Re: Johnny Huang STILL Can NOT Answer


"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

<snip Mark's pathetic diversion>

Cue Richard H Jacobson to Cue Jan
>
>
>> "Johnny Huang" <johnny_huang_2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1126185331.814375.283650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>And am I the only one to notice that she has now apparently decided
>>>that Rich Shewmaker is Aloha Rich? They both come from Hawaii so they
>>>must be the same person.
>>>
>>>No, I noticed it, too.
>>
>>
>> Let's see just *where* both of you noticed it.
>>
>> Now don't forget to answer, that means *both* of you.
>>
>> At first, I thought they were the same person
>>
>>>because of Jan's replies.
>>
>>
>> Do post these EXACT replies.
>>
>> Now don't forget to answer.
>>
>> You list keeps growing.
>>
>>>Why does she think that everyone she disagrees with is the same person?
>>
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>>
>>>Is she really that sick or is this just her way of insulting people who
>>>disagree with her?
>>
>>
>> You mean sick like this?
>>
>> >I don't know what is wrong with Jan, but I wish she would choke to
>>
>>>death on her anger
>>
>>
>>
>> I see you are still eager to talk about me.
>>
>> Still waiting for you to answer.
>>
>> You list keeps growing.
>>
>>
>>>I think that if anyone is paid to post here, it must be her. Nobody
>>>posts are often
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It that right?
>>
>> Have you counted everyones' posts?
>>
>>
>> Don't forget to answer.
>>
>>
>> and nobody does as much harm to the cause of
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>alternative medicine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Be specific.
>>
>> Do show us exactly what your opinion is of how I have harm the cause of
>> alternative medicine.
>>
>>
>> Now don't forget to answer.
>>
>>
>> You are falling behind on your list.
>>
>>
>> Here it is again.
>>
>>
>> I wonder why you post so frequently yet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>so seldom discuss alternative medicine.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't say?
>>
>> You wouldn't wonder that about, say, Mark Probert? Richard H Jacobson?
>> Mark
>> Thorson? Or any of your buddies, would you Teddy? Now don't forget to
>> answer.
>>
>>
>> After you answer that, could you show us exactly where there were any
>> words
>> of harm, rage and wrath, and shameful behavior in this thread?
>>
>>
>> Now don't forget to answer.
>>
>>
>> Did I mention, not to forget to answer?
>>
>>
>> I'll wait.
>>
>> I guarantee 99.9999999% Richard H Jacobson PROVEN cyberstalker will reply
>> to this post with more of his lies. see below.
>>
>> Note he says many of the EXACT SAME THINGS about this poster as he says
>> about me.He was the same trouble maker then also. Somethings never
>> change. This was back in 1995. OH YES, he is a PROVEN CYBERSTALKER.
>>
>> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
>> From: richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
>> author
>> Date: 1995/06/23
>> Subject: Re: My new flaming policy
>> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
>> original | Report Abuse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>In Article <3s6rs0$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) writes:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>to religious fanatacism. Yes people who repeatedly try to call
>>>>for harmony are VERY dangerous people. It always amazes
>>>>me how one interprets behavior of others. But all these different
>>>>opinions make for interesting discussion. As far as being a "self-
>>>>appointed good guy" I realize that I have faults just like the rest
>>>>of us. But I am certainly intrigued by this effort to kind of
>>>>turn the tables back on me.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>Rich,
>>>I only find it scary how easy it is for you to question someone's
>>>characer on the basis of the communication here - question it as
>>>seriously as calling them dangerous.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes Margot I could certainly understand how you could be surprised
>> at my questioning a person's character just on the basis of
>> what is posted here. While it is certainly true that a face to face
>> meeting with someone might provide a more definitive judge of
>> character IMO based upon what Paul has written AND the nature
>> of his responses I would definitely say that he could be a VERY
>> dangerous character indeed. Let me explain. For those who have
>> followed Paul's responses to people who question or challenge
>> him it appears clear that #1 he is extremely sensitive to
>> criticism and reacts in a verbally violent way to even mild
>> challenges #2 he manipulates the English language to avoid
>> being wrong at all costs #3 he has made physically threatening
>> remarks to me #4 he demonstrates a rigidity and paranoia where
>> he feels very threatened. These qualities manifested by his post,
>> while not absolute proof in any sense, do SUGGEST that he
>> has the capability of being quite dangerous. Not to mention how
>> he, without seeing or evaluating a patient can give dogmatic
>> advice often telling them to avoid a conventional doctor. Some
>> of the things that Paul suggested could be downright dangerous
>> especially with regard to stopping steroids that may be life saving.
>> Paul tries to rigidly adhere to a system of healing and excludes
>> anything physiologic or anatomic that challenges it.
>>
>> Moreover, what puts you into
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>the category of opinion-manipulator (and fanatic) to me is that
>>>you are attempting to challenge someone in a field of his expertise,
>>>after having demonstrated that you are not knowledgeable in the
>>>field.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I am not knowledgeable in herbals I AM knowledgeable
>> in conventional medicine and if you could find a single error
>> in any of my posts regarding anatomy, physiology or
>> pharmacology please feel free to challenge me. I welcome
>> intelligent challenges based upon literature. Whenever I ask
>> for any validation of what Paul says he blows me and other
>> people off with his insults. His suggestion to use diuretics
>> to treat BPH is downright wrong as I am many others have
>> stated. If you choose to believe him Margot go right ahead.
>> We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
>>
>> Only one TCM- person here ever challenged Paul professionally,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>others have commented on his high level of knowledge a number of times.
>>>And you go and scream "soandso proved you wrong - I *knew* all along
>>>a guy with your attitude can be no good" - or to the same effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> When did I say "I knew right along" or anything of that sort. I knew
>> when Paul first posted about diuretics for BPH that he was giving
>> bad advice and I posted the reasons for this.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am one of those readers who *did* decide for themselves, Rich. I take
>>>an argumentative *knowledgeable*
>>
>>
>>
>> I respect you for your opinion but respectfully disagree. Paul is VERY
>> good at convincing people that he has special knowledge and certainly
>> he knows his herbs. There is a big difference between knowing herbs
>> and knowing how to apply them to human illnesses. His rigid adherence
>> to his theory prevents him from seeing any other point of view. I am
>> open to hearing the other side. Paul will not give the information
>> however. If you ask me to give you information to verify what I am
>> saying I will be glad to.
>>
>> person anytime over the empty 'agree to
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>disagree' thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well what do you suggest Margot that we beat each other to a pulp. If
>> we don't agree to disagree then what shall we do. I certainly am
>> not going to agree with something that I believe is not right. What
>> would YOU do???
>>
>> There are moments in life when only one thing can be
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>done, decisions have to be made and no one can agree to disagree then.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are quite right. I was just saying that we could agree to disagree
>> about our opinions. How do you resolve arguments Margot when
>> you think one thing and the other person thinks another. Do you
>> give in to the other person? I don't if I feel I am right. So we could
>> agree to disagree about using diuretics for BPH. Paul will give it
>> to his patient, I would not so we agree to disagree. Does that make
>> sense Margot.
>>
>>
>>>>From the traffic in the newsgroup *I* have gotten a favourable impression
>>
>>>of Paul - you have not. Strange how two people can view the same
>>>situation
>>>and reach different conclusions, isn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not strange at all. You like many alternatavists have likely made up
>> your mind about conventional medicine and alternatives so of course
>> you are going to view things differently. How anyone could have a
>> favorable impression of Paul however does stretch the limits of
>> my comprehension especially considering his extremely abrasive manner
>> in speaking to people who are just trying to have a simple discussion.
>> I tried to communicate with Paul respectfully at first and then
>> realized that respect does not work with Paul. The only thing that
>> works for Paul is if you agree with him. So Margot, he has a real
>> friend in you and you don't have to worry about Paul being abusive
>> to you. You have figured out how to make Paul happy and he has
>> found a true friend indeed. And the way he communicates with
>> people he could use all the friends he could get.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
>> From: l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Judith A. Linn) - Find messages by this
>> author
>> Date: 1995/06/23
>> Subject: Re: Reflections on dyscommunication
>> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
>> original | Report Abuse
>>
>>
>>
>> Aloha Rich Writes: (edited)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>. This
>>>individual clearly is responsible for the great majority
>>>of posts in this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> I gave enough stats to show that this delusion was wrong.
>> The person Aloha Rich refers to posted approx. 10% of the posts.
>> Steve Harris also posted just about the same amount of posts.
>>
>>
>>
>>>He also seems most
>>>responsible for inhibiting the opinion of those who
>>>don't agree with him. Some of you like this poster
>>>and feel that he is knowledgeable and has much
>>>to offer. It is understandable why you feel this way.
>>>He seems to know what he is talking about and
>>>he never is wrong (at least never admits it).
>>
>>
>> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
>> From: haga...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Deborah A. Hagar) - Find
>> messages by this author
>> Date: 1995/06/23
>> Subject: Re: Reflections on dyscommunication
>> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
>> original | Report Abuse
>>
>> In article j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Judith A.
>> Linn) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Aloha Rich Writes: (edited)
>>
>>
>>
>>>>. This
>>>>individual clearly is responsible for the great majority
>>>>of posts in this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I gave enough stats to show that this delusion was wrong.
>>>The person Aloha Rich refers to posted approx. 10% of the posts.
>>>Steve Harris also posted just about the same amount of posts.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>He also seems most
>>>>responsible for inhibiting the opinion of those who
>>>>don't agree with him. Some of you like this poster
>>>>and feel that he is knowledgeable and has much
>>>>to offer. It is understandable why you feel this way.
>>>>He seems to know what he is talking about and
>>>>he never is wrong (at least never admits it).
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have seen several retractions from PI>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>There is a certain charisma to the posts which obviously
>>>>is attractive to some.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Please don't project motivations etc on to me. This statement is not
>>>true for me.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Beware of those who make claims that they
>>>>never have any failures in their treatments.
>>
>>
>>
>>>NOne of the homeopaths that posted here have said that. I even posted a
>>>series of reasons why homeopathy might not work in an individual
>>>situation (the majority of the problems were with the homeopath.
>>>I also don't remember any person saying that any particular modality
>>>was perfect.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Everyone has an idea of why we are having
>>>>such a problem in the group. The best way
>>>>is to look longitudinally at the problem and
>>>>see if there is a common thread. People
>>>>have come and gone. Not much has changed.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The most serious problem in the last year was with DS. Andas a group we
>>>are beginning to recover from that. None of the other "minor" flame
>>>wars or counterpoint discussion could match that exchange. If you
>>>haven't noticed Aloha Rich, even most of the other counterpoint has
>>>been rather quiet. (Not counting the so-called philosophical discussion
>>>about drugs.)
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I will be leaving soon and although many feel
>>>>that I am the cause of the problem when I leave
>>>>things will likely remain the same. Each of you
>>>>needs to ask yourself why. If the answer is
>>>>the conventionalists who ask for validation
>>>>that calls into serious question the alternative
>>>>paradigm which cannot hold up to critical
>>>>analysis.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Doesn't seem to have been the main thrust of your dialogue until
>>>recently when you changed character.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>If I have offended anyone by my remarks I do
>>>>apologize. Many of my comments have been
>>>>rather biting and sarcastic. It certainly has been
>>>>an interesting experience for me to say the least.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mostly got to be too repeative and boring.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors
>>>>and in health matters.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I plan to take a leave of absence for a while
>>>
>>>>from the group. I will return some day to see
>>>
>>>>how things have changed or have not. I plan
>>>>to replace the thirty to forty five minutes a day
>>
>>
>>
>>>I suspect that you spent a lot more time than this. Check your clock.
>>>The amount of your typing had to take that long. What about the reading
>>>and thinking?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Judith, I agree. I've asked several questions in this newsgroup,
>> and Rich always has to respond, mostly negatively, and at great
>> length. I will be glad to see him go, since he never really told
>> me anything but how wrong I was. Since I've never made any claims
>> to understanding the treatments that have worked, I am less than
>> impressed.
>>
>> Maybe we can now get on to the real questions.
>>
>>
>>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Johnny Huang is MOST SILENT on Answering Questions
    ... > posts if I need to report her. ... > that Rich Shewmaker is Aloha Rich? ... of the things that Paul suggested could be downright dangerous ... I respect you for your opinion but respectfully disagree. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Johnny Huang STILL Can NOT Answer
    ... > that Rich Shewmaker is Aloha Rich? ... Have you counted everyones' posts? ... of the things that Paul suggested could be downright dangerous ... I respect you for your opinion but respectfully disagree. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Johnny Huang STILL Can NOT Answer
    ... >>>that Rich Shewmaker is Aloha Rich? ... >> Have you counted everyones' posts? ... >> of the things that Paul suggested could be downright dangerous ... >> I respect you for your opinion but respectfully disagree. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Susan Is Pathetic
    ... > Rich Shewmaker is Aloha Rich? ... Have you counted everyones' posts? ... of the things that Paul suggested could be downright dangerous ... I respect you for your opinion but respectfully disagree. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Johnny Huang STILL Can NOT Answer
    ... that Rich Shewmaker is Aloha Rich? ... While it is certainly true that a face to face meeting with someone might provide a more definitive judge of character IMO based upon what Paul has written AND the nature of his responses I would definitely say that he could be a VERY dangerous character indeed. ... in any of my posts regarding anatomy, physiology or pharmacology please feel free to challenge me. ... The person Aloha Rich refers to posted approx. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)