Re: Dan, the LIAR and Insulter

From: The Webby (nospamattmjiatroepidemicnospam_at_san.rr.com)
Date: 11/13/04 

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 02:00:46 GMT

I've never met Dan but I've followed his works in smd for many years. I
would not believe him to be a "liar".

TW

In article <20041112203605.06545.00000454@mb-m15.aol.com>,
 jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Dan, the LIAR and Insulter
> >From: Dr. Steve drsteve@no-spam.com
> >Date: 11/12/2004 1:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <skbap0hm0oqjev2ncb1mvcilcmfp2ke2io@4ax.com>
> >
> >Dear Jan, please develop some maturity.
>
> The subject is Dan the liar and insulter.
>
>
> >Subject: Re: DANGER - Dentists are using this chemical in your mouth!! OMG
> >Jan Drew was right!
> >From: "carabelli" huerter@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 11/11/2004 9:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <vBXkd.9530$7i4.3128@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >Why do kids in college think calling at 11:00 pm is early. Oh well, I'm up.
> >
> >CZ posted
> >
> > "As Jan would say, that is a complete lie."
> >
> >Discussion is an extremely remote possiblity when you start quoting the
> >blob.
> >
> >carabelli
>
> Now here is Dan lies:
>
>
> My post in full.
>
> Dan is a L I A R!!!
>
>
> From: Jan (jdrew63929@aol.com)
> Subject: Re: A request for the Janster
> View: Complete Thread (5 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
> Date: 2004-10-07 22:39:28 PST
>
>
> >Subject: A request for the Janster
> >From: "carabelli" huerter@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 10/7/2004 7:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <o1o9d.507325$OB3.380445@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >Jan, would it be possible for you to learn how to properly annotate and
> >attribute when cutting and pasting?
>
> Sorry, I already know how, could you please show us whatever it is you are
> talking about??
>
> Any thing else you can invent that might suit your purpose.
>
> Of cyberstalking??
>
> You really should get over your resentments, Dan.
>
> It was your decision to lie.
>
> Mine was to call your lie.
>
> You lied and said you had answered my questions. You didn't. below is the
> proof.
>
>
> From: carabelli (redslaz3@worldnet.att.net)
> Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
> Date: 2003-01-13 13:59:53 PST
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote.........
>
> >>Emission of mercury vapors in the oral cavity increased with the number of
> fillings.
> >
> >(why is that?)
> > >
> > *I don't know - yet*
> >
> > With ALL your EDUCATION, and you don't know YET??????
>
> *I don't know if this was a valid study - you haven't posted enough
> information to evaluate it.*
>
> > >*However, that sounds like an interesting article. Where was it
> > >published,
> > >who wrote it, how was it reviewed?
> > How was mercury vapor measured? How was the amount of amalgam measured?
> > How was the accuracy of this device ensured? How were
> > >control measurements taken to ensure other factors did not influence
> > >results. What statistical analysis was employed - was it the appropriate
> > >method to analyze the results?*
> >
> > With ALL your Education, go the Medline and find out!!!!
> >
> > My conclusion is you do NOT want to know.
> >
> > YOU are the DENTIST, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THESE
> THINGS!!!!!!!!
>
>
> *NO - I'm an orthodontist - you brought this to the table to discuss and I
> asked for details. Medline doesn't provide this information - it very
> seldom links to the complete article.*
>
> *Post the original article and I will give you my opinion of it.*
>
> *I will check the link you provided later when I have time.*
>
> carabelli
>
>
> From: carabelli (redslaz3@worldnet.att.net)
> Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
> Date: 2003-01-13 15:00:01 PST
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> .......>
> > Umm. You have forgotten what YOU posted. Something about my not educating
> > myself. And how well educated you were.
> >
> > Then I presented questions which ALL of you are afraid to answer.
> >
>
> *I have been trying to answer one of you questions. The information is
> incomplete. I am not going to spend time wading through your cut and paste
> post. It looks like a collage a 2nd grader did with their eyes closed.*
>
> *Show me the entire original article. If you can't locate it post another
> complete article supporting your position and I will give you an honest
> assessment of it and why. If you post an abstract again for evaluation I
> will give you an honest label for yourself also.*
>
>
> *Don't shotgun me with a bunch of citations. I'm not going to drop
> everything and read everything you want because it suits you. If that is
> what you want - buy a dog and teach it to chase sticks.*
>
>
> carabelli
>
> From: carabelli (HUERTER@worldnet.att.net)
> Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
> Date: 2003-01-13 20:39:13 PST
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote.........
>
> > WHY ARE ABSTRACTS ON MEDLINE?????????
> >
> > That does NOT take a study to answer, so just answer it!!
>
> *I will take a brief respite from denial and tell the truth. Medline was
> invented by Al Gore, it was a deceptive ploy conceived behind closed doors
> with the Republican Party to provide partial information to idiots. This
> may seem contradictory, however it is not. Evidentally, partial information
> overload for the uneducated or intelligence challenged seemed to be a
> benefit for both parties and reduced voting for fringe party candidates.*
>
> *I feel better already, free at last from denial.*
>
> carabelli
>
>
> From: carabelli (redslaz3@worldnet.att.net)
> Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
> Date: 2003-01-14 05:01:04 PST
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote............
>
> > >> WHY ARE ABSTRACTS ON MEDLINE?????????
>
> *So that people don't waste their time and money going to school. In just
> minutes and a few clicks you can become more knowledgeable than people that
> have been programmed by 10+ years of higher education.
>
> An easier example is the next awarding of the Emmys. This time the awards
> will not be given by people that have actually watched the shows. A group
> of 10 people with a pile of TV Guides will make the decisions.
>
> I hope this answers your question.*
>
> carabelli
>
>
> From: carabelli (HUERTER@worldnet.att.net)
> Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> View: Complete Thread (70 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry
> Date: 2003-01-14 15:52:19 PST
>
> "Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030114183632.12074.00000725@mb-bg.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: CALLING CARABELLI,,,HELLOOOOO
> > >From: "Dr. Steve" drsteve@home.msen.com
> > >Date: 1/14/2003 8:21 AM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <v2874l18pnq5ba@corp.supernews.com>
> > >
> > >For other lay-people (not our favorite troll who won't believe it
> > >anyway)...........
> > >
> > >Med-Line is a research tool from which to find articles. The abstract is
> > >supposed to give just enough information to quickly let you know if you
> > >want
> > >to read that particular article or not. Abstracts are often written by
> > >the
> > >article's author, and can, therefore, have a bias to them. If the article
> > >looks like it meets the needs of your information search, you then order
> > >(and pay for) the complete article. After reading the complete article,
> > >you
> > >have the opportunity to agree with the author, or disagree, depending on
> > >how
> > >well the author made his/her argument. Many articles are done with very
> > >poor research methods. The conclusions drawn by the authors cannot be
> > >inferred by the data they present. Yet, the conclusion will be listed in
> > >the abstract. Another point not listed in the abstract is where the
> > >funding
> > >came from to do the research. One must be suspicious of any articles
> > >written where the product being evaluated, is paying for the research.
> > >
> > >An abstract is just the author's very brief summary of what his/her
> > >article
> > >is about. Med-Line does not filter what abstracts to list. They list any
> > >and all abstracts they can find. Infotrieve and other on-line research
> > >sites all do the same thing. If you want to read the entire article, you
> > >get the privilege of driving to the local medical library, or paying about
> > >$30 for each re-print, due to the copyright fees.
> >
> > Wonder Why Steve can't answer the questions, taken from Abstracts?????
>
>
> *It was written in plain English right above your question. If what he wrote
> won't sink in you'll have to be content wandering around in the twilight. I
> guess you're not capable of reading with comprehension.*
>
> *See ya later - back to blocking Jan*
>
> carabelli