Re: Peter B on Heresay (sic) and Stalking By Jan Drew


cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > cathyb wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > cathyb wrote:
> > > > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > > > Rich.@. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <bloviating snipped>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What purpose does it serve to post about this on mha? What do readers
> > > > > > here have to do with it? You inflame the situation each time you post
> > > > > > about it, and by creating new threads devoted to disputing Jan's
> > > > > > comments about mercury. This makes it clear that YOU want to
> > > > > > perpetuate the conflict. Well over 50% of your posts are devoted to
> > > > > > Jan, and it's been going on for years. If Jan is so deranged, as you
> > > > > > say, why don't you stop posting to, and about her? If you refuse, it
> > > > > > proves you are exactly what I say -- a paid pharma blogger whose
> > > > > > purpose is to discredit natural medicine approaches and anyone critical
> > > > > > of mainstream healthcare.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps PeteyB would like to explain how someone posting to or about
> > > > > Lollipop is proof that they are being paid to do so? Or will he realize
> > > > > how ridiculous a statement that is?
> > > >
> > > > There are actually two possibilities. He's either insane, since only a
> > > > deranged person would continue courting the harrassment he claims
> > > > plagues him, or else he is paid to do it.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, he is the sort of person that doesn't give in to
> > > harrassment, or allow bigotry to pass him by. Obviously not a
> > > personality type PeteyB is familiar with.
> >
> > Courting harrassment by posting to those you claim are harrassing you
> > doesn't qualify as not "giving in to harrassment," it qualifies you as
> > a nut case. Sort of like you.
> >
> > >
> > > Regardless, would PeteyB would like to actually explain his statement
> > > that someone posting to or about Lollipop is *proof* that they are
> > > being paid to do so?
> >
> > I explained it. There are two possibilities. Either Rich is mentally
> > unstable for posting over a period of years to someone he claims to be
> > deranged and harrasses him, or else Rich is a paid pharma blogger
> > trying to discredit Jan Drew. Your dumb rationalization about "not
> > giving in" to a crazy person is pure bull***, like everything else you
> > have to say.
> >
> > > > I don't buy that he's crazy,
> > > > which leaves only the pharma blogger explanation. Don't tell me. He's
> > > > really a little old lady in Topeka sipping tea and role-playing on the
> > > > newsgroups?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The same goes for those who come to your
> > > > > defense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lordy; does this person expect people to take him seriously when he
> > > > > talks about science after showing so little regard for logic and facts?
> > > >
> > > > I will put my logic and facts up against yours any day.
> > >
> > > And it's always amusing.
> >
> > That's because you're stupid.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > And would he care to estimate how many of La Lollipop's posts are
> > > > > devoted to Rich?
> > > >
> > > > Jan is a fighter, but Rich is the one who claims she's a lunatic; why
> > > > does he continue courting "harassment" from someone he claims is
> > > > mentally unstable? Jan is supposed to be the crazy one, right?
> > > >
> > > > > By PeteyB's logic, she, too must be a paid poster. Why
> > > > > no criticism?
> > > >
> > > > No. Jan is supposedly crazy, remember.
> > >
> > > I said by *PeteyB's* logic. After all, La Lollipop pretends to think
> > > that Rich is a *LIAR*; lord knows how many times she's said it about
> > > lord knows how many people. Why isn't PeteyB telling her she must be
> > > being paid to bother replying to such a confirmed liar? I wonder.
> >
> > What do you care what I think? You claim I'm delusional, remember? If
> > Jan and I are both crazy, you and Rich should do the sane thing and
> > ignore us. So ignore us, already. What do you gain by posting to us?
> > We won't hold our breath for an honest answer. Of course, here is
> > where you prove that you ARE INDEED paid to be here, responding to
> > those you claim are delusional and courting harrassment in the process,
> > because you need to persuade your audience that you are the voice of
> > reason. I predict that cathy will come back with some lame excuse for
> > why she must post in response to me, that she does it for fun, or
> > something else equally unbelievable.
> >
> > >
> > > > That's HER excuse. The
> > > > question is, why does Rich keep posting despite claims of harrassment
> > > > in real life? It doesn't add up.
> > > >
> > > > > Why no criticism of her repeated bigotries?
> >
> > That's an "OT" topic for mha. You are violating the integrity of the
> > newsgroup when you discuss that topic here. You should take this
> > offline.
> >
> > > > We leave non-mha related discussions to you and the other pharma
> > > > bloggers. It's part of your tactic designed to distract from more
> > > > important issues.
> > >
> > > This is not a discussion about alternative health and yet here is
> > > PeteyB. Isn't he funny?
> >
> > When you go home at the end of the day and see a rat in the room, you
> > don't just start cooking your dinner. You get rid of the rats. Get
> > it?
> >
> > > The fact that Lollipop agrees with some of his notions really shouldn't
> > > stop him from telling her he doesn't like it when she's anti-semitic or
> > > homophobic. But it does.
> >
> > Same old pharma blogging tactic designed to distract and obfuscate.
> >
> > PeterB
>
> Marvellous. PeteyB explains that no-one should be posting to this
> thread because it's off-topic. And that this is the reason he can't
> possibly bring himself to criticise La Lollipop's anti-semitism and
> homophobia.

A thread may be off-topic, that doesn't prevent me from redirecting the
discussion. To discuss Jan's personal views is not my purpose, though
apparently it's yours. I wonder why?

> (NB Yet again, he doesn't deny that she is homophobic and antisemitic).

Pharma blogging diversion noted. Play your stupid flame games all you
like, it only proves that you are indeed a pharma blogger.

> He doesn't seem to realise (apparently) that his posting here about
> Rich is a contradiction of his postion.

Not at all. I'm exposing Rich for being a pharma blogger, and that
relates to the ability of this newsgroup to function constructively.
When you go home at the end of the day, and you see a rat in the room,
you don't just start cooking dinner. You get rid of the rats. Get it?

> Nor does he explain his bizarre proposition that Rich posting to or
> about Jan is *proof* that he is being paid for it.

I explained it. There are two possibilities. Either Rich is mentally
unstable for posting over a period of years to someone he claims to be
deranged and harrasses him, or else Rich is a paid pharma blogger
trying to discredit Jan Drew. Your dumb rationalization about "not
giving in" to a crazy person is pure bull***, like everything else you
have to say. It demonstrates that you are also a pharma blogger.

> Of course it might be *Peteyproof*--if Petey wants to believe it, it
> must be true.

I'll stack my evidence up against yours (which doesn't exist) any day.

PeterB

.