Re: Susan Is Pathetic


"cathyb" <cathybeesley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>
> LadyLollipop wrote:
> <snip Lollicrap>

Translation:

snip what exposes my buddies lies, false accusations, failure to answer,
diversions,and patterns of behavior

<snip usual belittling>

Restored:

With a *new* and different addition of Richard H Jacobson pattern.

Warning, do NOT tell him anything in private e-mail, he will be happy to
share with the entire newsgroup

Sdores" <sdo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8LdUe.7917$Tn6.6936@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLolli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:uC2Ue.335367$xm3.40160@xxxxxxxxxxxx


> <snip>


>> I did not know that, but that it a great idea. Do that
>> Johnny!!!!!!!!!!!!!


> You kept calling him Ted and now since he posted about a phone call you
> are calling him Johnny, WHY???? (extra question marks for Jan)



NO particular reason, Susan

He said the



> person who called asked for Ted, amazingly like you were calling him.


He said a lot of things, his list keeps growing. He has NOT been able to
answer a SINGLE claim he has made, Susan!!!!!!(extra exclamation marks for
Susan)

I didn't, for the record say that you were the caller and only said that



> stalking people was something that the FBI takes seriously, you are the
> one that assumed I was speaking of you.


Sure, Susan, sure.

Your name was in the subject line but that doesn't put it in my words.


Uh huh, Susan.


The out side activity and always trying to find out personal information
about people is what is disturbing to me.


You are pathetic, Susan. You thought nothing of *impersonation* which is a
criminal offense, now you are in an uproar over a *reported* telephone call,
by a liar and *insulter* who cannot answer questions.


And your slamming me with your nasty responses brings to mind, "sticks and



> stones".


Right backatcha, Susan.

UM MOM Susan, and I don't give a damn who's mother you are that is



> not what my sign off means.


I know what your sign off says.

Sorry that ONCE AGAIN, you focus seems to be on me.


Very telling you prefer to overlook the below.



"Johnny Huang" <johnny_huang_2...@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.

==

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1995/06/14
Subject: Re: incessant flaming wasRe: Ecstasy. Anyone hear
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse






p_iann...@xxxxxxx (Paul Iannone) wrote:
>In message ID <3rkh9f$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 6/13/95, aimee c
>robbins
><airob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>: >Get your FAQs straight. Do some research. This chemical is
>: >
>: >I can point you in the direction of the case studies or to
>: >knowledgeable researchers. Don't just shoot off your mouth
>: >about nonexistent "lumbar pain."
>: >
>: >
>:
>:
>: Is it impossible for you guys to rename your posts once you turn them
>: into flame wars (which you all insist on doing with every single post
>: that comes in!) Some of us who are looking for answers are weary of
>: reading the drivel which spews forth from the lot of you. If you wish
>: to flame--fine! We may even enjoy reading it, but PLEASE name it first!
>: BTW does anyone know of a real alternative health newsgroup where
>: information can actually be obtained?
>:
>: Aimee
>Try not to be so fragile. Thanks for quoting this--I forgot to respond to
>this.
>Lumbar pain has been observed with Kidney Depletion for 3,000 years. Now,
>because you love your drugs and wish to believe they have no downside, you
>have
>decided they do 'nothing' bad for you.


No one said they LOVE drugs and no one said that drugs have no
downside. Unfortunately your binary dichotomous thinking prevents
you from seeing anything in terms other than black and white.
Drugs CAN be helpful. Drugs CAN have adverse side effects. These
two statements come with qualifiers Paul. Do you understand what
a qualifier is? It means that things are not only black and white. If
I don't agree with something that you say this does NOT mean that
I think you are a stupid idiot. It just means I disagree with you
about a particular thing. With all due respect Paul, you are so
defensive that anytime someone criticizes you take it
as an atomic attack on your person and become defensive
paranoid and irrational as evidenced by your obscene rantings.
Your inability to tolerate others having different opinions or
world views is so extreme as to make one wonder how you
can ever be happy in this world. It must be so incredibly
frustrating for you to see yourself as this special healer
and have so few people acknowledge it. It must be
frustrating for you to live in a world where you feel only
special people could understand you. And none of those
special people seem to be responding to you in this
newsgroup. And I doubt if you are doing much better
in your life away from the internet. Get some professional
help to spare yourself of this unnecessary pain. Admit
your problems? No shame in having a problem. Denying
the problem however could be very serious.

Aloha,


Rich


Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1995/06/09
Subject: Re: Who licences healers?, was Re: Wanted: Herbal
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse



p_iann...@xxxxxxx (Paul Iannone) wrote:
>In message ID <3r7711$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 6/8/95, Richard Jacobson
><r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>: My primary
>: concern in this newsgroup is that as a result of certain people
>: who monopolize the discussion with what they think is the absolute
>: truth that REAL discussion does not occur. It is unfortunate.
>You would prefer massive infusions of non-alternative truths to bury the
>less
>easily demonstrated alternatives. Nice sheep's clothing--was it on sale?


Yes Paul I realize that you assume that I am suggesting this. Not at
all. What I am suggesting is simply to remember that none of us
has the final say on the truth about healing and to post our
opinions with this in mind. I have absolutely no problem with
people sharing information about alternative ideas. The difficulty
I DO have is those who come across as having the gospel
truth and then saying "I am not interested in proof".



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>: One of my personality characteristics is tenaciousness and not
>: giving up easily. Sometimes it is difficult for me to acept
>: certain things but this newsgroup and
>: discussion has really helped me explore my own issues and has been
>: helpful in
>: that sense. I appreciate your comments and observations.
>:
>: : P.S. I also thought you might want to re-read this recent post of
>yours
>:
>: : >Yes Judith I realize that you think that my responses and "behavior
>: : >pattern" are similar to Paul's. If you read my posts carefully you
>: : >will notice that I rarely will definitively say anything about
>: : >anything.
>:
>: : Hmmm
>:
>: : ******************************­************************
>:
>:
>: My point was that there is very litle if anything that I know for
>: sure and always try to keep this in mind. If I have given the
>: impression otherwise it was not intentional.
>:
>: Aloha,
>Yes, Rich, on this we can agree. You have next to no expertise to bring to
>your
>posts, and they consequently fall unerringly on the conventional side. You
>fail
>to do basic research on the subjects you crap all over, and have a
>DragonSlayerish tendency to turn a theoretical discussion into an
>unpleasant
>meeting with Dr. Freud on coke.


I freely admit that I am not an expert. I try my best to read, listen
and understand. I try to respect others for their opinions. I however
have little respect for those who believe that they knowitall and
then abusively speak to others who have different opinions. It
is clear Paul that you don't think very much of conventional
medicine taking every opportunity to take pot shots at it (
while saying that you have no bone to pick with conventional
medicine). Have I EVER said that any of the suggestions that
you make are nonsense or garbage. I don't think so. I do
question the therapies but unfortunately you are unable to
tolerate any questions for validation. In fact you BLAME
ME for causing arguments simply because I ASK for validation.
Remember I don't deride your therapies as I do not understand
them. I respect that I don't know about them. I admit my
ignorance. I will keep searching for understanding. It is the nature
of the manner that you speak (the spirit as it were) that turns
me off to being interested in understanding your posts. Perhaps
it would behoove you to listen to those who compliment you
on your knowledge but criticize you for your hostility and
paranoia. It may be helpful to you to reflect on this.

Aloha,


Rich


Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1995/06/03
Subject: Re: Who licences healers?, was Re: Wanted: Herbal
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse





- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

p_iann...@xxxxxxx (Paul Iannone) wrote:
>In message ID <3qncfd$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 6/2/95, Richard Jacobson
><"richj
>"@pixi.com> wrote:
>: >Jill, you missed the fact that this had the force of a final salvo.
>: I am done >with Rich until he reads 'The Web That Has No Weaver,'
>: figures out the >difference between alternative healing and
>: conventional medicine, and stops >trying to make me out to be a
>sociopath.
>:
>: I realize Paul that you think that I am making you out to be a
>: sociopath but this is simply not the case. Perhaps you are
>: confusing me with another poster who frequently calls
>: you a sociopath. As I have said before I believe your problem
>: has to be with tremendous insecurity and an attempt to
>: convince people that you are a very special person
>: with very special healing abilities and become quite
>: angry when anyone challenges anything that you say
>: which leads to your becoming very demeaning toward
>: others. In my mind there is a huge difference between
>: sociopathy and pathologic narcissism. You seem to
>: be afflicted with the latter and not the former.
>:
>:
>: Aloha,
>:
>: Rich

>Jill, you missed the fact that this had the force of a final salvo. I am
>done
>with Rich until he reads 'The Web That Has No Weaver,' figures out the
>difference between alternative healing and conventional medicine, and stops
>trying to make me out to be a pathologic narcissist.
>--Paul || p_iann...@xxxxxxx
>--


I am certainly pleased to see the improvement in your comprehension
skills. Actually you are much better than I am in making yourself
look like a pathologic narcissist. Would not take a rocket scientist
to figure that out from reading a sampling of your posts.

Aloha,


Rich

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1995/06/04
Subject: Re: Who licences healers?, was Re: Wanted: Herbal
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse


l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Judith A. Linn) wrote:




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>In <3qncfd$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson)
>writes:

>>p_iann...@xxxxxxx (Paul Iannone) wrote:


>snipped
>>I realize Paul that you think that I am making you out to be a
>>sociopath but this is simply not the case. Perhaps you are
>>confusing me with another poster who frequently calls
>>you a sociopath. As I have said before I believe your problem
>>has to be with tremendous insecurity and an attempt to
>>convince people that you are a very special person
>>with very special healing abilities and become quite
>>angry when anyone challenges anything that you say
>>which leads to your becoming very demeaning toward
>>others. In my mind there is a huge difference between
>>sociopathy and pathologic narcissism. You seem to
>>be afflicted with the latter and not the former.


>>Aloha,


>>Rich
>Rich think about the three of you (Steve + Paul).....
>The behavior pattern is essentially the same. Take the analysis above
>the differences... look at what is the same.



Yes Judith I realize that you think that my responses and "behavior
pattern" are similar to Paul's. If you read my posts carefully you
will notice that I rarely will definitively say anything about
anything. The reason for this is that there is very little about this
world that I am absolutely certain of, a bit more that I have
reasonable certainty about and some that I don't have a clue
about. This is why is ASK QUESTIONS to get information
and that is why I am critical of those who claim to know everything
under the sun. Paul claims to know it all. If you could find posts
of mine where I purport to know everything please feel free to
post them. I think that if there are any they are far and few between.
Now read Paul's posts. If you don't see the difference between
the posts of Paul and me then that confirms in my mind the
importance of doing double blind studies and not rely on
simple observation because if you see my posts as being
similar to Paul's in the egomaniacal and narcissistic sense
then we really are reading them quite differently. But it
does not surprise me that you perceive it that way. With
the bias toward alternative ideology you can more easily
see the offensiveness of posters like DragonSlayer but
when it comes to Paul Iannone you seem to give him
some slack.

Aloha,


Rich


Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1995/06/07
Subject: Re: Who licences healers?, was Re: Wanted: Herbal
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse



Paul Iannone (p_iann...@xxxxxxx) wrote:


: In message ID <3qr2v3$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 6/3/95, Richard Jacobson
<"richj


: "@pixi.com> wrote:


: : l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Judith A. Linn) wrote:
: :
: : >Paul,
: : >The kind of dialogue you end up engaging in with these iconoclast
: : >wantabees takes away from what you have to offer.
: :
: : It is clear that some cannot tolerate questioning and requests
: : for some validation and interprets this as iconoclastic. It is
: : truly sad that we cannot have discussion here instead of
: : hurling insults.

: In order to have a discussion, DragonSlayer, there would have to be some
: knowledge on BOTH sides. You haven't bothered to inform yourself. Don't
you ever
: read any books? You have NEVER posted an original post, except for long
: moralizing panagyrics that resemble your usual pathethic ramble. The
: spell-checker hasn't helped. You are still critically BORING.


Yes Paul. I realize that you think that I am lacking in knowledge
and that YOU are not. I also realize that it must be incredibly
frustrating for you to discuss ideas with individuals who do not
agree with you or see things your way and that you see the basic
problem as ignorance, naivete on the part of OTHERS. Or perhaps
you believe that those who don't agree with you are just "in bed"
so to speak with FDA, AMA, and organzied conventional medicine.
It is VERY difficult for you to even consider the possibility that
your ideas may be incorrect as that would mean that you have
wasted all this time studying something that has limited validity
and therfore your life has little meaning. While I could certainly
understand the pain you must have felt in watching your father suffer
with his illness while being treated with conventional medicines
and how that was the major impetus for your looking into
alternative methods, that the intensity of your reaction makes it very
difficult for you to maintain much objectivity in looking at standard
medical
treatments and you have a strong need to "demonize" conventional medicine
at every chance (while simultaneously criticizing OTHERS for demonizing
your ideology). While I realize that my opinions are just that, it
is because I do think I understand you that I don't get offended
by your otherwise crude and insensitive remarks. Your pain must
be very great indeed. Hope you get some help to deal with it.


Aloha,


Rich



Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) - Find messages by this
author
Date: 1995/06/20
Subject: Re: My new flaming policy
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse




e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>In Article <3s3abm$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) writes:

>>Yes you had nothing at all to do with arguments started. It is all
>>Steve and my fault. DragonSlayer is a "she" by the way.
>Interesting information Rich - just how do you know? Do you know that
>person?
>Some people here on the newsgroup would appreciate it if you shared your
>insider information with us.
> margot



Sure I will be happy to share this information with you.
"DragonSlayer" privately e-mailed me a while back
when I first started posting. While I have never met
her and don't know this with absolute certainty her
name (assuming she gave me the correct one)
was clearly a female name. She shared with me a
bit about her personal history and struggles with
a chronic painful condition for which she used
both alternative and conventional methods to
deal with the pain. She further shared with me
the frustration in trying to discuss issues objectively
in this newsgroup. She said that she did NOT think
that most alternative healers were frauds or
quacks and presented themselves in an honest
straightforward way acknowledging the limitations
of their therapies. Her basic concern was with
those who present themselves as being able
to heal people (often with claims of 100% curability)
without showing any objective evidence or
validation of this.

Aloha,


Rich


I guarantee 99.9999999% Richard H Jacobson PROVEN cyberstalker will reply to
this post with more of his lies, or start a new post title to personally
attack me again. Just watch, just like clockwork.

Sorry to belabor the obvious.

Something are so predictable.

Best defense to logic is ignorance




.

Loading