|
Home > Archive > Dentistry > February 2005 > New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
|
|
| Ilena Rose 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Thanks Anth ...
"Anth" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>http://www.pakin.org/complaint?firs...aphs=1&gender=c
My complaint about Quackwatch
Quackwatch's demands have served as a powerful weapon with which horny
pipsqueaks can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and
rational debate out the window, but that's not the point of this
letter. The point is that the limitation and final abolition of
hooliganism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
There are a number of reasons Quackwatch isn't telling us as to why it
wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience
-- basis. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on
the principle that it has a long, demagogism-infested history of
attempts to sanctify its depravity. Now, that's a strong conclusion to
draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me
corroborate it by saying that we must remove our chains and move
towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the
chains symbolize Quackwatch's crude commentaries, and the light
represents the goal of getting all of us to address the continued
social injustice shown by voluble knee-biters.) With this letter, I
hope I have made my views clear: We have already fallen into
Quackwatch's trap.
| |
|
| It seems to me, that there could be several telling signs of quackery,
or one that is a quack.
(1) A work background, that has nothing to do with the position they
are trying to proclaim they hold. (example: Ilena's self-proclamation,
that she is an advocate for those harmed by breast implants, when her
work background consists of: Dating services; bar maid; Pepper Spray
salesperson; counterfit bill detector salesperson; timeshare slammer;
business partner of Anthony Zaffuto (founder of Calvary Boys
Ranch/which became Teens in Trouble/which became Humantics Foundation),
and the author of books & videos, "Solo Male Ecstasy," and/or "The
Complete Guide to Oral Lovemaking."
(2) The use of a "stage" name. (example: Ilena Mirowitz "Rose"
Rosenthal Lord using the stage name of Ilena "Rose" in her new position
as a "stage" name. The name "Rose" being made up for use in her
"advocacy."
(3) The use of a UPS Store mailbox, as a "physical" address, for her
non-profit, rather than a legal "physical" address for service as
required by the State of California.
Think about it folks. . .If a charlaton, quickbuck artist, wants to
scam people, all they need to do is embed themselves into a community
of those harmed by breast implants, after they heard there was a
several billion dollar settlement on the table to perhaps feed off of.
This charlaton/quickbuck/scam artist wouldn't need any special talents,
other than to coo to the sick, post information sent by others, and
then tag her own little weblink back to her website and a PAYPAL link.
.. .OPEN FOR BUSINESS FOLKS!
Now, here's the kicker. . .In the early days, most of our victims had
no idea that Ilena's real last name wasn't "ROSE." In fact none of us
had even heard of the name "Rosenthal." Couple that with the fact, she
could have just set up her internet shingle, slammed for funds,
networked with the multi-marketing folks, and those that aren't allowed
to practice medicine in this country, and hold a few tea parties to
sell questionable products. . .Like Ilena says, it's all about
networking folks!
A quick buck scam artist, charlaton, could gather personal data on the
victims, and use it to collect money as a "head-hunter" for the
attorneys. She could buddy up with Nate Schactman (manufacturer
attorney), and share personal information about our victims, while she
is traveling on victim money.
If she plays her cards right, which I suspect she has. . .She could
just about turn a buck everyway you turn, at your expense as a victim.
She can do the manufacturer PR machine's workings by dividing,
distracting, disrupting the breast implant victim community. She can
go to war with a good portion of the actual victims, and legitimate
advocates, she can lie about them, slander them, put up webpages on
them, on her non-profit foundation website.
She could import and veneer a sleeze factor on to the victims for
manufacturer and plastic surgeon benefit. She can do that by bringing
in her own questionable work background, and her influencial friend and
mentor, Dr. Zaffuto. Rather than begin a brand new non-profit, she can
further veneer the sleeze factor onto breast implant victims, by
breathing new life into Dr. Zaffuto's old defunct non-profit and all
that "history" right along with it.
And in the end, if she's really slimey, she can simply jump the border,
drop her "Rose" stage name, stop payment on her little square few inch
domain of the UPS mailbox, unplug from the internet matrix, and live
off the fat of the land on your money in absentia.
That's how scam artists work. They fly under the radar that most folks
do. They don't have real addresses, real names. Their phone numbers
are voice mail boxes, they don't ring right through to the person.
Seldom, do we REALLY know who are!
If you are one of the victims that expects to shortly gain settlement
money from the Dow settlement. I ask that you please contain that
money for your own medical use, and your medication needs.
If you don't need it right now, you may very well need it eventually.
Please tuck it away for your own needs!
Thank you!
| |
|
|
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3sfp01h5agmn61pmmavc66i09scbjjui6o@4ax.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Anth ...
> "Anth" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
I visited this site and found these letters (they are NOT my words):
http://www.pakin.org/complaint?titl...ype=l&pgraphs=5
What I have to say will probably provoke a response from Ms. Ilena
Rosenthal. She may label me "tasteless" or even "impolitic". I realize and
accept that as a consequence of what I am about to say. However, I do hope
that Rosenthal will read everything I have to say before labeling me. In the
text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Rosenthal's logic,
because she certainly doesn't use any logic.
I must emphasize this because by allowing her to institutionalize sex
discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior
for men and women, we are allowing her to play puppet master. The central
paradox of her claims, the twist that makes her machinations so irresistible
to the worst types of negligent pests there are, is that these people truly
believe that brutal weirdos are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and
inoffensive. All the same, if Rosenthal were as bright as she thinks she is,
she'd know that I wonder what would happen if she really did reinforce the
impression that maladroit loonies -- as opposed to Rosenthal's
janissaries -- are striving to break our country's national and patriotic
backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international snobbism.
There's a spooky thought. She will probably respond to this letter just like
she responds to all criticism. She will put me down as "intolerant" or
"sick". That's her standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything
about her except the most fawning praise.
Regardless of what Rosenthal seems to suspect, her criticisms have a
crippling effect on science and technology. It will not be easy to
counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that she can
absorb mana by devouring her nemeses' brains. Nevertheless, we must attempt
to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that ancient Greek dramatists
discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Rosenthal would do well to
realize that they never discerned any virtue in being heinous. If her
objectives get any more coldhearted, I expect they'll grow legs and attack
me in my sleep. Rosenthal can't seriously believe that every featherless
biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character,
sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to renege on
an incredibly large number of promises, can she? I've never gotten a clear
and honest answer to that question from Rosenthal. But what is clear is that
if you ever ask her to do something, you can bet that your request will get
lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. She may find it
inconceivable that she owes us all an apology, but she'll come to her senses
some day. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion,
which I'll provide in a moment. But first, let me just say that in public,
Rosenthal vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's
looking, Rosenthal never fails to abandon the idea of universal principles
and focus illegitimately on the particular.
It seems clear that she should be in better control of her hormones. But we
ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final
conclusions on the subject: We see that Rosenthal's cause is not glorious.
It is not wonderful. It is not good. Let me try to put this in perspective:
We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with
Rosenthal. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand
that in order to convince us that the health effects of secondhand smoke are
negligible, Rosenthal often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing
results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Although she has
tremendous popular appeal, I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Rosenthal's
strictures. Videlicet, they force square pegs into round holes. And that's
saying nothing about how I want to give people more information about
Rosenthal, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information,
and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I
indisputably hope people draw: In this volatile political moment, we must
cautiously guard against the dangers of twisted, footling hooliganism. Now,
that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an
overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. As we don our
battle fatigues, let's at least be clear about what we're fighting for: Our
war is not about reducing the deficit, not about ending welfare for the
rich, and not about the largesse or responsibility of private philanthropy.
All we want is for Rosenthal's provocateurs not to deface a social fabric
that was already deteriorating.
The account I have just given of Rosenthal's mottos sincerely shows that it
is legitimate to have misgivings about moonstruck slubberdegullions who
borrow money and spend it on programs that extend her 15 minutes of fame to
15 months. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must
be true, but the clinching argument is simply that if I hear her drones say,
"Everyone who doesn't share Rosenthal's beliefs is an insane infidel
deserving of death and damnation" one more time, I'm definitely going to
throw up. My goal for this letter was to expose Ms. Ilena Rosenthal's
malversation. Know that I have done my best while trying always to rub
Rosenthal's nose in her own hypocrisy. Let an honest history judge.
I also found this:
http://www.pakin.org/complaint?titl...pe=l&pgraphs=10
I've tried to keep quiet, but I just can't hold it in any longer. I have to
tell everyone that our real enemy is the intolerant, self-indulgent system
that made Ms. Jan Drew as unsavory as she is. What follows is a series of
remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Drew herself. She
proclaims at every opportunity that she'd never justify, palliate, or excuse
the evils of her heart. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. One
indication of this is the fact that to Drew's mind, tactless rabble-rousers
are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. So that means
that her orations provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and
everything, right? No, not right. The truth is that the scantiness of Drew's
abstract knowledge directs her sentiments more to the world of gnosticism.
Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: I
have had enough of her waste, fraud, misfeasance, and malfeasance. Drew will
probably respond to this letter just like she responds to all criticism. She
will put me down as "lewd" or "juvenile". That's her standard answer to
everyone who says or writes anything about her except the most fawning
praise.
It's because of her willingness to prevaricate and equivocate that I have a
misty, inchoate suspicion that Drew will create a world without history,
without philosophy, without science, without reason -- a world without
beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture -- by
next weekend. If you doubt this, just ask around. My own position on this
issue is both simple and clear: Her apothegms have merged with ageism in
several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying
mentality. Both get on my nerves. And both hoodoo us. But this is something
to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one
thing: the fact that her projects always follow the same pattern. She puts
the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and
invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that it's okay for
her to indulge her every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for
society as a whole. Drew should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants
to extirpate the very things I indeed cherish". Am I being too harsh for
writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a
point through to her.
What is the milieu in which blinkered monomaniacs renege on an incredibly
large number of promises? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a
subculture in which what I call mingy, harebrained reavers share fantasies
of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will commit all sorts
of mortal sins -- not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones -- any
day now. People have pointed out to me that I don't think it would be unfair
to say that whenever I hear someone say that hanging out with the worst
sorts of pesky leeches I've ever seen is a wonderful, culturally enriching
experience, my upper lip develops an involuntary curl, but I still can't
help but think that she dreams of a time when she'll be free to precipitate
riots. That's the way she's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen --
not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't guide
the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. It would be a work
of supererogation to challenge Drew to defend her principles or else to
change them at a time when every week there transpires news of larcenous,
malicious nobodies following Drew's orders to retard the free and natural
economic development of various countries' indigenous population. I put that
observation into this letter just to let you see that her helots are unified
under a common goal. That goal is to cause one-sided paroxysms to be entered
into historical fact. If she doesn't like it here, then perhaps she should
go elsewhere. To say otherwise would be amateurish. Drew is addicted to the
feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, she has no real
concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people she desires to lead.
Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that I resent being
exposed to cocky liars and cheats. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from
elaborating further. Drew is so intolerantly devoted to her own prejudices
that her perception of reality is entirely warped. That's self-evident, and
even Drew would probably agree with me on that. Even so, her method (or
school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by
the name of "Drew-ism". It is a politically incorrect and avowedly
censorious philosophy that aims to caricature and stereotype people from
other cultures.
I recently heard her tell a bunch of people that our elected officials
should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. I can't
adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know
how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Although theoretical
differences can be drawn between Drew's blasphemous revenge fantasies and
slovenly, obstinate neopaganism, these are distinctions without a
difference. When I look back I think, "It is difficult for many people to
accept that we stand to lose far more than we'll ever gain if we don't put
to rest incorrigible and clueless wheelings and dealings such as Drew's." A
brief study of sociology will show one inescapable fact: Drew is utterly
gung-ho about diabolism because she lacks more pressing soapbox issues.
She keeps telling us that those of us who oppose her would rather run than
fight. Are we also supposed to believe that there is an international
Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?
I didn't think so.
I pause to note that it strikes me as amusing that Drew complains about
people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! She does nothing but
complain. Even if we accepted her animadversions, so what? Does that mean
that the purpose of life is self-gratification? Of course not. The first
response to this from her votaries is perhaps that there is something
intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of jejune stereotypes.
Wrong. Just glance at the facts: When one examines the ramifications of
letting her construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat, one finds a
preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that her
reinterpretations of historic events are like an enormous egotism-spewing
machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey
wrench in its gears. And we must ensure that we survive and emerge
triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction, because it's unfortunate
that Drew has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics
with someone who is so mentally handicapped.
Given the tenor of our times, it is immature and stupid of Drew to palliate
and excuse the atrocities of her functionaries. It would be mature and
intelligent, however, to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally,
destroy the institutions that till the dastardly side of the Fabianism
garden, and that's why I say that I didn't want to talk about this. I really
didn't. But we're all in this mess together. To top that off, if you don't
think that only by taking risks and pushing boundaries with this letter can
I expose her undertakings for what they really are, then think again. Please
humor me for a moment while I state that Drew has spent untold hours trying
to show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment. During that time, did it
ever once occur to her that another point worth thinking about is that all
of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to
understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by her and
her dupes to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner
code of ethics? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question
to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise
answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how if
we look beyond Drew's delusions of grandeur, we see that her mentality
reminds me of the stereotypical bureaucrat who cannot function unless he can
"find it in the manual". At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add
that several things she has said have brought me to the boiling point. The
statement of hers that made the strongest impression on me, however, was
something to the effect of how voyeurism can quell the hatred and disorder
in our society.
If Drew wants to put a tyrannical spin on important issues, let her wear the
opprobrium of that decision. I wonder what would happen if she really did
teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. There's a spooky
thought. After watching Drew's shills progressively narrow the sphere of
human freedom, one might conclude that Drew et al. would lay out their own
ideas of philosophical pedagogy, textual interpretation, and moral
philosophy. Surprisingly, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact,
some people are responsible and others are not. Drew falls into the category
of "not".
While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to indicate in a
rough and approximate way the two subversive tendencies that I believe are
the main driving force of modern deconstructionism, if we are to think
outside the box, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive
ideology, not by the stolid and logorrheic ideologies that Drew promotes.
She likes to cite poll results that "prove" that courtesy and manners don't
count for anything. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her
pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never
will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that we must tell Drew what we all
think of her -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. To do
anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. Our
goal must now be to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated
action. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can sincerely
use your help. Let me hear from you.
| |
|
| On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:09:02 -0600, Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Path: news.easynews.com!en202!core-easynews!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
>From: Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.dentistry,talk.politics.medicine
>Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:09:02 -0600
>Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>Message-ID: <miip01t1jcsfuhdjpdvb2sah6p88f5iad7@4ax.com>
>References: <418AE133.6ACCCAD@sonic.net> <mTMid.29876$fF6.8364551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <nwUid.142$sD1.136@trnddc02> <fOVid.34877$fF6.9874296@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <418d1650$0$87823$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net> <3sfp01h5agmn61pmmavc66i09scbjjui6o@
4ax.com> <1108132553.345482.60290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
>Lines: 6
>Xref: core-easynews alt.support.breast-implant:110226 misc.health.alternative:416596 misc.kids.health:132039 sci.med.dentistry:248187 talk.politics.medicine:143480
>
>On 11 Feb 2005 06:35:53 -0800, "Myrl" <myrlj@jps.net> ... yet another
>voice for the MedDevice/Pharma backed "quackbusters" ... LOL
>
>www.humantics
Reported to:
rr.com
supernews.com
--
W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
| |
|
| On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:04 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>Our
>goal must now be to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated
>action. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can sincerely
>use your help. Let me hear from you.
Report the abuses to the proper authorities.
--
W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
| |
|
| Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:04 -0500
Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 8:56 am
Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
IIean
Jan Drew
Jan Drew's mind
Jan Drew is
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:09:49 -0500
Local: Tues, Feb 8 2005 1:09 pm
Subject: Dear Jan & Ilena
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
If they can do it, why can't we?
Israel, Palestinians Declare Ceasefire
What can't Mark?
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108149689.303983.124400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
> misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
> From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages by
> this author
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:04 -0500
> Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 8:56 am
> Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
> IIean
>
> Jan Drew
>
> Jan Drew's mind
>
> Jan Drew is
>
> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
> From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages by
> this author
> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:09:49 -0500
> Local: Tues, Feb 8 2005 1:09 pm
> Subject: Dear Jan & Ilena
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
> If they can do it, why can't we?
>
>
> Israel, Palestinians Declare Ceasefire
>
> What can't Mark?
Because you had not accepted the offer. I posted days ago and you continued
your abuse and blind support of Rosenthal.
Now you are posting what I said just like the little boy who was caught with
cookie crumbs on his lips and says, "What cookie?"
When you stop, it will be over.
I will accept only an unambiguous and unconditional acceptance on your part.
| |
|
|
| jdrew63929@aol.com 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Mark Probert Feb 11, 8:56 am hide options
Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:04 -0500
Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 8:56 am
Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108149689.303983.124400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
> misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
> From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages
by
> this author
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:04 -0500
> Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 8:56 am
> Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
> IIean
> Jan Drew
> Jan Drew's mind
> Jan Drew is
> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
> From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages
by
> this author
> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:09:49 -0500
> Local: Tues, Feb 8 2005 1:09 pm
> Subject: Dear Jan & Ilena
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
> If they can do it, why can't we?
> Israel, Palestinians Declare Ceasefire
> What can't Mark?
<snip more lies, twisting and excuses>
When you stop, it will be over.
You have been firing all morning.
You can't stop, that's all you do.
I will accept only.
LOLOLOL!!!!!
Get over you control problem.
Your acceptance means nothing.
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| I will take this post below as your following Ilena's lead in rejecting an
unconditional offer of peace.
You should note that I never expected you to accept one as hatred occupies
every cell in your protoplasm.
<jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108158010.275183.26850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Probert Feb 11, 8:56 am hide options
>
> Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
> misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
> From: "Mark Probert" <Mark Prob...@lumbercartel.com> - Find messages by
> this author
> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:04 -0500
> Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 8:56 am
> Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>
> news:1108149689.303983.124400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> by
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> by
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <snip more lies, twisting and excuses>
>
> When you stop, it will be over.
>
> You have been firing all morning.
>
> You can't stop, that's all you do.
>
> I will accept only.
>
> LOLOLOL!!!!!
>
> Get over you control problem.
>
> Your acceptance means nothing.
>
| |
| Coleah 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Killfile her, Mark.
It's like pouring salt on a slug and watching them shrivel up.
"Mark Probert" <Mark Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:aI9Pd.711$kt.649@fe11.lga...
>I will take this post below as your following Ilena's lead in rejecting an
> unconditional offer of peace.
>
> You should note that I never expected you to accept one as hatred occupies
> every cell in your protoplasm.
>
> <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1108158010.275183.26850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
|
| Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
From: "Coleah" <col...@pacifier.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:53:37 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Killfile her, Mark.
It's like pouring salt on a slug and watching them shrivel up
People are on earth to express their love and acceptance of
one another. With some folks we have a harder time accepting
even one cell about them that is lovable, so our communication
with them is.....ah, at a pretty low level. It's a waste of time
to dwell too long with our 'low-level loved ones', for we also
appear as such.
I hope you don't get stuck in that muck, as I have in the past.
Coleah
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:110qaehn6qjor90@corp.supernews.com...
> Killfile her, Mark.
> It's like pouring salt on a slug and watching them shrivel up.
I would never do that to a slug.
I drown them in beer traps, and they are smiling.
>
>
> "Mark Probert" <Mark Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:aI9Pd.711$kt.649@fe11.lga...
an[vbcol=seagreen]
occupies[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Peter Bowditch 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks Anth ...
> "Anth" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>My complaint about Quackwatch
>Quackwatch's demands have served as a powerful weapon with which horny
>pipsqueaks can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and
>rational debate out the window, but that's not the point of this
>letter. The point is that the limitation and final abolition of
>hooliganism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
>There are a number of reasons Quackwatch isn't telling us as to why it
>wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience
>-- basis. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on
>the principle that it has a long, demagogism-infested history of
>attempts to sanctify its depravity. Now, that's a strong conclusion to
>draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me
>corroborate it by saying that we must remove our chains and move
>towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the
>chains symbolize Quackwatch's crude commentaries, and the light
>represents the goal of getting all of us to address the continued
>social injustice shown by voluble knee-biters.) With this letter, I
>hope I have made my views clear: We have already fallen into
>Quackwatch's trap.
>
Doncha just love it when fools reproduce the words written by a joke
generator as if they mean something?
Here is what that page said about Quackwatch when I checked a few
minutes ago:
It will undeniably surprise some people to hear me say this, but all
of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude
to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by
Quackwatch and its encomiasts to introduce changes without testing
them first. For starters, Quackwatch likes ultimata that twist the
truth. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask
me, I'd say that its imprecations do not come without a price. The
sooner it comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
You don't need to look far to see that this has been documented
repeatedly, but I guess nobody ever explained that to Quackwatch's
brethren. No one can deny that it would be a work of supererogation to
hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to
sane values and certainties at a time when every week there transpires
news of negligent Luddites following Quackwatch's orders to besmirch
the memory of some genuine historic figures, yet its reason is not
true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only shiftless answers,
clumsy resolutions to conflicts. Unfortunately, I can already see the
response to this letter. Someone, possibly Quackwatch itself or one of
its subordinates, will write a heartless piece about how spiteful I
am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed
to be written.
Here's another:
My complaint about Ilena Rosenthal
The furor over Pyrrhonism has been an acutely frustrating cultural
phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and
fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and
abominable manner that will take away our sense of community and leave
us morally adrift before you know it. What's important to note,
however, is that Ilena Rosenthal's slurs share many of the same
characteristics. What follows is a call to action for those of us who
care -- a large enough number to draw a picture of what we conceive of
under the word "individualistic". When I state that facts and their
accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever she
dreams up, I'm merely trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity
to shatter the illusion that the ideas of "freedom" and "hooliganism"
are Siamese twins.
Yes, Virginia, if she wants to complain, she should have an argument.
She shouldn't just throw out the word "chromatographic", for example,
and expect us to be scared. What is Ilena's current objective? As
usual, there are multiple objectives:
to create anomie,
to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, and
to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures.
If I recall correctly, if Ilena opened her eyes, she'd realize that
her commentaries, when taken as a whole, are unprofessional. We must
learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically
correct thing to do, but because every time Ilena utters or writes a
statement that supports blackguardism -- even indirectly -- it sends a
message that things have never been better. I really maintain we
mustn't let her make such statements, partly because I must defend my
honor, but primarily because she may advertise "magical" diets and
bogus weight-loss pills right after she reads this letter. Let her.
One day, I will provide a trenchant analysis of Ilena's philippics. In
spite of the fact that Ilena's vituperations either go uncontested or
are openly supported by hideous, abusive firebrands, she has been
deluding people into believing that masochism is the key to world
peace. Don't let her delude you, too. Ilena says that her ultimata can
give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. But then she turns
around and says that she is a paragon of morality and wisdom. You
know, you can't have it both ways, Ilena.
She represents the most recent incarnation of the unique 20th-century
phenomenon known as "intransigent favoritism". So what's the
connection between that and her beliefs (as I would certainly not call
them logically reasoned arguments)? The connection is that in a recent
essay, Ilena stated that the health effects of secondhand smoke are
negligible. Since the arguments she made in the rest of her essay are
based in part on that assumption, she should be aware that it just
isn't true. Not only that, but her conclusions are designed to pursue
a twofold credo of Marxism and deconstructionism. And they're working;
they're having the desired effect. There is no defense against
ridicule. I mean, think about it. The end.
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud
http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
| |
| Joel M. Eichen 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| On 11 Feb 2005 14:13:02 -0800, "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote:
>Killfile her, Mark.
>It's like pouring salt on a slug and watching them shrivel up
Jan have you tried it with mercury?
Joel
| |
|
| On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:53:37 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
>Killfile her, Mark.
>It's like pouring salt on a slug and watching them shrivel up.
Now *that's* entertainment !
--
W_B
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Take out the G'RBAGE
| |
|
|
| Coleah 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cujofu$kok@library2.airnews.net...
>I found this site:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/ranters/ilena011204.htm
Ilena is not selective....no, no.....she bad mouths, insults and
shares her inner hatred with numerous people (and the list keeps
growing and growing and growing.)
| |
|
| Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
From: "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:09:35 -0500
Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 6:09 pm
Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
I found this site:
http://www.ratbags.com/ranters/ilena011204.htm
How about reading this one??
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-July 23, 2004" <M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t
07-23...@lymbercartel.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:35:11 GMT
Local: Fri, Jul 23 2004 7:35 am
Subject: Re: Asbestos Deaths Up
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
"Jan" <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040722231328.04675.00000248@mb-m21.aol.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>http://my.webmd.com/content/article...ectedguid=%7...
> 84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348%7D
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
industry[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
during[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
than[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
usually[vbcol=seagreen]
survival[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hulda Clark has been warning people of mold and abestos for
> years,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,while other were busy calling her a quack.
People were correctly calling her a quack for many reasons, none being
asbestos related.
The simple fact is that there is no cover-up regarding asbestos. In the
1980's, under AHERA, schools nationwide removed tons of it.
Construction
companies were forced to perform abatement before renovations or
demolition.
There is no doubt that there are very sick people with asbestosis and
mesothelioma who were exposed to asbestos. I meet several of them every
month and can usually find some documentation of their possible
exposure so
they can recevie WC benefits.
Backj in the 1950's and 1960's, there was no idea that asbestos
exposure
could be so dangerous. During WWII boat builders at the Navy Yards were
routinely exposed to it, brought the dust home, and exposed their
families.
No one knew.
When I was in elementary school, I received a kit from a group in
Canada,
where asbestos was mined, called "Asbestos-The Magic Mineral." I
brought it
to school for a science project. No one knew.
Once the dangers became known, precautions were put in place, and,
eventually, abatement was begun. There is far less asbestos in our
environment to day, and HULDA CLARK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Anyone claiming that there was a cover-up is an liar.
==
Then read this one:
http://www.nycosh.org/asbestos_chronology.html
See any lies in Mark's post, Jeff???
Now don't forget to answer.
This is:
Newsgroup misc.health.alternative
| |
|
| Newsgroups: alt.support.breast-implant, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health, sci.med.dentistry, talk.politics.medicine
From: Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:09:38 GMT
Local: Fri, Feb 11 2005 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: New Web Site Exposes Quackwatch
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ilena Rose <i...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks Anth ...
> "Anth" <s...@spam.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>My complaint about Quackwatch
>Quackwatch's demands have served as a powerful weapon with which horny
>pipsqueaks can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and
>rational debate out the window, but that's not the point of this
>letter. The point is that the limitation and final abolition of
>hooliganism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
>There are a number of reasons Quackwatch isn't telling us as to why it
>wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience
>-- basis. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on
>the principle that it has a long, demagogism-infested history of
>attempts to sanctify its depravity. Now, that's a strong conclusion to
>draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me
>corroborate it by saying that we must remove our chains and move
>towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the
>chains symbolize Quackwatch's crude commentaries, and the light
>represents the goal of getting all of us to address the continued
>social injustice shown by voluble knee-biters.) With this letter, I
>hope I have made my views clear: We have already fallen into
>Quackwatch's trap.
Doncha just love it when fools reproduce the words written by a joke
generator as if they mean something?
Ot oh.
Which *fools* do that????????
Funny how when the *gang* does it, you remain silent.
Ah, Peter?
You seem to love it when they do it.
In fact, you repost it.
Oh well, once again your posts say more about you than they do the ones
you constantly belittle.
| |
|
|
|
| In article <jieq019i4lri45krcfasupnqjmrbgif053@4ax.com>,
Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
> Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Doncha just love it when fools reproduce the words written by a joke
> generator as if they mean something?
Heh heh. Pretty hysterical, and Ilena, in her rush to believe anything
bad about Quackwatch, fell for it, hook, line, and sinker!
> Here is what that page said about Quackwatch when I checked a few
> minutes ago:
>
> It will undeniably surprise some people to hear me say this, but all
> of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude
> to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by
> Quackwatch and its encomiasts to introduce changes without testing
> them first. For starters, Quackwatch likes ultimata that twist the
> truth. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask
> me, I'd say that its imprecations do not come without a price. The
> sooner it comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
> You don't need to look far to see that this has been documented
> repeatedly, but I guess nobody ever explained that to Quackwatch's
> brethren. No one can deny that it would be a work of supererogation to
> hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to
> sane values and certainties at a time when every week there transpires
> news of negligent Luddites following Quackwatch's orders to besmirch
> the memory of some genuine historic figures, yet its reason is not
> true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only shiftless answers,
> clumsy resolutions to conflicts. Unfortunately, I can already see the
> response to this letter. Someone, possibly Quackwatch itself or one of
> its subordinates, will write a heartless piece about how spiteful I
> am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed
> to be written.
>
> Here's another:
>
> My complaint about Ilena Rosenthal
>
> The furor over Pyrrhonism has been an acutely frustrating cultural
> phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and
> fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and
> abominable manner that will take away our sense of community and leave
> us morally adrift before you know it. What's important to note,
> however, is that Ilena Rosenthal's slurs share many of the same
> characteristics. What follows is a call to action for those of us who
> care -- a large enough number to draw a picture of what we conceive of
> under the word "individualistic". When I state that facts and their
> accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever she
> dreams up, I'm merely trying to take advantage of a rare opportunity
> to shatter the illusion that the ideas of "freedom" and "hooliganism"
> are Siamese twins.
>
> Yes, Virginia, if she wants to complain, she should have an argument.
> She shouldn't just throw out the word "chromatographic", for example,
> and expect us to be scared. What is Ilena's current objective? As
> usual, there are multiple objectives:
>
> to create anomie,
> to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, and
> to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures.
> If I recall correctly, if Ilena opened her eyes, she'd realize that
> her commentaries, when taken as a whole, are unprofessional. We must
> learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically
> correct thing to do, but because every time Ilena utters or writes a
> statement that supports blackguardism -- even indirectly -- it sends a
> message that things have never been better. I really maintain we
> mustn't let her make such statements, partly because I must defend my
> honor, but primarily because she may advertise "magical" diets and
> bogus weight-loss pills right after she reads this letter. Let her.
> One day, I will provide a trenchant analysis of Ilena's philippics. In
> spite of the fact that Ilena's vituperations either go uncontested or
> are openly supported by hideous, abusive firebrands, she has been
> deluding people into believing that masochism is the key to world
> peace. Don't let her delude you, too. Ilena says that her ultimata can
> give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. But then she turns
> around and says that she is a paragon of morality and wisdom. You
> know, you can't have it both ways, Ilena.
>
> She represents the most recent incarnation of the unique 20th-century
> phenomenon known as "intransigent favoritism". So what's the
> connection between that and her beliefs (as I would certainly not call
> them logically reasoned arguments)? The connection is that in a recent
> essay, Ilena stated that the health effects of secondhand smoke are
> negligible. Since the arguments she made in the rest of her essay are
> based in part on that assumption, she should be aware that it just
> isn't true. Not only that, but her conclusions are designed to pursue
> a twofold credo of Marxism and deconstructionism. And they're working;
> they're having the desired effect. There is no defense against
> ridicule. I mean, think about it. The end.
Heh heh.
--
Orac |"I am not interested in trying to compensate
| for your amazing lack of observation."
|
| Orac
| |
|
| In article <3sfp01h5agmn61pmmavc66i09scbjjui6o@4ax.com>,
Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
> Thanks Anth ...
> "Anth" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> My complaint about Quackwatch
> Quackwatch's demands have served as a powerful weapon with which horny
> pipsqueaks can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and
> rational debate out the window, but that's not the point of this
> letter. The point is that the limitation and final abolition of
> hooliganism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
> There are a number of reasons Quackwatch isn't telling us as to why it
> wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience
> -- basis. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on
> the principle that it has a long, demagogism-infested history of
> attempts to sanctify its depravity. Now, that's a strong conclusion to
> draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me
> corroborate it by saying that we must remove our chains and move
> towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the
> chains symbolize Quackwatch's crude commentaries, and the light
> represents the goal of getting all of us to address the continued
> social injustice shown by voluble knee-biters.) With this letter, I
> hope I have made my views clear: We have already fallen into
> Quackwatch's trap.
Either Ilena is more gullible than I thought (falling for an automatic
complaint generator) or she might actually have a sense of humor.
--
Orac |"I am not interested in trying to compensate
| for your amazing lack of observation."
|
| Orac
| |
| Joel M. Eichen 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
| On 11 Feb 2005 18:58:05 -0800, "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote:
>People were correctly calling her a quack for many reasons, none being
>asbestos related.
>
>The simple fact is that there is no cover-up regarding asbestos. In the
REPLY
Between Ilena and Jan, I will take Ilena anytime. In fact ,,, I will
take anyone anytime, including Robert Merein.
Why?
Jan has not budged one inch in her thinking during five years! Tens of
thousands of posts from reputable dentists and STILL, she says
everyone is lying.
That gets old fast.
Joel
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:110qs4hs3des461@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cujofu$kok@library2.airnews.net...
>
>
> Ilena is not selective....no, no.....she bad mouths, insults and
> shares her inner hatred with numerous people (and the list keeps
> growing and growing and growing.)
She brings an entire new depth to the meaning of the word 'inclusion.'
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Orac" <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac_usa-32FB1C.23162511022005@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <jieq019i4lri45krcfasupnqjmrbgif053@4ax.com>,
> Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
> Heh heh. Pretty hysterical, and Ilena, in her rush to believe anything
> bad about Quackwatch, fell for it, hook, line, and sinker!
<stragihgt face/on>
I wonder what her mercury content is?
<straight face/off>
| |
|
|
"Mark Probert" <Mark Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:emoPd.894$_q3.225@fe11.lga...
>
> "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:110qs4hs3des461@corp.supernews.com...
>
> She brings an entire new depth to the meaning of the word 'inclusion.'
Kind of reminds you of president w, with the way he includes budget cuts to
everyone.
Including big business. After all, our businesses need educated workers.
Bush is not ensuring that.
Jeff
| |
| Mark Probert 2005-02-12, 1:32 pm |
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:p75s019rhhqdm8ttuciaias96s6cjgeq62@4ax.com...
> Thanks Anth ...
> "Anth" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> My complaint about Quackwatch
It is a joke website. You have been told that.
| |
|
| Thanks for posting this again.
| |
|
| On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:16:25 -0500, Orac <orac_usa@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Heh heh. Pretty hysterical, and Ilena, in her rush to believe anything
>bad about Quackwatch, fell for it, hook, line, and sinker!
Thought it was: Hook, Line, and Stin*k*er !
Carry on bro...
--
W_B
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Take out the G'RBAGE
|
| |
|
|