| PeterB 2006-08-02, 4:30 pm |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
it[vbcol=seagreen]
ng.[vbcol=seagreen]
ion[vbcol=seagreen]
ed[vbcol=seagreen]
lure[vbcol=seagreen]
e of[vbcol=seagreen]
od[vbcol=seagreen]
y,[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
th[vbcol=seagreen]
nt's[vbcol=seagreen]
ys do.[vbcol=seagreen]
hat[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
arent.[vbcol=seagreen]
nce[vbcol=seagreen]
at[vbcol=seagreen]
ene[vbcol=seagreen]
irst[vbcol=seagreen]
nce[vbcol=seagreen]
do[vbcol=seagreen]
ence[vbcol=seagreen]
at[vbcol=seagreen]
on[vbcol=seagreen]
ne[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Please call me a chemo apologist. I will wear it as a badge of honor, as
> anyone promoting death by HOAXsey treatment favors dead children.
Who's promoting the Hoxey diet? Not me.
> Please, Petey?
>
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I wonder why Hoxsey resorted to chemo when his tumors kept growing in
> spite of his treatment? Did he consider them a failure? If so, why did
> he try it? Of course, it was too late for him.
Who knows? I'd have done things very differently from the start, with
no thought of resorting to chemo.
>
>
> Petey is doing the Petey Shuffle again.
Markey is a 0:-> apologist. What a shocker.
>
> Projecting.
Reflecting.
[vbcol=seagreen]
|