Lyme Disease - Attn Greg G. re "no cure for Lyme"

Author

Attn Greg G. re "no cure for Lyme"

lyme rayja

2004-10-17, 2:07 am

I think the real McSweegan
> would be more fun. GG

Greg, there's no use talking to his "jwismille/Chuck" persona. He will
stubbornly refuse to discuss the peer-reviewed literature, as it would
ruin his carefully-cultivated image of a pig-ignorant sob.
You have to address the questions to his "Weisman" persona. The
Weisman persona is a knowledgeable, if hateful, sob.
I don't know if you saw my post where I pasted something Chuck wrote
in an unguarded moment? You said that someone who could play both
parts would have to be a master, or someone with an awful lot of time
on his hands, or a schizophrenic. How about someone who is all three?
When he is not messing around with virulence factors, McSweegan's a
writer, and writers have to be skilled at creating characters (have
you ever read his disgustingly offensive story about a woman who
poisons her children with ticks because no one believes she has Lyme -
in it, he writes in the first person , as the woman, and totally
throws himself into the part - it's quite horrifying).

As for someone with a lot of time on his hands - well, who was on CBS
news last year as "The Man with no Work"?

As for schizophrenia, I don't know, I think it might be more a case of
"multiple internet personality disorder" as Greatcod says. There's
definitely something wrong with the guy (apart from him being an
amoral demon from hell).I think he really has come to believe that he
is all these different men.
Lisa

Greg Gerber

2004-10-17, 4:06 am

lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410130603.28a013b6@posting.google.com>...
> I think the real McSweegan
>
> Greg, there's no use talking to his "jwismille/Chuck" persona. He will
> stubbornly refuse to discuss the peer-reviewed literature, as it would
> ruin his carefully-cultivated image of a pig-ignorant sob.
> You have to address the questions to his "Weisman" persona...

lisa, roflmao, I agree jwis and chuck sound like one and the same but
weisman and dertritt are different, my $.02. btw yes I read the bug
story but thought it not well-written or indicative of particular
writing talent --thus suggesting to me McSw may not be the master you
claim. I found greatcod's story better, purely on the level of
language, style, etc, having nothing to do with content and maybe
greatcod can win a prize from fictionaddiction.net, too. Go for it,
greatcod! gg

lyme rayja

2004-10-17, 11:07 am

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message
> You need to understand this. I'll say it once...and once only...
>
> I am an attorney.

Whoopeedoo.

>
> IF...you persist in this childish quest to reveal my actual identity
> in total disregard for my wishes...
>

There's nothing childish about wanting to expose a filthy plant
working with McSweegan.

> ...you will only succeed in "connecting the dots for me"...I will then
> be able to sue certain people on this board for the things they have
> said about me. I really don't have much else to do right now..

and I don't care if you've got any personal assets to go after
> or not. I have plenty. Just sport for me.
>
Good. Maybe you will lose some of your undeserved assets, a*shole.

> I probably cannot do this right now...as defammation law is based on
> damage to reputation. Since I am now anonymous...I would be hard
> pressed to demonstrate how my reputation has been damaged. Many things
> have been said about me "in reckless disregard of the truth"...and I
> have been keeping careful track of them...and who said them.

Go look at everything you have written about me, Kathleen and so many
others, and there you will see enough defamation to keep a court busy
for weeks.

>
> IF...My identity is somehow revealed...I will absolutely, most
> definitely sue some people here...and they don't need any more
> trouble, I would think.

If thats a reference to me, go right ahead and sue.
>
> THIS IS NOT A THREAT...I am talking only about protecting my legal
> rights.
>
> It is a WARNING. A promise. A guarantee.
>
> You would be wise to leave it alone.
>
O gee wiz, the smarmy lawyer sounds all unnerved. What's up. Was
someone getting close to revealing your ID?
Lisa

lyme rayja

2004-10-17, 11:07 am

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message
>
> As to you, honey...you don't seem to realize how disturbed clinging to
> this bizarre fixation makes you appear to others.
>
> What? "McSweegan" is rolled into an "unholy" trinity? Three
> mischevious, evil spirits all morphed into one?

Why only three? He's used tonnes of fale emails. Look back in the
archive, you'll see how he used to use the names "anon@cotse.com",
"nadie", "siboney", and so many others. Some of these were traced
right to his machine because he was too stupid in those days to cover
his tracks properly.
There was even a case when he asked someone to forward a letter he
wrote to the Usenet, in order to disguise its origin, but the friend
accidentally forgot to cut off the trailing bit with the original
request.

>
> Gee, I dunno, but philosophically, meatphorically, that sounds a
> little "spooky". You got any upside down pentacles in your place or
> anything, by any chance?

I have a few Steere camp swine hanging upside down Mussolini-style,
in effigy only at the moment, but there's always hope.

>
> (Demons from "hell"...are not "amoral"...but "immoral", by the way).

Amoral is the word. Look it up the dictionary.

>
> Speaking of the occult...HOW'S THAT CRYSTAL BALL THING WORKING OUT?
>
O geee wiz, you were right, the damn ball was no good.What should I do
with it?

I guess the kindest thing would be to give the ball to someone who has
none at all.

Here, Drittemann. Catch.

Lisa

derdrittemann

2004-10-17, 7:09 pm

lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410170631.2e676950@posting.google.com>...
> derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message
>
> "Why only three? He's used tonnes of fale emails. Look back in the
> archive, you'll see how he used to use the names "anon@cotse.com",
> "nadie", "siboney", and so many others. Some of these were traced
> right to his machine because he was too stupid in those days to cover
> his tracks properly.
> There was even a case when he asked someone to forward a letter he
> wrote to the Usenet, in order to disguise its origin, but the friend
> accidentally forgot to cut off the trailing bit with the original
> request".

You don't seem to understand that only you, (and perhaps a very few
equally loosely planted on terra firma types), actually believe this.

What you also don't seem to understand is that your inability to let
go of this in spite of fairly persuausive evidence to the contrary...

....is very similar to the way you behave in regard to your denial of
Kathleen's problems...

....and the way you behave in regard to your continual insistence that
your children had Lyme disease.

It's called DENIAL...and in your case, it is of a pathological status.

Scientifically speaking, from "peer-reviewed" literture...we label
this condition..."really, seriously f---ed-up."
>
>
> Amoral is the word. Look it up the dictionary.

No. "Amoral" means neither moral nor immoral. You look it up. Immoral
is the word.

Like you.

derdrittemann

2004-10-17, 7:09 pm

lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410170613.650f7c9d@posting.google.com>...
>
> "There's nothing childish about wanting to expose a filthy plant
> working with McSweegan".

See,now, that's EXACTLY what I am talking about here. That's NOT a
nice way to play. That is what we call LIBEL.

But...you can get away with it so long as Frank doesn't screwup. Isn't
that right, my little dung beetle?

So...it is in your best interest to have this anonymity, isn't it?
That way you can just keep repititiously boring us all to death with
your pathological fantasies.

But when it starts to get to the point where Frank is suggesting
people will "get Lynched"...then he is crossing the line.

I have NO idea what anyone thinks they can accomplish with this STUPID
PATHETIC CHILDISH BULLSHIT...except to demonstrate to everyone what
kind of people they really are...and to send a very clear message to
anyone who comes here looking for help that this is "an abuse board".

There is NO way to prove who it is behind the keystrokes, people. Get
this through your thick craniums. Unless you are standing right next
to them when they type...you have NO idea who it is. All you can do is
i'd a phone number at best...get an address...now...who did it?

In my case...you can't even do that. You could, perhaps, find someone
I know.

Think about it.

> "Go look at everything you have written about me, Kathleen and so many
> others, and there you will see enough defamation to keep a court busy
> for weeks".

Wrong.

It is abundantly clear from your previous posts that you really have a
very poor grasp of the concept.

Show me ONE such post that I have written. Just one.
>
>
>
> "If thats a reference to me, go right ahead and sue".

Why would you think it's a reference to you?

> "O gee wiz, the smarmy lawyer sounds all unnerved. What's up. Was
> someone getting close to revealing your ID"?

LOL. No. And that will never happen. A liitle too quick for you,
there, I'm afraid.

But even if it did...I could care less. All you would find is a guy
with Lyme disease...and it certainly won't stop me from posting here.

Idiots.

lyme rayja

2004-10-18, 11:07 am

dershittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410171347.19106bf0@posting.google.com>...
> lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410170613.650f7c9d@posting.google.com>...
>
> See,now, that's EXACTLY what I am talking about here. That's NOT a
> nice way to play. That is what we call LIBEL.
>

The truth is never libel.

> But...you can get away with it so long as Frank doesn't screwup.

What does that mean?

>
> So...it is in your best interest to have this anonymity, isn't it?

No, it's in yours, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

>
> There is NO way to prove who it is behind the keystrokes, people.

Don't bank on it.

All you can do is
> i'd a phone number at best...get an address...now...who did it?>
> In my case...you can't even do that. You could, perhaps, find someone
> I know.
>
> Think about it.

I've thought about it. Well? The whole spiel sounds pretty meaningless
to me.

>
>
>
> Wrong.
>
> It is abundantly clear from your previous posts that you really have a
> very poor grasp of the concept.
>
> Show me ONE such post that I have written. Just one.

The other one you wrote today, which I'll answer in a moment.
As one of ten million examples.

>
> But even if it did...I could care less. All you would find is a guy
> with Lyme disease...and it certainly won't stop me from posting here.

A guy with Lyme disease huh? A guy with chronic Lyme disease, in
terrible pain, has had it for years, but all he has are good feelings
for another guy who goes around calling such people whiners, casting
doubt on the existence of chronic Lyme itself, slandering the only
docs who help us, using every last ounce of his energy to defend the
Steere camp, telling the world that "Lyme is easily cured in 3 weeks
doxy" etc etc

All your friendship is for him and all your hatred is for those who
want to do something about the situation.

Makes a lot of sense, huh?

Lisa

lyme rayja

2004-10-18, 7:09 pm

dershittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410171314.567438f2@posting.google.com>...
> lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410170631.2e676950@posting.google.com>...
>
> You don't seem to understand that only you, (and perhaps a very few
> equally loosely planted on terra firma types), actually believe this.

Nonsense. Lots of people know about this. I will post some of the
evidence in separate posts.

> No. "Amoral" means neither moral nor immoral. You look it up. Immoral
> is the word.
>

a·mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-)
adj.

Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

That's your boyfriend Sweeg, and that's also you.
Lisa

Greg Gerber

2004-10-18, 7:09 pm

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410171314.567438f2@posting.google.com>...
> lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410170631.2e676950@posting.google.com>...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You don't seem to understand that only you, (and perhaps a very few
> equally loosely planted on terra firma types), actually believe this.

derdritte, it is my understanding that some of this is true --ie,
anonymous posts definitely identified and absolutely documented in the
PAST, relating to NONE of the screen names or individuals in question
now, as far as I can see.

The problem is extending these widely-recognized proven PAST instances
to other, unproven ones occurring now. For the latter, Lisa, I have
not seen ANY evidence that ANY of these people are Ed McSweegan --and
you cannot used past events to prove current ones based on your own,
intuitive sense of things. If you have evidence why not post it, but
as far as I am concerned, you haven't done that, remotely, to date.
If you mix a little truth with a lot of conjecture all you do is make
the truth suspect, as you can see has happened here. I think you
should be more attentive to real evidence, as that would be most
helpful to you, as well as Kathleen, in the end. GG

derdrittemann

2004-10-18, 7:09 pm

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410180940.7028e2f4@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>
> "derdritte, it is my understanding that some of this is true --ie,
> anonymous posts definitely identified and absolutely documented in the
> PAST, relating to NONE of the screen names or individuals in question
> now, as far as I can see".

Yes. I wouldn't doubt that it may have happened in the past. I have
also had my suspicions about some onetime posters here lately who come
in asking advice for either very unusual...or very mundane symptoms.
Not saying that it can't happen.

But...I have a big advantage here...LOL! I know I'm not McSweegan's
lawyer! So I know how idiotic most of this actually is. My big crime
was in telling them they were wrong. That seems to convert you into
"McSweegan" pretty damn fast.

Hell, With Lisa on board...ol' Dr. Ed needn't bother...he couldn't
possibly humiliate the Lyme community half as well as Lisa.

Any doctor, however, who gets caught taunting patients on a message
board like this should lose their license to practice, in my opinion.
And...I would do my best to see to it that they did.
>
> "The problem is extending these widely-recognized proven PAST instances
> to other, unproven ones occurring now. For the latter, Lisa, I have
> not seen ANY evidence that ANY of these people are Ed McSweegan --and
> you cannot used past events to prove current ones based on your own,
> intuitive sense of things. If you have evidence why not post it, but
> as far as I am concerned, you haven't done that, remotely, to date.
> If you mix a little truth with a lot of conjecture all you do is make
> the truth suspect, as you can see has happened here. I think you
> should be more attentive to real evidence, as that would be most
> helpful to you, as well as Kathleen, in the end". GG

Yes. And I would add that there was a fairly ugly incident over at
Lymenet the other day where a newbie poster managed to say the wrong
things and get labelled as a "troll"...got attacked...only to have
others prove that he was not, in fact, a "troll"(whatever that is).

People should be careful.

derdrittemann

2004-10-18, 7:09 pm

lymerayja@yahoo.co.uk (lyme rayja) wrote in message news:<13f7f806.0410180502.5b0f65c0@posting.google.com>...
>
> "The truth is never libel."

THAT much is true. Unfortunately, however, what you are saying is NOT
true. Not only is it NOT true...you have no basis whatsoever for
suggesting that it is true...it was said in complete and "reckless
disregard of the truth".

AND...as to my "representation" of McSweegan...that is completely and
utterly false.
>
>
> What does that mean?

It means if somehow Frank mamnages to come up with a name and number
and publishes it...I will sue your XXX pronto.
>
>
> "No, it's in yours, otherwise you wouldn't do it".

Not necessarily. How do you keep a moron in suspense?
>
>
> "Don't bank on it".

It's true.
>
> All you can do is
>
> "I've thought about it. Well? The whole spiel sounds pretty meaningless
> to me".

Think again.

But also try to understand this:

It is NOT normal behavior to try to track down someone and threaten
them and their family simply because you have a disagreement with them
concerning issues of public policy or law involving Lyme
disease...threaten them with violence.

Consider it your ticket to being with Kathleen 24/7.

This is extremely antisocial...pathological...deeply disturbing when
someone threatens "lynching".

DO you wonder why anyone would actually choose an alias? Really?

(By the way...is "Greatcod" this person's actual name? How about
Sinaj101)?

derdrittemann

2004-10-19, 2:07 am

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410180940.7028e2f4@posting.google.com>...
>.
>
> "derdritte, it is my understanding that some of this is true --ie,
> anonymous posts definitely identified and absolutely documented in the
> PAST, relating to NONE of the screen names or individuals in question
> now, as far as I can see".
>
>Yes...and I think that I may have inadvertently caused confusion here
by responding to Lisa in a not very careful manner.

I didn't mean to suggest that these previous incidents didn't
occur...when I was saying only "she and a few others believe this"...I
was meaning about Weisman and Chuck and all that nonsense...and not
the surreptitous postings of evil-doers and other princes of Lyme
darkness that may or may not have happened in the past.

(I just re-read the exchange and it confused me, also).

lyme rayja

2004-10-19, 7:14 pm

Greg Gerber

2004-10-20, 2:07 am

Frank de Groot

2004-10-20, 7:07 am

"Greg Gerber" <GregGerber@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> lisa, roflmao, I agree jwis and chuck sound like one and the same but
> weisman and dertritt are different, my $.02.

Yes. Weissman & dritt are different.
They post from different locations non-anonymously (their moniker does not
guarantee their anonimity).

Weismann is pretty much OK (just a stupid, stubborn Lymie with an attitude
(the wrong one)).

derdritteman is a more persistent weed, perhaps someone who really believes
he/she is cleverer than the rest, someone with a lot of "culture" but no
common sense or logic or information to back up his/her opinions & beliefs.
Someone with a grudge, a political agenda, whatever. A bit of a psycho. It
might be that derdritteman is in fact "Chuck" being less careful, "Chuck"
posting from his actual location. But I think that likelihood is only around
25%.

The kind of person that will always believe a person of authority (with a
diploma) over anyone else. More like a "doctor" type but shitman is much
less knowledgeable than even a bad doctor. It looks more like a lawyer's
wife that got Lyme, believes her quack doctor and wants to teach "the trolls
on the Lyme board" a lesson.

"Chuck" knows he will be hunted down & lynched 24 hours after his first
non-anonymous post so he uses a remailer and hopes nobody will ever (not
even when he's 120 years old) find out who he is.

derdrittemann

2004-10-20, 11:09 am

lyme rayja

2004-10-20, 11:09 am

Frank de Groot

2004-10-21, 11:07 am

"derdrittemann" <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> I am an attorney.

Whoa!
Rude!
You rule!

> ...you will only succeed in "connecting the dots for me"...I will then
> be able to sue certain people on this board for the things they have
> said about me.

No you won't.
You can't sue people that said something about an anonymous non-entity at
the time ofthe "saying". Pretty basic. You didn't know that? Tsk tsk.

> I really don't have much else to do right now...

Unemployed attorney?
That figures.

> and would enjoy it.

Unemployed mildly sadistic attorney?

> I know how to do this.

Jep.
You're an attorney, after all.
Cool, dude!
Stupid punk.

> Been doing it most of my adult life...

Jep.
Not too many children attorneys.
So you're an old attorney?
Or you're a young adult that has been an attorney and doesn't know anything
else than being an attorney?

>and I don't care if you've got any personal assets to go after
> or not. I have plenty. Just sport for me.

Cool! So, you have assets? Plenty?
So, if I sue you and I win, I get some of them?

And when you sue me and you win, you get nothing?
Sounds like a good bet to me!

> I probably cannot do this right now...

A+ for this conclusion.
Good boy!

>as defammation law is based on
> damage to reputation. Since I am now anonymous...

Don't use three dots.
It's bad style.
Two will do.

> I would be hard
> pressed to demonstrate how my reputation has been damaged.

DANG!
Now that sucks

I am not anonymous

Anything YOU do to libel/slander me, I just politely ask your ISP to give
your name & address (they are required by your law to do that when I accuse
you of libel/slander and I can show some evidence - the most it takes is a
letter from my attorney).

that is what I meant when I said: "The fact that I am not anonymous grants
me exceptionally high ability to retaliate". Just a "Frank is.. <insert
libelous statement here> means you are guilty of a crime, can and will be pr
osecuted, and you will loose your anonymity.

I however can say whatever I want about you, since you are anonymous. I will
not loose my anonimity because I already gave that up, and you can never sue
me.

Isn't that great, XXXXX?

> have been said about me "in reckless disregard of the truth"...and I
> have been keeping careful track of them...and who said them.

I bet that started with noting down the licence plates of passing cars,
hasn't it?

> IF...My identity is somehow revealed...I will absolutely, most
> definitely sue some people here...and they don't need any more
> trouble, I would think.

People?
As in more than one?

This gives me the hunch that perhaps "people here" KNOW who you are..
Hm..
Should I offer 1000 USD for the one that gives me your name & address?
Could be worth it..

> THIS IS NOT A THREAT...I am talking only about protecting my legal
> rights.

Yeah yeah.
Don't worry about making threats.
If you have made a threat, you'll know it soon enough.

> It is a WARNING. A promise. A guarantee.

Whoa!
Dude!

lyme rayja

2004-10-23, 11:08 am

lyme rayja

2004-10-23, 7:08 pm

lyme rayja

2004-10-23, 10:07 pm

derdrittemann

2004-10-23, 10:07 pm

derdrittemann

2004-10-24, 2:08 am

derdrittemann

2004-10-24, 2:08 am

lyme rayja

2004-10-24, 7:09 pm

Greg Gerber

2004-10-24, 7:09 pm

derdrittemann

2004-10-25, 2:09 am