Re: How Satan Works

From: Jan (jdrew63929_at_aol.com)
Date: 11/09/04 

Date: 09 Nov 2004 00:49:08 GMT

>Subject: Re: How Satan Works
>From: Steven Fawks tuthjockey@earthlink.net
>Date: 11/8/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <14Tjd.9008$O11.8852@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>
>I wonder if the possessed person ever knows it? I know of one who
>will never *admit* it!
>
>Fawks

That's why he nuked hs posts.

Rich ,@. wrote in news:khcbeusflte8j1bpsr6ltdva9r1s4jd8o8@4ax.com:> On Sat,
18May 2002 01:29:42 GMT, >ilena@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
Inarticle4t8beu4ufu8n24vblsrpdkubhoj93ttjn6@4ax.com>, Rich ,@. wrote: >Are you
sure my name is Richard Jacobson??

>>>>Is it or isn't it?
> > Negative. Does this mean that I don't have to agree to Jan's request to
cease and desist?? Of course her request presumes that I have been stalking
and harassing her.

>I am grateful for one thing; that Richard Jacobson is not my real
name.Unfortunately the Richard Jacobson that DOES live in Hawaii may not be too
appy with my assuming his name for purposes of the internet especially given
the recent events. He happens to live on a different island from me. I do
plan to contact him to let him know that someone may try to harass him since
heis listed in the phone book.

===
Hiking The Kalalau Trail Richard Jacobson (richj@cris.com)Sat, 16 Mar 1996
00:27:34 -0500 (EST) Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author
] Next message: JandB77@aol.com: "Florida hike" Previous message: L. Barry
Rinehart: "

>Se 'Ya" >Hawaii's premier backpacking trail, the Kalalau Trail on the island
of
Kauai still remains closed past Hanakoa due to the reconstruction ofthe trail
near "crawler's ridge". Estimated date of completion is Mid May.Until then,
camping will only be permitted in Hanakapiai and Hanakoa Valleys. I for one am
anxious to have Kalalau open again. It has to be one of the finest trails in
the world.

Aloha,

Rich------------------------------------------------

Richard H. Jacobson

Always remember to put Horace before Descarte

>What if the record(s) make no mention that Kelly reallly was diagnosed with
> breast cancer as she claims. Would THAT be useful???
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
> Well you'll never know now will you Rich?
>
> richj@cris.com (Richard Jacobson)
>
> >Unsubstantiated opinion???? How do you figure
>
> Undocumented. Everything else is hearsay. Even what is written in the NGis
> hearsay until the facts back it up. People can form *opinions* based on
these
> comments, but we don't know if the information is accurate until we see the
> documents. My *opinion* is that Kelly is telling the truth. I believe her.
> Your *opinion* is that she is not. But that's all theseare--opinions.
>
> >These are *facts* that are not disputed.
>
> These are not *facts*. They are hearsay unless you see her file.
>
> >I don't need to look at her file to know that.
>
> This is the statement of a man with a closed mind. I would not make
> theaccusations you have without seeing the documented *facts*.
>
> >she refuses to come clean to the newsgroup, I have decided not to waste
> my time >meeting her.OIC. If this is the rationale that you have now come up
> with to explain
> why you didn't seize the opportunity to find out the facts, then so be it.She
> said in the beginning that she would not post her medical files inthe NG, but
> gave you an opportunity to verify them. And *only* you. Lord knows why. But
> why "waste" your time trying to get the facts.
>
> edaddams@aol.com (Ed Addams)>
>
> > he actually scolded her for being such a bad business person because she
did
> not do so with the people who contacted her.
>
> richj@cris.com (Richard Jacobson)
>
> >A "bad person"?? I don't believe I said that.
>
> I didn't say "bad person"--I said "bad business person"--which I believe you
> did insinuate by your demeanor, if not your words.. I can understand now why
> Talena says you twist words until they are "completely unrecognizable and
have
> an entirely different tone". Even this simple statement. You have turned
"bad
> business person" into "bad person". There is a *slight* difference.
>
> >She is desperately trying to do damage contro lOIC. She hasn't even been in
> the NG for the past week or two. Hard to do"damage control" if you're not on
> the scene. But I believe "damage control" is being attempted by someone who
> has done a large amount of damage to himself.
>
> >I already decided she was not to be believed based on her posting OIC.
>
> Why confuse yourself with the facts
>
> .>that she had breast cancer and then admitting she was never told this.
>
> I am inclined to side with Talena on this one too. I'm sure there are many
> physicians who would not *tell* their patients they might have cancer, for
the
> reasons that Talena has explained in great detail to you.
>
> >This is essentially the same as meeting her
>
> Talking and writing is *never* the same as meeting
>
> >There is NO question that she lied. She admitted that she lied.
>
> Again, I refer you to Talena's comments about how you take words and"twist it
> into an entirely different statement". If someone "thinks"something, how
does
> that make it a lie? If it is inaccurate, then they were mistaken, *not*
lying.
> I also agree with Talena's comment:
>
> talena90@aol.com (Talena90)>
>
> I've learned some things on how to decide if a person is trustworthy.
>
> ..If someone trusts no one... usually it is because they aren't trustworthy
> themselves. I couldn't resist the temptation to drop these quotes from
another
> post.
>
> >Name instances where I twisted something that (Kelly said that) resulted in
> perversion of its meaning.I
>
> f you'll twist one, you'll twist them all. See above re "bad person"
>
> .talena90@aol.com (Talena90)
>
> >I WOULD like to know what information was given to your friend.
>
> Second or third request from Talena for this information from Rich. He still
> did not give her a straight answer to the question. Instead, some
meaningless
> comparison to drinking water. How about a straight answer,Rich. He should
read
> his own words.
>
> >FACT?? It is your perception and not a fact although I realize that you
think
> that if you believe something then it makes it true for everyone else too.
>
> > It is a matter of opinion and NOT fact.
>
>
> richj@cris.com (Richard Jacobson)
>
> >That way you will see DIRECTLY what Kelly and I said.
>
> I think your missing the point. Kelly says things from *her* point of view
> about her doctors and her conversations with them. You argue *your*point of
> view. The only way to resolve this is to actually see those files. Other
than
> that--it is still just he says/she says.
>
> >It is NOT hearsay what Kelly posted. That is direct testimony from her.
>
> Direct testimony is NOT hearsay.You seem to be placing a good deal of
> importance on the word hearsay. What I mean by that is that unless the actual
> records are seen, it is all speculation on her part and on your part. Try to
> grasp the jist of what I am saying rather than zeroing in on a particular
word
> or phrase. I am talking about *concept*. This is not a court of law where
> everything rests on precise phraseology. That will only move the attention
> away fromthe heart of the matter.
>
> >The best that Kelly could say is that she "thought" that she had breast
cancer
> but the doctor never told her so.
>
> Kelly obviously believes that she had cancer based on the information she got
> from her physicians. The files could verify this. That does not make her a
> liar. But you may be one of those rare individuals who never say ssomething
> one way, then a few minutes later wishes you had phrased it another way. It
> does not make her a liar. She very obviously believes what she said.
>
> >As far as her records go I think that Kelly herself can look inside her Ob
Gyn
> records or ask her Ob Gyn if she had breast cancer.
>
> I have no doubt that she has probably done this by now.
>
> >Even if I looked at the records I could not reveal anything I saw in them
> without Kelly's permission.
>
> I doubt she would have opened her medical files to you for the purpose of
> verifying her story for the NG and then tell you not to share any of it with
> us.
>
> >As I said I would be more than happy to publically divulge our private email
> >correspondence and you could all decide for yourself.I said above, this will
> prove nothing as it is all just spectulation and opinion and not facts. I am
> assuming the reason you do not have permission to do so is that she revealed
> certain information to you privately that she would not reveal to the public
in
> general. Has Kelly used the word "cure" or is that yours and Phil's
> phraseology? You quoted her as saying "cancer free" which is not the same as
> cured. I realize its just semantics. I don't know the answer, but since
> arguing semantics seems to be a favorite pasttime of yours, I was just
curious.
>
> I'm replying to both Rich and Phil in this one post.
>
> richj@cris.com (Richard Jacobson)
>
> >Btw apologies to Mr. Ed for comparing you to him.
>
> ****This is the type of post that shows Jacobson's for what he is.****
>
>
> *** This is not intelligent conversation between two adults. His posts
don't
> deserve responses.****
>
> pae@dimensional.com
>
> So your point of view is that Kelly has no accountability in the whole
matter?
>
> No that is not my "point of view". I think that she had accountabilityfor
> making the original post about her breast cancer and diagnosis. My"point of
> view" is that she offered accountability to one of the members of the NG, who
> accepted and then reneged. My "point of view" is that it is unreasonable for
> us to go back to her *again* and demand proof, when it was not her fault that
> the proof was not obtained.
>
> >Do you have any disgust for Kelly for claiming us that chelation therapy and
> pycnegonol were her only treatments and made her CANCER FREE and then FAILING
> to back up her claim?
>
> I feel NO "disgust" for Kelly for the reason I gave above. She did notduck
the
> issue of proving her claim.
>
> ****I do however feel unlimited disgust for Jacobson.****
>
> >Let's ask a different question: don't you think that we'd be better off
having
> a Medical Doctor evaluate the records?
>
> Is this the answer to my question that keeps *not* being answered? Jacobson
is
> not a medical doctor? If that is the case, why did he lead us to believe
that
> he had the expertise to review medical files with authority?
>
> >If Kelly had never posted her claims, there wouldn't be the controversy.
>
> I agree. However, after making the claim she offered to back it up. The
> controversy *only* still exists because of a lack of follow through on
> Jacobson's part and not Kelly's.
>
> >Richard says that he could answer this, but he would be violating Kelly's
> confidentiality in what she said in private e-mail to her.
>
>
> ****This is a cowardly attempt on his part to explain why he reneged. If
Kelly
> revealed information to him in confidence that she did not want posted in the
> NG, then I think he is right not to reveal those confidences. However, I
find
> it amusing that he keeps dropping quotes and insinuations into the NG about
> what was said in that private e-mailexchange, while all the while cloaking
> himself in nobility and proclaiming that he is not breaking his word.****
>
> >None of us have any idea what Kelly said to Rich. It was in *private*
e-mail.
> Richard is keeping it private. See above reference. He is NOT keeping it
> private, even though he apparently gave his word that he would. He has
> repeated many things in the NG that he indicated were revealed to him in
> confidence via e-mail.I don't see any point in our continuing this post. We
> will never agree on this topic and will only continue to state and re-state
> each of our opinions.
>
> ***Whether or not Richard is a jerk is a side issue.****
>
> ===========================================
>
> So a single heart specialist pooh-poohed diet to reverse heart disease and
you
> want to condemn the entire medical establishment. How would those with the
> surname "Finkelstein" like it if I was to say that all Finkelsteins
>
> **** are delusionally anxious propogandists?***
>
> Your arguements> are so incredibly weak. You give a single example and
> generalize to the group. You see increase in illness and and assume it is
due
> to conventional medicine. Your ability to think critically has apparently
been
> severely impaired. Did you have a head injury as a youngster?
>
> > > Aloha,
> > > Rich
> > Richard Jacobson
>
> At last! Something resembling a logical argument from the Illustrious Dr
> Jacobson! Somewhere in all that mudslining, you actually used the debate
method
> of reflection; you have applied the argument of the opponent to himself. This
> is valid. But again; you have not qualified your argument with sources,
> figures, and have even further damaged it by mudslining. If you guys could
stop
> fighting and just discuss this, you'd probably make progress. Put down your
> egos for a minute and work it
> out!*******************************************************
>
> In article <4s3chm$56i@liberator.concentric.net>, <richj@cris.com> writes:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Perhaps you might open your mind and consider that medical students are
> taught that 1) they are far from perfect 2) that much of what they are doing
> is an "art" and not a "science" and 3) much of what is>taught today will be
> wrong tomorrow. I realize it is VERY important in your OWN reality to
> demonize modern medicine and to deify your own healing methods. In many ways
> the fear of illness makes each of us want so much to believe that we have the
> answer to health, that we deny that which is not a part of our pardigm even
if
> it may be helpful
>
> . > > Personally I use BOTH conventional AND non traditional methods
> for healing myself. I have found that to be too quick to reject a modality
that
> may be useful may be a big mistake. Many of those who> are aligned to a less
> conventional paradigm often reject that which they perceive as conventional
and
> scientifically based. But when one>defines ones own reality then one could
do
> whatever one pleases.
>
> > > Aloha,
> > > Rich
>
> Got some news for you, Rich. From my paradigm, we were created to do exactly
as
> we please by an unconditionally loving God/Life Force/Great Spirit/Big Bang
> (whatever label suits you).
>
> > Far better to be uncertain, than to be sure and be wrong
>
> Again, this signature implies that there is only One Right Answer. Why else
> would it be better to be uncertain (of that One Right Answer) than to be sure
> and be wrong?
>
> What I am certain of applies only to my own subjective healing experiences,
> which I share with others in this news group.
>
> ****I certainly don't try to cram my paradigm down others' throats by slyly
> belittling or devaluing their beliefs and statements, the way you seem to be
> doing to mine.****
>
> The scientific method is ONE way. Why don't you give us another way to
> determine is someone's observation IS universally valid. Perhaps you believe
> that if YOU observe it then it is universally valid. This is called
> universality by pathologic narcissism.
>
> > Aloha,
> > > Rich