Sociology > Depression > 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish
| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." |
| Date: |
06 Sep 2003 01:34:59 AM |
| Object: |
'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
'The Debunkers' Last Stand
What else are they supposed to do? Admit that evidence exists for the
possibility of ET contact, either in the past or the present,
and then have to admit to the possibility of total and systematic world-wide
conspiracy, which is what such an admission would amount to, btw, if
such knowledge exists. Consider the consequences of debunkers
actually coming clean! Their addiction to disinformation and half-
truths fuels their endless crusade to deny what they know to be the final
nail in the coffin of their weak cosmogony. They are missionaries,
positioning themselves in a final attempt to convert BELIEVERS to their
habitual dislike for any idea that threatens their daily routine,
the whitewash that they call 'reality', the way things are, the status
quo.
Consider the implications of such an announcement. We're talking about
changing the way people actually think, since entirely new thought
structures would arise from an ET perspective; whole new realms of knowledge
would flood our minds; we would become connected with both the past and
the future if such an event took place, and in this time, it's quite
possible that such an idea might ripple through future time and destroy us,
or perhaps promote a new peace.
Debunkers portray any analysis of hypothetical ET-related phenomenon
as an inherently flawed thought process, and the very idea is laughed at!
The ETH remains taboo. Is it not simply the result of one scientific
observation which has led to an efficient method of data collection
represented by the best evidence reported by govt., military, commercial
and public sectors alike. Are these reports not potential candidates and
do they not meet the accepted guidelines for admissible evidence? The
evidence exists, however, it is interpreted differently depending on how
one approaches the actual numbers.
To the debunker, NOTHING but hard-core physical evidence for ET., like
a Sirian license plate, or proverbial dead alien, will ever be good enough.
The debunkers ask for repeatable evidence. Methods of data collection
have been implemented in the past and are taking place now. Thanks to the
FOIA, we get to read what's left of the reports, if any evidence remains once
the debunkers are finished with our friend, the trusty black marker.
Debunkers change the rules by changing the tools of observation.
The debunker will argue and grandstand on points *aside* from the
sighting, apart from the incident under discussion, in order to lead
the discussion away from the possibility of knowledge. Actual
discovery could in fact lead one to develop an extra-terrestrial
hypothesis. But debunking the discovery could lead one to deny it.
Either way, data is used to convince one of the merits of one side
or the other. For debunkers, however, there is no debate. There
in only one possibility, and that is a mundane explanation. [Remember,
don't dare question a debunker or you'll end up getting labeled a 'believer'.]
Debunkers have the bases covered, _at all times_, and everytime they
post, they do so knowingly, in fact with intent, to dissuade, deny,
lie, and complain about how the evidence doesn't exist, and still,
all the while, the debunker refuses to look at the EVIDENCE.
[It's like a mad-tea-party! And the debunkers are all sitting together
at the table drinking tea with the Mad Debunker himself, Queen Dean. The
Queen sits there, conversing through the noisy throng of skeptibunkers,
asking each debunker questions that have no real answers.]
But even under so-called scientific examination, the data may sometimes
get set aside, whether it is because of practical financial interests that
fund research, or the quality of the data alone, the sad truth becomes
painfully obvious; stockholders control the data, not the scientists. Recent
examples of such events may be found in the daily paper.
So in fact, science is controlled by the financial interests of investors
who couldn't give a flying ***** about TRUTH and EVIDENCE. All they are
concerned with is the bottom line, which translates into cold cash, if not
just meaningless binary digits alone.
Therefore, to state the obvious, scientific results can be manipulated in
the name of ambition and profit, leaving much doubt as to the true state
of evidence, in any form. Whether such a hypothetical cover-up could go
on for very long, is questionable. Unless such evidence was physically
destroyed, the truth would eventually get out, somehow, unless those in
possession of the 'facts' had a way of erasing evidence of its existence.
It would also have to be the greatest secret of all time, the greatest
story ever told, so to speak. What would give this story added legitimacy
however, would be the scientific acknowledgement of certain fundamental,
underlying repetitive factors, which may or may not reflect an internal
consistency that responds to the presentation of data which hopefully can
be simulated and controlled for further testing.
If any thread can be found, if any answers can be obtained, shouldn't a
clear and careful focus on a common thread be the first priority in an
ongoing investigation as to whether or not evidence exists in favor of
the ETH? I also wonder how one would one go about testing for alien
phenomena and I question exactly what threshold is necessary for data
to become legitimate in the eyes of the establishment.
Insisting on only physical evidence alone is ridiculous. This limitation
goes against our most fundamental notions of reality. But I will admit,
that without physical evidence, it is impossible to base any educated
belief in the notion that "space aliens are on our planet now". However,
it needs to be said, this is NOT the argument being proposed on these
newsgroups. This thread title clearly demonstrates the lengths debunkers
will go to deceive us, and the plain fact that debunkers create their own
arguments to knock down the one of their opponents without *ever* having
to confront the FACTS of the actual argument.
If we were to actually listen to the debunkers, we would become mental midgets,
strapped to a rigid body of knowledge, and confined to house arrest. If we had
listened to the debunkers we would still be slaves, or serfs or peasants,
toiling
in the 'masters' field, content with the whip and the chain.
Josh
From: Josh Olaf
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Shewmaker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
06 Sep 2003 11:41:57 AM |
|
|
--
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message news:nef6b.18883$cJ5.2607@www.newsranger.com...
'The Debunkers' Last Stand
What else are they supposed to do? Admit that evidence exists for the
possibility of ET contact, either in the past or the present,
and then have to admit to the possibility of total and systematic
world-wide
conspiracy, which is what such an admission would amount to, btw, if
such knowledge exists. Consider the consequences of debunkers
actually coming clean! Their addiction to disinformation and half-
truths fuels their endless crusade to deny what they know to be the final
nail in the coffin of their weak cosmogony. They are missionaries,
positioning themselves in a final attempt to convert BELIEVERS to their
habitual dislike for any idea that threatens their daily routine,
the whitewash that they call 'reality', the way things are, the status
quo.
Consider the implications of such an announcement. We're talking about
changing the way people actually think, since entirely new thought
structures would arise from an ET perspective; whole new realms of
knowledge
would flood our minds; we would become connected with both the past and
the future if such an event took place, and in this time, it's quite
possible that such an idea might ripple through future time and destroy
us,
or perhaps promote a new peace.
Debunkers portray any analysis of hypothetical ET-related phenomenon
as an inherently flawed thought process, and the very idea is laughed at!
The ETH remains taboo. Is it not simply the result of one scientific
observation which has led to an efficient method of data collection
represented by the best evidence reported by govt., military, commercial
and public sectors alike. Are these reports not potential candidates and
do they not meet the accepted guidelines for admissible evidence? The
evidence exists, however, it is interpreted differently depending on how
one approaches the actual numbers.
To the debunker, NOTHING but hard-core physical evidence for ET., like
a Sirian license plate, or proverbial dead alien, will ever be good
enough.
The debunkers ask for repeatable evidence. Methods of data collection
have been implemented in the past and are taking place now. Thanks to the
FOIA, we get to read what's left of the reports, if any evidence remains
once
the debunkers are finished with our friend, the trusty black marker.
Debunkers change the rules by changing the tools of observation.
The debunker will argue and grandstand on points *aside* from the
sighting, apart from the incident under discussion, in order to lead
the discussion away from the possibility of knowledge. Actual
discovery could in fact lead one to develop an extra-terrestrial
hypothesis. But debunking the discovery could lead one to deny it.
Either way, data is used to convince one of the merits of one side
or the other. For debunkers, however, there is no debate. There
in only one possibility, and that is a mundane explanation. [Remember,
don't dare question a debunker or you'll end up getting labeled a
'believer'.]
Debunkers have the bases covered, _at all times_, and everytime they
post, they do so knowingly, in fact with intent, to dissuade, deny,
lie, and complain about how the evidence doesn't exist, and still,
all the while, the debunker refuses to look at the EVIDENCE.
[It's like a mad-tea-party! And the debunkers are all sitting together
at the table drinking tea with the Mad Debunker himself, Queen Dean. The
Queen sits there, conversing through the noisy throng of skeptibunkers,
asking each debunker questions that have no real answers.]
But even under so-called scientific examination, the data may sometimes
get set aside, whether it is because of practical financial interests that
fund research, or the quality of the data alone, the sad truth becomes
painfully obvious; stockholders control the data, not the scientists.
Recent
examples of such events may be found in the daily paper.
So in fact, science is controlled by the financial interests of investors
who couldn't give a flying ***** about TRUTH and EVIDENCE. All they are
concerned with is the bottom line, which translates into cold cash, if not
just meaningless binary digits alone.
Therefore, to state the obvious, scientific results can be manipulated in
the name of ambition and profit, leaving much doubt as to the true state
of evidence, in any form. Whether such a hypothetical cover-up could go
on for very long, is questionable. Unless such evidence was physically
destroyed, the truth would eventually get out, somehow, unless those in
possession of the 'facts' had a way of erasing evidence of its existence.
It would also have to be the greatest secret of all time, the greatest
story ever told, so to speak. What would give this story added legitimacy
however, would be the scientific acknowledgement of certain fundamental,
underlying repetitive factors, which may or may not reflect an internal
consistency that responds to the presentation of data which hopefully can
be simulated and controlled for further testing.
If any thread can be found, if any answers can be obtained, shouldn't a
clear and careful focus on a common thread be the first priority in an
ongoing investigation as to whether or not evidence exists in favor of
the ETH? I also wonder how one would one go about testing for alien
phenomena and I question exactly what threshold is necessary for data
to become legitimate in the eyes of the establishment.
Insisting on only physical evidence alone is ridiculous. This limitation
goes against our most fundamental notions of reality. But I will admit,
that without physical evidence, it is impossible to base any educated
belief in the notion that "space aliens are on our planet now". However,
it needs to be said, this is NOT the argument being proposed on these
newsgroups. This thread title clearly demonstrates the lengths debunkers
will go to deceive us, and the plain fact that debunkers create their own
arguments to knock down the one of their opponents without *ever* having
to confront the FACTS of the actual argument.
If we were to actually listen to the debunkers, we would become mental
midgets,
strapped to a rigid body of knowledge, and confined to house arrest. If
we had
listened to the debunkers we would still be slaves, or serfs or peasants,
toiling
in the 'masters' field, content with the whip and the chain.
Josh
From: Josh Olaf
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to debunk, and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 09:15:33 AM |
|
|
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
news:8LGdnWha8aTIk8eiRTvUrg@ilhawaii.net...
--
"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote
in
message news:nef6b.18883$cJ5.2607@www.newsranger.com...
'The Debunkers' Last Stand
What else are they supposed to do? Admit that evidence exists for the
possibility of ET contact, either in the past or the present,
and then have to admit to the possibility of total and systematic
world-wide
conspiracy, which is what such an admission would amount to, btw, if
such knowledge exists. Consider the consequences of debunkers
actually coming clean! Their addiction to disinformation and half-
truths fuels their endless crusade to deny what they know to be the
final
nail in the coffin of their weak cosmogony. They are missionaries,
positioning themselves in a final attempt to convert BELIEVERS to their
habitual dislike for any idea that threatens their daily routine,
the whitewash that they call 'reality', the way things are, the status
quo.
Consider the implications of such an announcement. We're talking about
changing the way people actually think, since entirely new thought
structures would arise from an ET perspective; whole new realms of
knowledge
would flood our minds; we would become connected with both the past and
the future if such an event took place, and in this time, it's quite
possible that such an idea might ripple through future time and destroy
us,
or perhaps promote a new peace.
Debunkers portray any analysis of hypothetical ET-related phenomenon
as an inherently flawed thought process, and the very idea is laughed
at!
The ETH remains taboo. Is it not simply the result of one scientific
observation which has led to an efficient method of data collection
represented by the best evidence reported by govt., military, commercial
and public sectors alike. Are these reports not potential candidates
and
do they not meet the accepted guidelines for admissible evidence? The
evidence exists, however, it is interpreted differently depending on how
one approaches the actual numbers.
To the debunker, NOTHING but hard-core physical evidence for ET., like
a Sirian license plate, or proverbial dead alien, will ever be good
enough.
The debunkers ask for repeatable evidence. Methods of data collection
have been implemented in the past and are taking place now. Thanks to
the
FOIA, we get to read what's left of the reports, if any evidence remains
once
the debunkers are finished with our friend, the trusty black marker.
Debunkers change the rules by changing the tools of observation.
The debunker will argue and grandstand on points *aside* from the
sighting, apart from the incident under discussion, in order to lead
the discussion away from the possibility of knowledge. Actual
discovery could in fact lead one to develop an extra-terrestrial
hypothesis. But debunking the discovery could lead one to deny it.
Either way, data is used to convince one of the merits of one side
or the other. For debunkers, however, there is no debate. There
in only one possibility, and that is a mundane explanation. [Remember,
don't dare question a debunker or you'll end up getting labeled a
'believer'.]
Debunkers have the bases covered, _at all times_, and everytime they
post, they do so knowingly, in fact with intent, to dissuade, deny,
lie, and complain about how the evidence doesn't exist, and still,
all the while, the debunker refuses to look at the EVIDENCE.
[It's like a mad-tea-party! And the debunkers are all sitting together
at the table drinking tea with the Mad Debunker himself, Queen Dean.
The
Queen sits there, conversing through the noisy throng of skeptibunkers,
asking each debunker questions that have no real answers.]
But even under so-called scientific examination, the data may sometimes
get set aside, whether it is because of practical financial interests
that
fund research, or the quality of the data alone, the sad truth becomes
painfully obvious; stockholders control the data, not the scientists.
Recent
examples of such events may be found in the daily paper.
So in fact, science is controlled by the financial interests of
investors
who couldn't give a flying ***** about TRUTH and EVIDENCE. All they are
concerned with is the bottom line, which translates into cold cash, if
not
just meaningless binary digits alone.
Therefore, to state the obvious, scientific results can be manipulated
in
the name of ambition and profit, leaving much doubt as to the true state
of evidence, in any form. Whether such a hypothetical cover-up could go
on for very long, is questionable. Unless such evidence was physically
destroyed, the truth would eventually get out, somehow, unless those in
possession of the 'facts' had a way of erasing evidence of its
existence.
It would also have to be the greatest secret of all time, the greatest
story ever told, so to speak. What would give this story added
legitimacy
however, would be the scientific acknowledgement of certain fundamental,
underlying repetitive factors, which may or may not reflect an internal
consistency that responds to the presentation of data which hopefully
can
be simulated and controlled for further testing.
If any thread can be found, if any answers can be obtained, shouldn't a
clear and careful focus on a common thread be the first priority in an
ongoing investigation as to whether or not evidence exists in favor of
the ETH? I also wonder how one would one go about testing for alien
phenomena and I question exactly what threshold is necessary for data
to become legitimate in the eyes of the establishment.
Insisting on only physical evidence alone is ridiculous. This
limitation
goes against our most fundamental notions of reality. But I will admit,
that without physical evidence, it is impossible to base any educated
belief in the notion that "space aliens are on our planet now".
However,
it needs to be said, this is NOT the argument being proposed on these
newsgroups. This thread title clearly demonstrates the lengths
debunkers
will go to deceive us, and the plain fact that debunkers create their
own
arguments to knock down the one of their opponents without *ever* having
to confront the FACTS of the actual argument.
If we were to actually listen to the debunkers, we would become mental
midgets,
strapped to a rigid body of knowledge, and confined to house arrest.
If
we had
listened to the debunkers we would still be slaves, or serfs or
peasants,
toiling
in the 'masters' field, content with the whip and the chain.
Josh
From: Josh Olaf
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to debunk, and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
Rich, the post was from a critter well known to those who read
alt.support.attn-deficit. Over the many years he has infested usenet, he has
called himself Richard X. Frager. Dr. Richard Frager, and several other
names. I call him moron or troll.
If you want to read up on this critter:
http://www.watchingyou.com/frager.html
or you can do a net or Google search.
Some of s/h/its exploits include:
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for posting an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped from
an ISP).
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
And, of course, being the subject of the FragerFAQm forst posted on October
9, 1996. I am the author. :)
So, it iswas not Josh who posted it, but PhoneyDoc, one of my nicknames for
s/h/it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
08 Sep 2003 10:17:37 AM |
|
|
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for posting an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
08 Sep 2003 04:46:16 PM |
|
|
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:l417b.19108$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for posting
an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped
from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and
would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Quite wrong. IIRC, I was off the net at the time. However, here you do
acknowledge that you were falsely posing as a medical doctor and offering
medical advice.
Here's the URL of the message from the sysadmin.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S16562DA3
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Sure.
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, the raving of an ill woman.
BTW, here's a goodie about you:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B3A9226D5
Seems you like to get people booted from usenet.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Humble.Life" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
08 Sep 2003 07:39:33 PM |
|
|
Why on earth have you gone so far when you could just learn a life skill and
forget it.
Everyone gets replies they don't want to hear... Everyone wants to be a
hero...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
08 Sep 2003 04:36:13 PM |
|
|
fArtie, you just have got to do a better job of hiding your tracks, or leave
Usenet altogether. A bot of Googling shjows that you are still a liar after
all of these years...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:l417b.19108$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for posting
an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped
from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Not so, plagiarizer. It was started by someone else, and, of course, they
were a bit annoyed.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C139216D5
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and
would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Au contraire! MANY people complained about your giving medical advice.
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
You left out my favorite:
http://richard.frager.aka.art.wholeflapper.pieceofshit.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 12:30:45 AM |
|
|
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100% accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can’t argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Thanks again for confirming to anybody who is paying
attention (and that must be very few) that you are
a grade A lunatic, who is so delusional, you can't tell
the difference between reality and your own fantasies.
This is why the real posters in this newsgroup
counter almost everything you write. Your conflict
of interests are so obvious, it is hard to believe
that you have any shame at all. But apparently
you do not.
For your own sake, plesase consider another very long stay
at the nearest mental-health facility. I’m sure every
mental-health care specialist would suggest the same thing!!
In article <hD67b.92692$Ay2.21766982@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark Probert
says...
fArtie, you just have got to do a better job of hiding your tracks, or leave
Usenet altogether. A bot of Googling shjows that you are still a liar after
all of these years...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:l417b.19108$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for posting
an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped
from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Not so, plagiarizer. It was started by someone else, and, of course, they
were a bit annoyed.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C139216D5
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and
would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Au contraire! MANY people complained about your giving medical advice.
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
You left out my favorite:
http://richard.frager.aka.art.wholeflapper.pieceofshit.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 08:17:17 AM |
|
|
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100% accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid, it was YOUR behavior that provoked many people to complain
to your ISPs in several newsgroups. Look at what the Aracnet sysadmin said.
Of course, that would require that you understand facts, a skill you have
yet to demonstrate.
Thanks again for confirming to anybody who is paying
attention (and that must be very few) that you are
a grade A lunatic, who is so delusional, you can't tell
the difference between reality and your own fantasies.
That is the Mother of Self Referential Statements.
This is why the real posters in this newsgroup
counter almost everything you write. Your conflict
of interests are so obvious, it is hard to believe
that you have any shame at all. But apparently
you do not.
For your own sake, plesase consider another very long stay
at the nearest mental-health facility. I'm sure every
mental-health care specialist would suggest the same thing!!
As usual, you understand your needs by projecting them on others.
In article <hD67b.92692$Ay2.21766982@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
fArtie, you just have got to do a better job of hiding your tracks, or
leave
Usenet altogether. A bot of Googling shjows that you are still a liar
after
all of these years...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:l417b.19108$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for
posting
an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped
from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Not so, plagiarizer. It was started by someone else, and, of course, they
were a bit annoyed.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C139216D5
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and
would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Au contraire! MANY people complained about your giving medical advice.
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
You left out my favorite:
http://richard.frager.aka.art.wholeflapper.pieceofshit.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 01:16:54 PM |
|
|
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100% accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
How many other ridiculous stunts you have pulled
you only know, but the number must be very large.
No wonder everybody considers you a
total crack-pot. Getting support from
you is a total contradiction.
Please consider re-admitting yourself
for another long-term stay at their nearest
insane asylum. I assure you your presence
will not be missed here, even by other
nut-cases.
it was YOUR behavior that provoked many people to complain
to your ISPs in several newsgroups. Look at what the Aracnet sysadmin said.
Of course, that would require that you understand facts, a skill you have
yet to demonstrate.
Thanks again for confirming to anybody who is paying
attention (and that must be very few) that you are
a grade A lunatic, who is so delusional, you can't tell
the difference between reality and your own fantasies.
That is the Mother of Self Referential Statements.
This is why the real posters in this newsgroup
counter almost everything you write. Your conflict
of interests are so obvious, it is hard to believe
that you have any shame at all. But apparently
you do not.
For your own sake, plesase consider another very long stay
at the nearest mental-health facility. I'm sure every
mental-health care specialist would suggest the same thing!!
As usual, you understand your needs by projecting them on others.
In article <hD67b.92692$Ay2.21766982@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
fArtie, you just have got to do a better job of hiding your tracks, or
leave
Usenet altogether. A bot of Googling shjows that you are still a liar
after
all of these years...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:l417b.19108$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for
posting
an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being dropped
from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Not so, plagiarizer. It was started by someone else, and, of course, they
were a bit annoyed.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C139216D5
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor and
would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Au contraire! MANY people complained about your giving medical advice.
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
You left out my favorite:
http://richard.frager.aka.art.wholeflapper.pieceofshit.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 01:56:13 PM |
|
|
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:qOo7b.19291$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100%
accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
Say whatever you want. At least I had the honesty to acknoweldge what I was
doing, and post the reasons, which you conveniently avoid addressing.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
See above.
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
Wrong. Aracnet dumped you for impersonating a doctor and, when given the
opportunity to prove your claim, you put your tail between your legs and
went back to your shack.
How many other ridiculous stunts you have pulled
you only know, but the number must be very large.
Sure.
No wonder everybody considers you a
total crack-pot. Getting support from
you is a total contradiction.
You do not know the meaning of support, and have never posted one message in
any support group which was supportive. You are one of usenet's biggest
jokes.
Please consider re-admitting yourself
for another long-term stay at their nearest
insane asylum. I assure you your presence
will not be missed here, even by other
nut-cases.
Still cannot take responsibility for what you did, eh,
Dickie/Jerry/PhoneyDoc/WholeFarter?
it was YOUR behavior that provoked many people to complain
to your ISPs in several newsgroups. Look at what the Aracnet sysadmin
said.
Of course, that would require that you understand facts, a skill you have
yet to demonstrate.
Thanks again for confirming to anybody who is paying
attention (and that must be very few) that you are
a grade A lunatic, who is so delusional, you can't tell
the difference between reality and your own fantasies.
That is the Mother of Self Referential Statements.
This is why the real posters in this newsgroup
counter almost everything you write. Your conflict
of interests are so obvious, it is hard to believe
that you have any shame at all. But apparently
you do not.
For your own sake, plesase consider another very long stay
at the nearest mental-health facility. I'm sure every
mental-health care specialist would suggest the same thing!!
As usual, you understand your needs by projecting them on others.
In article <hD67b.92692$Ay2.21766982@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
fArtie, you just have got to do a better job of hiding your tracks, or
leave
Usenet altogether. A bot of Googling shjows that you are still a liar
after
all of these years...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:l417b.19108$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <94H6b.55172$Ay2.15224425@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
Incurring the wrath of the Washington Post legal department for
posting
an
article of their, but altering its meaning (resulted in being
dropped
from
an ISP).
Something that you and your pals Parsons and Palmer started,
which came to nothing. Although it was a nice try,
but you failed again!
Not so, plagiarizer. It was started by someone else, and, of course,
they
were a bit annoyed.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C139216D5
Being dropped from an ISP because he impersonated a medical doctor
and
would
not provide proof of his claim to be one.
Wrong, something else you initiated!!
Au contraire! MANY people complained about your giving medical advice.
Being dropped by and ISP for being a deadbeat.
Wrong. This was a plan of mine to see if you would
copy it, and you did!!
Oh, did I mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
Yes, I did mention
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.html
You left out my favorite:
http://richard.frager.aka.art.wholeflapper.pieceofshit.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 04:09:05 PM |
|
|
In article <hnp7b.126063$Ay2.25997125@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:qOo7b.19291$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100%
accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
Say whatever you want. At least I had the honesty to acknoweldge what I was
doing, and post the reasons, which you conveniently avoid addressing.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
See above.
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
Wrong.
RIGHT. You infiltrated a women's self-help group, denied it,
admitted to it, denied it, admitted to it, denied it, and
then was exposed (once again) as a total lunatic.
Isn't that right - is it Mark or Marla this time??
And you kept writing and writing and writing my server,
myself and calling my office over and over again. You left
them no choice but to cut me off. I had to change
e-mail addresses anyway so you would quit flooding them
with spam. Although your cult still posted phony posts
with my name to deviant newsgroups, the kind I would
guess you and Parson frequent quite often.
Now making up facts does NOT change those facts Mark,
although I'm sure you would like them to, but again, they do
NOT.
What worries me is if you really believe your lies
and you so delusional that you can't tell the difference
between fantasy and reality.
It is obvious you snapped somewhere, perhaps it
was PTSS or perhaps some undiagnosed psychosis.
If I was the only one that was saying this, you could
dismiss it, but it should be very clear to you that
something is horribly wrong with you.
Please consider another very long-term stay
at a mental-health clinic. This is some great advice
you Must be hearing all the time now.
snipped to clean up the threat!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 04:30:00 PM |
|
|
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Rjr7b.19331$cJ5.2645@www.newsranger.com...
In article <hnp7b.126063$Ay2.25997125@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:qOo7b.19291$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100%
accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
Say whatever you want. At least I had the honesty to acknoweldge what I
was
doing, and post the reasons, which you conveniently avoid addressing.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
See above.
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
Wrong.
RIGHT. You infiltrated a women's self-help group, denied it,
admitted to it, denied it, admitted to it, denied it, and
then was exposed (once again) as a total lunatic.
OK, let's either put up or shut up?
I have documented my assertions about you. Now is your chance to rid usenet
of me (not really, but, since you are dealing delusionally, I figured one
more cannot hurt).
You have claimed that I denied attempting to infiltrate that sick woman's
group.
Please post the URL of that post. Since you claim to be a superior being,
you should not have a hard time finding one of the times you allege that I
did so.
Do not return until you have found it and are ready to post it.
Bye.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
09 Sep 2003 08:19:44 PM |
|
|
In article <sDr7b.128856$Ay2.26457540@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Rjr7b.19331$cJ5.2645@www.newsranger.com...
In article <hnp7b.126063$Ay2.25997125@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:qOo7b.19291$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100%
accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
Say whatever you want. At least I had the honesty to acknoweldge what I
was
doing, and post the reasons, which you conveniently avoid addressing.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
See above.
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
Wrong.
RIGHT. You infiltrated a women's self-help group, denied it,
admitted to it, denied it, admitted to it, denied it, and
then was exposed (once again) as a total lunatic.
OK, let's either put up or shut up?
I have documented my assertions about you.
No, you have not, nor can you, they are made
out of whole cloth.
Secondly, I didn't go off like a lunatic
and infiltrate a women's self-help group,
call servers up constantly, post phony
posts with my name on them, etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, if you have any question, contact
Ilena Rose, she'll fill you in if your memory fails you.
I'm sure these posts are read by a grand total
of what, 5 people at most.
Not only that, these are groups about SUPPORT,
a simple concept you fail to grasp. Unless support
means abusive and harassment, which obviously you
feel it does, you should look up the word.
I will help you (once again!) support means aid,
assistance, help, relief. I trust that helps,
Mark, or is it still Marla??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
10 Sep 2003 08:28:13 AM |
|
|
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Q_u7b.19345$cJ5.2633@www.newsranger.com...
In article <sDr7b.128856$Ay2.26457540@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:Rjr7b.19331$cJ5.2645@www.newsranger.com...
In article <hnp7b.126063$Ay2.25997125@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:qOo7b.19291$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100%
accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the
old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
Say whatever you want. At least I had the honesty to acknoweldge what
I
was
doing, and post the reasons, which you conveniently avoid addressing.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
See above.
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
Wrong.
RIGHT. You infiltrated a women's self-help group, denied it,
admitted to it, denied it, admitted to it, denied it, and
then was exposed (once again) as a total lunatic.
OK, let's either put up or shut up?
I have documented my assertions about you.
No, you have not, nor can you, they are made
out of whole cloth.
Wrong. I posted the links. You are a liar.
Secondly, I didn't go off like a lunatic
and infiltrate a women's self-help group,
There was no lunacy about it, and my reasons were clearly posted.
call servers up constantly, post phony
posts with my name on them, etc. etc. etc.
I never called up a server or posted anything with your name on it. I could
not possibly think like you to be able to pull that off.
Anyway, if you have any question, contact
Ilena Rose, she'll fill you in if your memory fails you.
No need, as my memory is 100%.
I'm sure these posts are read by a grand total
of what, 5 people at most.
Hopefully, no one, nit wit.
Not only that, these are groups about SUPPORT,
a simple concept you fail to grasp. Unless support
means abusive and harassment, which obviously you
feel it does, you should look up the word.
You would not know how to post a supportive message. If you disagree, post
the URL of one that you have posted.
I will help you (once again!) support means aid,
assistance, help, relief. I trust that helps,
Mark, or is it still Marla??
As I have said, you have never posted one word of support.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
11 Sep 2003 09:22:17 AM |
|
|
In article <NFF7b.135632$Ay2.29685056@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Q_u7b.19345$cJ5.2633@www.newsranger.com...
In article <sDr7b.128856$Ay2.26457540@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:Rjr7b.19331$cJ5.2645@www.newsranger.com...
In article <hnp7b.126063$Ay2.25997125@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:qOo7b.19291$cJ5.2594@www.newsranger.com...
In article <xpk7b.115078$Ay2.25017204@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Mark
Probert
says...
"Sir Arthur CBE Wholeflaffers ASA" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message
news:9Ad7b.19205$cJ5.2550@www.newsranger.com...
Proby, all you are doing is proving everything I write is 100%
accurate.
All those so-called incidents were all provoked by you and
your Cult, including Parsons and Palmer. The amount of time
you spent on that and still do must be astronomical. But as the
old
saying goes, "You can't argue with a sick mind" and yours is
beyond repair!!
Listen, stupid,
That's rich coming from you, Mark, or should I say Marla.
Say whatever you want. At least I had the honesty to acknoweldge what
I
was
doing, and post the reasons, which you conveniently avoid addressing.
What is it with you, first you infiltrate a women's self-help group,
then you are caught and you still deny it; then you come clean
with some bogus excuse about helping women. Huh?
See above.
Before that you constantly hounded my server with some bogus
charges that you made up. They said they were sorry
to cut me loose, but you interrupted their
day to day business.
Wrong.
RIGHT. You infiltrated a women's self-help group, denied it,
admitted to it, denied it, admitted to it, denied it, and
then was exposed (once again) as a total lunatic.
OK, let's either put up or shut up?
I have documented my assertions about you.
No, you have not, nor can you, they are made
out of whole cloth.
Wrong. I posted the links. You are a liar.
No, you are the liar, Marla.
It has been well documented how you infiltrated
a women's self-help group. That's sad :,<!
Have you apologized to Ilena Rose yet.
If not, please consider doing so know,
and to everybody who has sat through
your twisted ramblings.
And you need to apologize for calling my
server 100 times and initiating your
other twisted maneuvers. That could
be a strong signal that you are ready in
your recovery.
It is obvious you are not well,
perhaps it is PTST, maybe it
is you are just plain crackers.
Either way, nobody takes you seriously at all.
Can you blame them??
Secondly, I didn't go off like a lunatic
and infiltrate a women's self-help group,
There was no lunacy about it, and my reasons were clearly posted.
call servers up constantly, post phony
posts with my name on them, etc. etc. etc.
I never called up a server or posted anything with your name on it. I could
not possibly think like you to be able to pull that off.
Anyway, if you have any question, contact
Ilena Rose, she'll fill you in if your memory fails you.
No need, as my memory is 100%.
I'm sure these posts are read by a grand total
of what, 5 people at most.
Hopefully, no one, nit wit.
Not only that, these are groups about SUPPORT,
a simple concept you fail to grasp. Unless support
means abusive and harassment, which obviously you
feel it does, you should look up the word.
You would not know how to post a supportive message. If you disagree, post
the URL of one that you have posted.
I will help you (once again!) support means aid,
assistance, help, relief. I trust that helps,
Mark, or is it still Marla??
As I have said, you have never posted one word of support.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
06 Sep 2003 01:19:31 PM |
|
|
In article <8LGdnWha8aTIk8eiRTvUrg@ilhawaii.net>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to debunk, and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
06 Sep 2003 04:51:32 PM |
|
|
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <8LGdnWha8aTIk8eiRTvUrg@ilhawaii.net>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to debunk,
and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 09:17:14 AM |
|
|
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote in message
news:CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <8LGdnWha8aTIk8eiRTvUrg@ilhawaii.net>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to debunk,
and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
Yes, Davey-poo...
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: (")dE-'b&[ng]k
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923
: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>
- de·bunk·er noun
So, do you have a real point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 11:30:54 AM |
|
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:K5H6b.55186$Ay2.15230397@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote in message
news:CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <8LGdnWha8aTIk8eiRTvUrg@ilhawaii.net>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to
debunk,
and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
Yes, Davey-poo...
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: (")dE-'b&[ng]k
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923
: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>
- de·bunk·er noun
So, do you have a real point?
No, but you prove that you don't require one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Probert" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
08 Sep 2003 08:52:03 AM |
|
|
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote in message
news:Z2J6b.141$Nx6.31862@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:K5H6b.55186$Ay2.15230397@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote in message
news:CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <8LGdnWha8aTIk8eiRTvUrg@ilhawaii.net>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
Well, Josh, there can be no debunkers if there is no bunkum to
debunk,
and
you excrete copious bunkum for our mill.
--Rich --> Proud to be a debunker.
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it
around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of
praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
Yes, Davey-poo...
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: (")dE-'b&[ng]k
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923
: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>
- de·bunk·er noun
So, do you have a real point?
No, but you prove that you don't require one.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that the best you can do? (Answer: YES!)
Now, threaten me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
06 Sep 2003 09:47:01 PM |
|
|
In article <CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
I know exactly what it means. Do you?
P.S. Debunking your stuff is too easy, because you use transparent
***** like claiming to exist on a "higher plane" as an excuse not to
produce evidence to support your advocacy of various "alternative"
medical therapies. I need more of a challenge these days, someone who
can at least make it look like they know what they're talking about.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 11:29:43 AM |
|
|
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-72C2B9.22470106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
I know exactly what it means. Do you?
P.S. Debunking your stuff is too easy, because you use transparent
***** like claiming to exist on a "higher plane" as an excuse not to
produce evidence to support your advocacy of various "alternative"
medical therapies. I need more of a challenge these days, someone who
can at least make it look like they know what they're talking about.
LOL. Oh, right!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 12:13:41 PM |
|
|
In article <S1J6b.136$Nx6.31715@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-72C2B9.22470106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you knew
what it meant!!
I know exactly what it means. Do you?
P.S. Debunking your stuff is too easy, because you use transparent
***** like claiming to exist on a "higher plane" as an excuse not to
produce evidence to support your advocacy of various "alternative"
medical therapies. I need more of a challenge these days, someone who
can at least make it look like they know what they're talking about.
LOL. Oh, right!!
Give me a real challenge, show some real evidence instead of using the
excuse that you exist on a "higher plane" as a means of avoiding debate,
and see.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Shewmaker" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 12:19:52 PM |
|
|
--
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-FE1C27.13134107092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <S1J6b.136$Nx6.31715@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-72C2B9.22470106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it
around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of
praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for
example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you
knew
what it meant!!
I know exactly what it means. Do you?
P.S. Debunking your stuff is too easy, because you use transparent
***** like claiming to exist on a "higher plane" as an excuse not
to
produce evidence to support your advocacy of various "alternative"
medical therapies. I need more of a challenge these days, someone who
can at least make it look like they know what they're talking about.
LOL. Oh, right!!
Give me a real challenge, show some real evidence instead of using the
excuse that you exist on a "higher plane" as a means of avoiding debate,
and see.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
I doubt seriously that any evidence whatsoever exists that ginseng
preparations are effective in the treatment of emphysema, except, of course,
Dave's one pathetic testimonial. Its would be an interesting subject to
study, however. Perhaps Dave could hire a grant writer and get a study
funded by the NIH.
;o) Rich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Debunkers' Last Stand or Good Riddance to Bad Bad Debunker Rubbish |
07 Sep 2003 12:57:01 PM |
|
|
In article <bYednYETzfNY9MaiRTvUqQ@ilhawaii.net>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
--
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-FE1C27.13134107092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <S1J6b.136$Nx6.31715@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-72C2B9.22470106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <CFs6b.14889$Kj.1595480@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-6F62B5.14193106092003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
As am I. I could never understand why alties consider the term
"debunker" to be such an insult (judge by the way they toss it
around
with such contempt). I consider it one of the highest forms of
praise.
"Debunking" pseudoscience (and pseudo history, such as, for
example,
Holocaust denial) is an honorable calling.L
LOL. Yes I'm sure you would be proud to be a debunker if only you
knew
what it meant!!
I know exactly what it means. Do you?
P.S. Debunking your stuff is too easy, because you use transparent
***** like claiming to exist on a "higher plane" as an excuse not
to
produce evidence to support your advocacy of various "alternative"
medical therapies. I need more of a challenge these days, someone who
can at least make it look like they know what they're talking about.
LOL. Oh, right!!
Give me a real challenge, show some real evidence instead of using the
excuse that you exist on a "higher plane" as a means of avoiding debate,
and see.
I doubt seriously that any evidence whatsoever exists that ginseng
preparations are effective in the treatment of emphysema, except, of course,
Dave's one pathetic testimonial.
Particularly since his quitting smoking after 43 years was very likely
the biggest factor in the improvement of his COPD.
Its would be an interesting subject to
study, however.
It might well be. Although I frequently try to debunk a lot of altie
nonsense here, I've always maintained one principle: That I believe that
"alternative" and "conventional" treatments should be treated more or
less the same. That means altie treatments that have been shown to be
effective in well-designed experimental and clinical studies should be
used and those that fail such studies should be discarded. Alties forget
that the default in science is that we assume a new substance doesn't
work until it is shown by rigorous studies that it does work. Right now,
altie medicine actually has an advantage over conventional medicine in
some ways: They can make all sorts of claims but don't seem to have to
back them up. There is no control or oversight of the purity or activity
of herbal remedies and dietary supplements.
That's why this stuff needs to be studied scientifically.
Perhaps Dave could hire a grant writer and get a study
funded by the NIH.
Well, there actually are a fair number of scientists presently studying
ginseng extracts. A MEDLINE search I did pulled up around 1,700
scientific articles on ginseng since the early 1980's, which is one
indication that it's utter ***** when alties whine that scientists
and conventional doctors aren't interested in this stuff. I also found
one article by an Israeli group in 2002 suggesting that Ginseng might
help pulmonary function in moderate- | | | | | | | | |
