Re: Slime ball Mark's attempt at intimidation.


"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%izXe.9187$gE7.6263@xxxxxxxxxxx
> dali wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>>>dali wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Well, in my Humble opinion, he could be impersonating someone, but, I
>>>>>tend to doubt it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do to a variety of reasons I have not kept my identity a secret. Watch
>>>>as this slime ball tells me this is not some sort of veiled threat.
>>>>
>>>>Very LOW behaviour, even for a worthless Pharmablogger.
>>>
>>>The purpose was to give you a taste of what we fact based medicine
>>>people experience at the hands of those who you seem to support. I tried
>>>to explain that to you in the other threads, and you ignored it.
>>>
>>>I should have known better, as you AltScrewBalls can dish it out, but,
>>>when received, whine.
>>
>> For the record my name is Brent Borgers and I do live in Humble and my
>> birth date is in May 1967. Is there any more information you would like
>> to share?
>
> Yes, I would like to share that you support the climate which you do not
> like when you support PB, Jan Drew, et al.
>
> Initially, *P*ontificating*B*ullshiter posted his usual drivel about these
> people he imagines exist, i.e. "pharmabloggers" who are paid to post to
> newsgroups. This is, at a minimum, a preemptive ad hominem to discredit
> anyone who disagrees with his bull***. Intermediately, it is an attempt
> to ensure that any factual discussion of alternatives will be deflected to
> defending ones independence. At worse, it is an attempt to intimidate
> those with whom he disagrees into silence.
>
> The tactic "works" so long as there are those who adopt the usual altie
> stance that they are the poor little victims of the big evil
> pharmaceutical industry. When others sign on to this, they expereicne
> mutual reinforcement.
>
> Now, in a previous post of yours, you stated:
>
> "Speaking of anonymous.
> How many of the alleged pharma bloggers are anonymous?
>
> I'm guessing all, that's quite telling don't you think?"
>
> <snip name calling>
>
> In response to your statements, I, and others, correctly pointed out that
> the fact based medicine people are hardly annonymous. In fact, I posted a
> list of several of the offensive things that have been heaped on those
> people who challenged alternative claims. I quote:
>
> "Take a look as to what has been heaped on the fact based medicine people
> by the <snip name calling>

<snip lies, name calling and whining>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> As to whining...
>> What part of feel free and come on by do you consider whining?
>>


.