Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew
From: Dr Steve (nospam_at_home.net)
Date: 11/17/04
- Next message: Rich._at_.: "Re: POISON In Your Mouth"
- Previous message: Adenosine: "Re: Jan Drew Misinformation (LYING) On Mercury"
- In reply to: Rich._at_.: "Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew"
- Next in thread: Rich._at_.: "Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew"
- Reply: Rich._at_.: "Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:37:20 GMT
Hi Rich,
Just the usual internet communication troubles.
>
>> Rich may be right from a pychological point of view.
>
> Mine is right from a practical/realistic standpoint. If you disagree
> please explain why.
Not enough disagreement to argue over. I do see your point.
>> I still think the best solution
>>would be to have an open discussion where two sides can begin to
>>understand
>>the opposing point of view, but I see that SHNMNBM would never
>>participate.
I think this would be best in an ideological way of thinking. I realize
SheWhoseNameMustNeverBeMentioned would not cooperate, so it would be a waste
of effort.
> If you think that the best solution is to have an open discussion with
> Jan Drew then with all due respect you may have lost touch with
> reality. I apologize if I misunderstood your comment. I don't know
> what the acronym SHNMNBM means.
I never honestly beleived for one minute she would engage in a real
discussion on any point. I chose to archive proof that SWNMNBM would not
discuss any topic. Hopefully, it reflects on her beleivability.
> But losing touch with reality can be an undesirable effect of long
> term engagement with JD.
Nah! Not me.
>>Who knows if her inability to participate stems from anger, ignorance,
>>fear,
>>or bad programing.
>
> All of the above?
Agreed
>> Would flooding a NG with useless messages have any
>>effect besides making the NG useless for a month?
>
> Who is suggesting flooding this newsgroup with "useless messages". My
> suggestion is to repeatedly post Jan's own words that clearly indicate
> that she did not have mercury poisoning, that she now knows she did
> not have mercury poisoning, and that she deliberately changed her
> history to manipulate people into thinking that she did. If you think
> that repeatedly posting *that* is useless flooding we can agree to
> disagree.
The messages would be useless in that they would not be contributing to any
ongoing conversation.
> Not only is it not useless but it is very important to keep
> unsuspecting scientifically naive people from acting on her lies and
> also useful in that it has the best chance of getting Jan to get so
> frustrated that she decides it is not worth it to stay here.
How about either a periodic FAQ type of posting, or just an agreed upon
generic posting to any non-coherent postings of SWNMNBM.?
> If you disagree with my assessment I would be very interested in
> hearing why.
I agree she needs attention for some odd reason. Denying the attention is
the best way of responding, but at the same time making sure any lay-people
are aware of how contriversal her views are and to know better than to run
to the first "quack" who promises to cure their PN by removing amalgams.
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>>
>
- Next message: Rich._at_.: "Re: POISON In Your Mouth"
- Previous message: Adenosine: "Re: Jan Drew Misinformation (LYING) On Mercury"
- In reply to: Rich._at_.: "Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew"
- Next in thread: Rich._at_.: "Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew"
- Reply: Rich._at_.: "Re: The Tactics Of Jan Drew"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
