, one Richard H. Jacobson who also lies
about who he is, birds of a feather.

This one *really* takes the cake! Ilsa was attempting to correct Aribert's
repeated assertion that you were male. Anybody reading the above exchange
could see that. Yet you responded to Ilsa as if she were saying the *exact
opposite*. You just said she "goofed again" by calling you a female.
Well, if you *are* a female (and I have no reason to believe you aren't),
then calling you a female isn't "goofing." It's Aribert, not Ilsa, who
"goofed."

It looks to me that you're so angry at Ilsa that you're compelled to refute
everything she says, even when she says that you are in fact the female you
claim to be. You're attacking the messenger regardless of the message. If
someone you dislike says "two plus two is four" are you going to snap "no
it's not!"? Because that's the equivalent of what you're doing.

Note that everything I said above would still be true even *if* Ilsa were
actually Andrew. That's completely irrelevant.

At this point both you and Aribert are behaving as if neither of you were
mature enough to start kindergarten.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

On 16 Nov 2003 01:18:08 GMT, [email hidden] (Ilsa9) wrote:

>Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely
>conclude
that
>other things you say about her are not true.
>
>Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Poor, poor ANDREW goofs AGAIN.

Andrew and I exchanged pictures,

ilsa9 is Andrew Kingoff.

Chicken, and despicable liar.

Jan

Cue for his enabler to appear, one Richard H. Jacobson who also lies
about who he is, birds of a feather.

This one *really* takes the cake!

Yep, it proofs once again Andrew Kingoff is hiding behind the name ilsa.

Quoted message said:

Ilsa was attempting to correct Aribert's
repeated assertion that you were male

There is NO IIsa and if there was she has no idea of my gender, Andrew does.

Quoted message said:

Anybody reading the above exchange
could see that.

Anyone should be able to see that IIsa is Andrew Kingoff.

Quoted message said:

Yet you responded to Ilsa as if she were saying the *exact opposite*.

No, I responded to Aribert Deckers. I don't see Andrew's nonsense posts.

Quoted message said:

You just said she "goofed again" by calling you a female.

Nope, fraid not. I said poor poor Andrew goofs AGAIN. Which is a fact.

Quoted message said:

Well, if you *are* a female (and I have no reason to believe you aren't),
then calling you a female isn't "goofing."

WOW, you are desperate to twist things.

Andrew goofed. IIsa *IS* Andrew. If there were an IIsa, she does NOT know my
gender. Andrew does as we exchanged pictures.

Get it now??

Quoted message said:

It's Aribert, not Ilsa, who
"goofed."

They both goofed.

Why are you trying to protect Andrew Kingoff?????

hmmmmmm.

Quoted message said:

It looks to me that you're so angry

LOL.

I am certainly glad you haven't noticed the anger of Andrew Kingoff.

Quoted message said:

at Ilsa that you're compelled to refute
everything she says, even when she says that you are in fact the female you
claim to be

Most everything Andrew has ever said is hate, anger and lies. As in
deconstructing others. Andrew was proven a liar long before you came here, and
you have seen plenty yourself.

You're attacking the messenger regardless of the message.

Yeah yeah Eric. It is *my* attacking.

Quoted message said:

If
someone you dislike says "two plus two is four" are you going to snap "no
it's not!"? Because that's the equivalent of what you're doing.

Wrong.

You are overlooking the fact that Andrew goofed. Do you and he have something
in common, Eric???

Quoted message said:

Note that everything I said above would still be true even *if* Ilsa were
actually Andrew.

In your queer mind.

In fact NOTHING you said was true.

Quoted message said:

At this point both you and Aribert are behaving as if neither of you were
mature enough to start kindergarten.

While Andrew hides behind the fake name ilsa.

Lord have mercry. Talk about birds of a feather!!!!

Jan

(Ilsa9) said:

Oh, and by the way, Jan is NOT Mercola, she just quotes without attributions,
which many consider plaigarism.

Well, ... Jan Drew WROTE that HE, Jan Drew, wrote an article with
Klinghardt. He wrote that expressis verbis. So it is NOT any kind of
plagiarism.

Jan Drew NEVER tried ANY excuse for what he wrote then. Well, what
excuse could he find ? There is none, as all of us can see his exact
words.

So, if HE, Jan Drew, works with Klinghardt, HE, Jan Drew, admits to be
Mercola.

If Jan Drew were a female and NOT Mercola, it would have been no
problem for HER at all, to say that SHE had written not clearly
understandable.

Quoted message said:

Whatever faults Dr Mercola may have, he can
count his blessings that being Jan Drew is NOT one of them.

If Jan Drew is fiction (and that is the point with the highest
probability), who else than Mercola whould have made it up ? Do,
again, not forget the story HE wrote with Klinghardt.

No matter which way you turn may it, Jan Drew is out of the race. Jan
Drew has lost even the last bit of his credibility. And that is
driving him crazy.

I wonder, why he so stubbornly tries to keep up the fake. I mean :
There are so many other fakes he could use or invent. Why does he keep
the one which just bit the dust ? Anyway, naturopath mafiosi are
seldom rational. I have seen a video of Klinhardt holding a so-called
"lecture". Wow, what a terrible show. Worse than the worst spoiled
horror film in TV.

And in one of the latest postings Jan Drew claims that he, Jan Drew,
does not advertize, just is "sharing"...

<quote>
Lines: 18
X-Admin: [email hidden]
From: [email hidden] (Jan)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Date: 16 Nov 2003 18:27:38 GMT
References: <[email hidden]>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Zapper kills infectious bacteria
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Zapper kills infectious bacteria
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:52:15 -0700, "f®Èé RådicaL" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

This is a typical try to persuade people to buy naturopath mafia
stuff. Seems to be neccesary to make a warning list of such
advertizing agencies.

Wrong, it's called sharing alternative methods. Has nothing whatsoever
****************************************
to do with trying to get anyone to buy anything as you can build one
yourself.

No advertising.

Jan
</quote>

A more perverse and more stupid excuse I have not seen in the last 30
years.

Does anyone have some accusations by Jan Drew because of advertizing,
"networking" or other ? Will be fun to include that in the FAQ.

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose
§ Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er §

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

On 17 Nov 2003 04:25:36 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's Aribert, not Ilsa, who "goofed."

No, Mr. Bohlman. There are many fakers in the net. More than you know
of...

Regards,

Aribert Deckers
--
Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose
§ Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er §

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

Happy Oyster <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

(Ilsa9) said:

Oh, and by the way, Jan is NOT Mercola, she just quotes without
attributions, which many consider plaigarism.

Well, ... Jan Drew WROTE that HE, Jan Drew, wrote an article with
Klinghardt. He wrote that expressis verbis. So it is NOT any kind of
plagiarism.

Once again, Jan frequently quotes other people's writing without giving any
stylistic indication that she's quoting. She's quite inconsistent about
this, so you can't assume that just because she sometimes gives an
indication that she's quoting, anything without such indication is her
writing (for example, half the time she'll attribute the quote about
"Andrew Kingoff is one of life's failures" to Rod, and the other half
she'll use it without attribution or any indication that it's someone
else's writing).

She also doesn't use normal Usenet quoting style, and in fact she sometimes
dishonestly changes the number of '>'s in quoted material to make it look
like one poster said something when in fact it was someone else who said it
(one time she took a post from another group in which I was engaging in a
debate with someone and she stripped out all but one level of quoting to
make it look like I had written the whole thing).

It's simply a fact that when reading her posts, it's extremely difficult to
tell who's saying what. She not only puts other people's words in her own
mouth, she puts other people's words in other people's mouths.

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

On 16 Nov 2003 01:18:08 GMT, [email hidden] (Ilsa9) wrote:

>Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely
>conclude
that
>other things you say about her are not true.
>
>Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Poor, poor ANDREW goofs AGAIN.

Andrew and I exchanged pictures,

ilsa9 is Andrew Kingoff.

Chicken, and despicable liar.

Jan

Cue for his enabler to appear, one Richard H. Jacobson who also lies
about who he is, birds of a feather.

This one *really* takes the cake! Ilsa was attempting to correct

Aribert's

Quoted message said:

repeated assertion that you were male. Anybody reading the above exchange
could see that. Yet you responded to Ilsa as if she were saying the

*exact

Quoted message said:

opposite*. You just said she "goofed again" by calling you a female.
Well, if you *are* a female (and I have no reason to believe you aren't),
then calling you a female isn't "goofing." It's Aribert, not Ilsa, who
"goofed."

It is commonly referred to as a KneeJan...ooops...Knee jerk reaction.

Quoted message said:

It looks to me that you're so angry at Ilsa that you're compelled to

refute

Quoted message said:

everything she says, even when she says that you are in fact the female

you

Quoted message said:

claim to be. You're attacking the messenger regardless of the message.

If

Quoted message said:

someone you dislike says "two plus two is four" are you going to snap "no
it's not!"? Because that's the equivalent of what you're doing.

Sadly, I suspect that Jan bleieves that in the alternative world wherein she
resides, 2+2 does not always equal 4.

Quoted message said:

Note that everything I said above would still be true even *if* Ilsa were
actually Andrew. That's completely irrelevant.

At this point both you and Aribert are behaving as if neither of you were
mature enough to start kindergarten.

Well...Jan was in the sandbox in pre-school for 38 years. 38 years, 38
years.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Aribett Deckers Has A Screw Loose
From: Happy Oyster [email hidden]
Date: 11/16/2003 8:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

On 16 Nov 2003 01:18:08 GMT, [email hidden] (Ilsa9) wrote:

>Aribert, Jan IS a woman. By getting this wrong, some may falsely
>conclude
that
>other things you say about her are not true.
>
>Once again, Jan IS a female. Please make a note of it.

Poor, poor ANDREW goofs AGAIN.

Andrew and I exchanged pictures,

ilsa9 is Andrew Kingoff.

Chicken, and despicable liar.

Jan

Cue for his enabler to appear, one Richard H. Jacobson who also lies
about who he is, birds of a feather.

This one *really* takes the cake! Ilsa was attempting to correct Aribert's
repeated assertion that you were male. Anybody reading the above exchange
could see that. Yet you responded to Ilsa as if she were saying the *exact
opposite*. You just said she "goofed again" by calling you a female.
Well, if you *are* a female (and I have no reason to believe you aren't),
then calling you a female isn't "goofing." It's Aribert, not Ilsa, who
"goofed."

It looks to me that you're so angry at Ilsa that you're compelled to refute
everything she says, even when she says that you are in fact the female you
claim to be. You're attacking the messenger regardless of the message. If
someone you dislike says "two plus two is four" are you going to snap "no
it's not!"? Because that's the equivalent of what you're doing.

Note that everything I said above would still be true even *if* Ilsa were
actually Andrew. That's completely irrelevant.

Thank you for saying this.

Quoted message said:

(Ilsa9) said:

Oh, and by the way, Jan is NOT Mercola, she just quotes without

attributions,

Quoted message said:

which many consider plaigarism.

Well, ... Jan Drew WROTE that HE, Jan Drew, wrote an article with
Klinghardt. He wrote that expressis verbis. So it is NOT any kind of
plagiarism.

Jan Drew NEVER tried ANY excuse for what he wrote then. Well, what
excuse could he find ? There is none, as all of us can see his exact
words.

So, if HE, Jan Drew, works with Klinghardt, HE, Jan Drew, admits to be
Mercola.

If Jan Drew were a female and NOT Mercola, it would have been no
problem for HER at all, to say that SHE had written not clearly
understandable.

Quoted message said:

Whatever faults Dr Mercola may have, he can
count his blessings that being Jan Drew is NOT one of them.

If Jan Drew is fiction (and that is the point with the highest
probability), who else than Mercola whould have made it up ? Do,
again, not forget the story HE wrote with Klinghardt.

Oh, if only Jan Drew WERE fiction!!!! What a wonderful world this would be.
As it is, SHE is real, despite her plaigarism, bigotry, personality disorders,
disabilities, disharmonies, somatization disorder, et al.

Whether you support Jan or not, Andrew,
She made a point I questioned about you.

I don't usually consider what sex a person is who types in a NG, but
based on my chats with Jan I assume she's a woman. It doesn't really
matter, but I don't have any proof just like she doesn't have any
proof that I'm a man.

You are tremendously vocal against anecdotes and simple stories people
want to use as discussion points, but in this matter you are absolute.

You told everyone not to dispute it, because you know she is a woman.

This is one bizarre argument, but how you know this absolute fact
interested me before she brought it up.

How do you know this?
Mike