Re: Dr. Fein
a_weisman_at_yahoo.com
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Question about antibiotics.."
- Previous message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Dr. Fein"
- In reply to: Rita Stanley: "Re: Dr. Fein"
- Next in thread: derdrittemann2003_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Dr. Fein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Feb 2005 13:25:50 -0800
Rita Stanley wrote:
> <pmerv@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:1107409639.861494.305090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Boy, Rita, aren't we sweet tonight! You always put the most
negative
> > spin on everything. It must be a real downer to live like that.
>
> What BS. You are only tryng to divert attention.
>
> Hey, I love how you use the term 'negative'. What rot that is tossed
out
> when you don't like what anyone says.
Yes "negative" means disagreeing with "the pat" "the phyllis" or the
other "wonderful" Lyme "activists" and "leaders."
> What is not a downer is not being manipulated by the collective
bullying and
> brutishness and other controlling tactics by you and these Lymeland
> organizations. That is liberating.
They really are a bunch of bullies, which is the first thing they
accuse others of.
They PRETEND to huggy huggy sweetness and light but they're the first
ones to cast stones at others.
How very LymeNUT of them.
> > I am not insinuating anything.
>
> Oh, yes you are.
What a blatant lie by Phyllis--she's "not insinuating anything."
She must think that the rest of us are as stupid as she is.
> You are insinuating and diverting attention because I want to know
why LDA
> and ILADS are not supporting this Dr.
> If Fallon does it, why can't they follow his lead?
Well Fallon is a stand up guy with integrity.
Obviously these folks lack the same character.
>If this type of person
> OK's her, why not these organizations. I know that they trouble with
LDF,
> but with Fallon? He's vouching for her.
They're all about themselves not others. It doesn't matter that they
pretend to be working for others. They have their own agendas which
primarily involve self aggrandizement and self promotion rather than
the cause they've chosen to hitch their wagons to.
> These organizations are there to help the doctors who help the
people. This
> doctor is not unknown.
I'm relatively neutral on this doctor. Treats aggressively, yes.
Charges aggressively too. Sells her own products to her patients. I
don't think patients get a break financially. Not rumored to have a
great bedside manner.
I do admire the forthrightness about the charges, which is a big
improvement over many others, such as some of the NYStaters.
But I am totally opposed to the legal defense fund nonsense.
> AND I want to know the criteria of what it takes to be supported by
these
> organizations if a doctor gets into trouble. It would be nice to know
that
> upfront. Do they have to belong to some clique, some private OK
society.
Well for sure they cannot DARE to question "the pat."
> I merely asked. Nonprofits are supposed
> > to pass their assets on to other nonprofits when they fold, and I
> > wondered what LA had done with their funds.
>
> You are insinuating dirt.
Yes she obviously is.
> BTW, go to Sharon or go to the MI Lyme group that made the Lyme
Alliance
> national. They still exist. They would have the financials, and you
can find
> out what happened to any money that might have been there at the end.
Since
> the LA was run on donations, and since it was hard to keep it in the
black,
> you will find your answers.
She doesn't care what happened to the $$$ (though I did get a sense
that she thought it should have been given to LDA???)
> As a director you should
> > have had something to say about it, I assume. Are you trying to
> > distract readers from your complicity in something underhand by
casting
> > aspersions on my reasons for asking? Do you have a guilty
conscience?
> > Why not give a straightforward answer? LA is/was a nonprofit = if I
> > wanted I could ask for their 990. Why don't they pass on their
money to
> > a dr defense fund?
>
> You go and get the information. You are insunuating dirt; it is YOU
who are
> making claims. Now do the work. Let us all know.
You oughta sue the witch.
> And then tell me what this has to do with LDA and ILADS not
supporting Fein.
LOL Yup another Phyllis diversion. No answers, only distractions.
>> Speaking of money, no I don't want to get "catty on bucks," whatever
> > that means. If you want to know where your money went, contact our
> > treasurer. Actually I am surprised you only got 2 issues - did you
> > write me about it? = because our mailing list person always put
people
> > down for a year or 4 issues, whichever was greater. We have a
sense of
> > obligation to people who send us money. I regret that I was not
able
> > to put out 4 64-page issues per year. I wish I could have done more
> > frequent, smaller issues. It was and continues to be challenging. I
> > don't get paid, but I get enough positive feedback that inspires me
to
> > continue.
>
> You took the money and never responded to my repeated questions of
where was
> the money or where were the issues. Your response was ZERO. You never
> replied. And I doubt that I was the only one. That was for 2 years.
The
> first year I sent the money, no response. The second year, the same
after
> one issue. There is NO EXCUSE for that.
None. Phyllis here's yet another reason that YOU'RE FIRED!
I will say this much for you--you are consistent in your total
incompetence.
> And you dis me about something that you are making up about LA.
Speaking of
> consciences. You go to LA, get the answers and then inform us of what
you
> are insuating.
LA provided a newsletter FREE OF CHARGE to people Phyllis--which served
people who weren't on the internet. AND they posted content on the
internet.
Your group? Has always charged for providing OLD NEWS BELATEDLY and
until recently put ZERO content on the net, and even now has limited
content only.
LA was non political for the most part, they generously provided
information and support and rather than charging subscriptions relied
on donations.
You should be ASHAMED to DARE to question them. They did good for
good's sake!
They NEVER made a huge mess like you and CALDA and LDA have time after
time.
Phyllis YOU SUCK!
> And call it negative, mervine, call it anything you want.
LOL
Notice how Phyllis pretends to stick to the high road but she sure does
take her shots. Always in a cowardly backstabbing backbiting way. Yeah
she's sweetness and light. LOL
> About Fein, it is funny that you think someone who has publicly
> > attacked LDA should now receive LDA largesse.
>
> And what did she 'attack' LDA about?
She NEVER "attacked" the LDA.
She DISAGREED with "the pat" about legislation. Go figure.
For that "crime" she has been banished and no one in the lda kingdom is
permitted to speak her name lest they be banished too.
> That would be interesting to know. Did she dare question or critique
LDA?
Yup.
She committed the "crime" of dissent.
> Gee I can't imagine why. Was she upset about that paid lobbyist - you
know
> that LDF/LDA big fight thing years ago or was it something else?
Yes another good example of LDA violating their fiduciary duty with
respect to donated money. They took the money of Lyme patients and used
it to sabotage the (rotten terrible) LDF bill in favor of their own
(even worse) bill in a famous scorched earth strategy. In other words
they worked against other Lyme patients for the sake of ego and self
aggrandizement.
Of course neither bill was worthy of support but that wasn't the point.
The point was that if "the karen" was for it' "the pat" was against it
and vice versa.
In the meantime political and actual capital was wasted, our
credibility was further damaged and lots of energy time and resources
were wasted in what amounted to a mindless war of egos in what was
truly a less than zero sum game.
Like two children fighting over a flea infested teddy bear.
>Cheezo most
> people were disgusted with the lobbyist thing. But maybe it was
something
> else.
It was other legislation that fein dared disagree about.
>So, if a doctor who does not cowtow to the LDA, who DARES to questions
> anything about it, then they get shunned.
Pariah. Banished.
> Hey, these internal politics are grand. They keep on giving..........
Yup and they've effectively set us all back and turned MANY people off
to the whole cause.
> Unfortunately it is true
> > that every doctor that goes down hurts all of us, and most of us do
> > feel that every doctor who is targeted should be supported. However
you
> > seem to want to dictate what type of support should be given. Maybe
no
> > one will write a letter. That doesn't mean nothing is being done.
In
> > fact, things are being done vis a vis medical boards in various
states.
> > I am sure you know that nonprofits can't just hand money out to
> > individuals for their personal lawsuits or whatever - they would
risk
> > losing their nonprofit status.
>
> BS. No support is being given this doctor.
Right no LDA support at least. She does claim to have raised $25 K
though I hear it was from one wealthy patient primarily.
> I expect that these national organizations be supportive of these
quality
> doctors. Period. Not doctors in some exclusive club. The fact that
Fein
> raised questions about LDA only points to the fact that she is able
to think
> for herself. And if LDF is helping her, well, then it just seems to
add to
> the grudge.
Is LDF still around?
> Now go and talk to Sharon or that MI group and get the financials,
and let
> us all know what you find. The balls in your court.
LOL "The balls in your court" LOL
> Negatively yours,
>
> Rita
You go girl!
- Next message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Question about antibiotics.."
- Previous message: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Dr. Fein"
- In reply to: Rita Stanley: "Re: Dr. Fein"
- Next in thread: derdrittemann2003_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Dr. Fein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
