Re: Earlier Barrett Operations: Lying to anti-fluoride group to find out their strategies & bring them down


"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:igkcj.63959$GV4.26611@xxxxxxxxxxx
Debbee wrote:
On Dec 23, 7:28 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When you stop the veiled threats, and learn how to read for
comprehension, things will change.

You have been spending too much time in church with too many
veils...not a veiled threat--FREE SPEECH, ever hear of it?

Once again, you snipped the post to hide meaning.

I do not attend church.

As for free speech, no one in this newsgroup has been a target of those who want to end free speech more than me.

In fact, one person contacted my wife in a feeble effort to do so. It was not the first time a spouse had been contacted by that person.

Dear Mrs. Drew:

I am using email to you since I do not wish to participate in Usenet. I
trust that you *wil* respect this. I *wil* not email you again, except to
forward to you other emails that Rosenthal has sent to me. She had the
unmitigated gall to actually post this email to a webpage, which she
acknowledges, and has since removed. She had the nerve to post my place of
employment in the newsgroups and on that webpage.

Frankly, I am tired of your constant blaming Mark for everything that
Rosenthal has done to him. This email was sent to ME, not him, by her. He
had warned her several times not to do so, but, she went ahead and emailed
me. I have spoken with some of Mark's friends in government law enforcement,
and they tell me that this can be construed as stalking behavior, since I
have never had contact with her.

Let me be blunt: I have been fully aware of Mark's activities from day one
as we share *verything* in our relationship. He has NEVER posted as Will
Ketcher, and we have not had an AOL account for a long time. However,
Rosenthal persists in accusing him.

Let me clear up this issue Mark's attempt to infiltrate her email list. He
has never denied doing so, and has clearly stated his reasons, which
Rosenthal rejects. When he mentioned that our younger son was about to have
surgery he began receiving some very nasty email which sounded quite a bit
like Rosenthal. I read them, and know that they were hate filled and
mirrored her usual verbiage. Some of them actually wished ill to our son.
Remember, I am an English teacher and I spend hours a day reading students'
work. I also felt that they could have originated with people who were
affiliated with her.

Mark was deeply offended by some of the statements in these emails, and he
attempted to locate the senders, but was unsuccessful. He then decided to
try to read her group to see if he could identify the offending individuals.
As you know, she found out what he did, and posted a message to that effect.
Mark *immeidatrely* acknowledged what he did, and expressed his reasons,
which she denied and said that we never received such email, even though she
had absolutely no way of reading his email inbox.

You have been *concistently*wrong about Mark, and even more consistently
wrong about Mark. I have read many instances where it was clear that you did
not *udnerstand* what he was saying. Now that you do not read his full
messages (many times you respond to something that has been severely edited)
or his replies, you are making assumptions based on less than all the facts.
If you were my student, you would get an F.

When I first received this email I was very upset by her actions, and I
wanted to file complaints with Hotmail, RoadRunner and GoDaddy, her website
host. Mark talked me out of it, as he does not think that such actions *wil
lhelp* her. In fact, he is convinced that she *wil* become even more abusive
and obsessed with "enemies." You know that I have every right to make such
complaints.

Several of my students have used her website about Mark in their *wrtiings*
in my senior honors writing seminar. Another group has used Rosenthal in a
debate in my senior debating class. They used her to demonstrate that the
First Amendment, which is posted in Mark's study, protects even the most
vile people. I gave them an A.

I trust that this helps you get a better perspective on Mark, and on
Rosenthal.

As I said above, I will not email you again, but I will forward all of her
current messages to me.

If you wish to respond to me, please do so at SandraProb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx I
am using my professional email address simply because that is the address
Rosenthal used.

Sandra Probert

______________________________­__

From: ilena rose [mailto:ilena2...@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tue 11/2/2004 12:11 PM
To: Probert Sandra (26Q495)
Subject: Mark S. Probert

SPro...@xxxxxxxxxx

It would be a good Christmas present that

you could give to yourself, that you could use all year long. :>)
It might even become catchy, you know your friends might see
what you are doing, noting you allow people to write how they feel
without thinking you are superior to them in some way? Heck, your
employer might even notice the awesome change in yourself, and give
you a raise....
Do you feel inferior? If so, perhaps it is due to your understanding
that you do have a comprehension problem and play stupid games posting
veiled threats.

Do not feel inferior in the least, Mr. Probert, not at all. No
comprehension problem,
and no stupid games, and certainly not any veiled threats. Free
speech. It has to work
both ways, you gotta love it!!

That is Holmes' free marketplace of ideas. You have not always been a champion of it.

If you improved your comprehension skills, and stopped the threats, you
would feel better about yourself.

No one is threatening anyone, Mr. Probert.

Sure you are. You may do it by speech, but it is nonetheless a threat.

I'm am just exercising my
right to free speech.....
isn't it wonderful how it has to work both ways in order to make it
work?

Sure it is.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/406f648590b39f16

Nov 29 2005

"Mark Probert" <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:vfZah.18334$mM1.5367@xxxxxxxxxxx


I received this email this morning. Since the sender used anonymous email, I have no way of verifying it or knowing whether it is true or not. I post the full header for reference.


LOL!


---------begin quoted material--------


Delivered-To: mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx Received: by 10.66.239.8 with SMTP id m8cs80233ugh; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.119.15 with SMTP id r15mr923548agc.1164730133350; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f12si25098590qba.2006.11.28.08.08.52; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx designates 65.39.178.135 as permitted sender) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4229BA327A for <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver8.hushmail.com (mailserver8.hushmail.com [65.39.178.61]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mailserver8.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3E378DA84A; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:08:37 -0500 To: "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Subject: Re: Jan Drew From: <jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20061128160838.3E378DA...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



To: 20061128160838.3E378DA...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0500 Mark Probert <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 11/28/06, jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx <jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>> Dear Mr. Probert:


>> You do not know me, but I live in Indiana. I am writing to you, since >> you are being attacked by Jan Drew. I know you will understand.


>> Years ago my parents placed me in a child care center run by Jan Drew. >> It was a nightmare.


>> I was physically and verbally abused by her and other people
>there.
>> When I did not immediately do what they wanted, I was punished. >> Sometimes I was made to stay in a dark closet, other times I was not >> allowed to eat or go to the bathroom. I soiled myself
>several
>> times and was punished, again, for that.


>> The worst part were the spankings with a big paddle They would
>make
>> me take my pants down and hit my rear with this. Some people
>seemed
>> to enjoy watching this. On several occasions, someone would
>touch
>> me, you know where.


>> They told me not to tell anyone, or they would report my parents for >> child abuse and have me taken from my home. I was scared to death this >> would happen and stayed silent.


>> Finally, after years of this abuse, I told my parents what was >> happening, and they filed a complaint with the State of Indiana. The >> State investigated and closed her down.



LOL! Fact: I sold the daycare center.


>> Even to this day, I am still afraid of her, and what she can do
>to
>> me. She is a mean, hurtful person who should never have been allowed to >> be near children.


>> Jack



LOL! This is complete untrue and made up by Mark Probert.


>Dear Jack:


>I am sorry to hear about what happened to you. Can I post your email to >Usenet if I do not display your email address?


>Mark Probert


Dear Mr. Probert:


Yes, you can post this to Usenet, or send it to her ISP, or whatever else you want to do with it. Hushmail will protect my identity.



Wonders of wonders. Send it, Markey.
They need a good laugh.

BTW, I have never received anything from my ISP, like you said.


*You have now acknowledged receipt of a proper warning, as required by
your ISP.*


She is a very bad person, and I still have nightmares from what she did to me.


Good luck, and I hope you find peace.


Jack Reid

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Mark Probert <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:44:01 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 28 2006 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: OT: For What it is Worth
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

pmoran wrote:
Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery . It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not laid if these accusations were true?

I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet.


Can you withdraw it?



Yes, but for a price. Nothing for free any more.

I want peace. I have asked for it, I have lived it. I want peace.


I will do whatever is necessary for peace, except give in to Ilena's and
Jan extortion.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/e829634d738f410b


pmoran wrote:
Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery . It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not laid if these accusations were true?

I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet.


Can you withdraw it?


PM



You just scored some credibility points in my book, Peter. This is the
worst form of a hear-say attack I've ever seen. I applaud you for
calling a spade a spade.

Mark, at the very LEAST you should require evidence of this person's
accusations before considering such a story. If she ran a daycare that
was shut down, it should be public record. I'm not saying that it
would be online, since it's possible that it happened long before such
records were made available on the internet, but it would at least be
on file in the Indiana Child Protective Services office or other such
agency. And even THEN I would have personally steered clear of posting
it to usenet. I know you think you two are in a "gloves are off" kind
of battle, but posting stuff like this does nothing for you
credibility.


Max.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/e9c6cd24744cf16f

"pmoran" <pmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1164743505.300973.222040
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery . It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not laid if these accusations were true?

I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet.


Can you withdraw it?



I have to agree. In particular, the lack of a specific time-frame when the
abuses were supposed to have occurred is pretty suspicious; it gratuitously
increases the difficulty in verifying the allegations. Someone who had
really experienced an injustice, rather than someone with a potentially
malicious axe to grind, would want to do everything possible to make his
allegations verifiable.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/bb704e19d7850278


Gloves off is not the half of it. Jan has no idea what she is in for.


I have already requested that Google remove this message. I posted it to
make a point.


You are the only "ALT" who has demonstrated the slightest bit of ethics,
with regard to asking Jan to stop the abusive posts. Of course, you
failed. I rarely guarantee anything when it comes to human behavior,
but, I could have guaranteed that.


BTW, I did receive other emails which made this one look mild.


Those I deleted.



http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/2c76941dfe867991

BTW, I have never received anything from my ISP, like you said.


*You have now acknowledged receipt of a proper warning, as required by your ISP.*



You misunderstood. My post was the proper warning. You acknowledged
receiving it.


Leave me alone. Do not post to or about me.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/3e2cd9a67bc34ad0

OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
f12si25098590qba.2006.11.28.08.08.52;
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
designates 65.39.178.135 as permitted sender)


Net Range


OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1])


OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID: IANA
Address: 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City: Marina del Rey
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country: US


by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4229BA327A
for <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:39 -0800
(PST)
Received: from mailserver8.hushmail.com (mailserver8.hushmail.com
[65.39.178.61])


OrgName: Web-Business-Services.com Inc.
OrgID: WEBBU-1
Address: 102-4369 Main Street
Address: Suite 908
City: Whistler
StateProv: BC
PostalCode: V0N-1B4
Country: CA


Net Range


OrgName: Icommand.Com
OrgID: ICOMMA
Address: 230 Richmond St W, Suite 800
City: Toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: M5V 1V6
Country: CA


Parent


OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


Hush Communications USA PEER1-HUSHMAIL-01 (NET-65-39-178-0-1


OrgName: Hush Communications USA
OrgID: HCU-9
Address: c/o Hansa Bank Landsome Road
City: The Valley
StateProv: AN
PostalCode: T10O2P
Country: GB


Parent


OrgName: Peer 1 Network Inc.
OrgID: PER1
Address: 2nd Floor, 75 Broad Street
City: New York
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10004
Country: US


Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE


RTechHandle: ZP55-ARIN
RTechName: Peer1 Network Inc.
RTechPhone: +1-604-683-7747
RTechEmail: net-ad...@xxxxxxxxx


Vancouver, Canada


by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
for <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailserver8.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 65534)


http://www.hackinglinuxexposed.com/articles/20021113.html


http://www.hackinglinuxexposed.com/articles/20020716.html


id 3E378DA84A; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:08:37 -0500
To: "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Jan Drew
From: <jackr...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: 20061128160838.3E378DA...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


https://mailserver5.hushmail.com/hushmail/index.php


This email account does not exist: mailserver8.hushmail....@xxxxxxxxxxxx


On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0500 Mark Probert



<mark.prob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Wow. Mark is so stupid.


Look at the time when he posted it.




Notice how Mark changed it more than several times.


*I have the absolute right to post in peace.*


Was you fake email peaceful?


You are so full of it.


Your choice.



No, it is yours.


For the entire thread.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thread/b209a390d71a6a76/4a8deabd7724f980?q=OT%3A+For+What+it+is+Worth+misc.health.alternative&lnk=ol&;

.