Retraction of Libel Concerning Joel Shmukler
AramSarah
A few days ago I made a post in a private, closed email group that did not
include Joel. Someone broke the rules of the group and sent my post directly
to him. Since then Joel has bombarded me with emails threatening lawsuits and
even began sending them to me from a new address when I blocked his old one.
If you have been questioning who was Kathleen's alleged "cohort", it was me.
Someone (else) sent me the following information on libel:
<<
Libel is injury to reputation.
Words, pictures or cartoons that expose a person to public hatred, shame,
disgrace or ridicule or induce an ill opinion of a person are libelous.
Actions for civil libel result mainly from news stories that allege crime,
fraud, dishonesty, immoral or dishonorable conduct….etc.
There is only ONE complete and unconditional defense to a civil action for
libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE:(Note well that word,
PROVABLY) Quoting someone correctly is not enough. The important thing is to
be able to satisfy a jury that the libelous statement is substantially
correct.
>>
I can't prove anything I said regarding Joel Shmukler in the above-mentioned
post.
On that basis I retract my statements concerning Joel Shmukler in which I
questioned his legal ability. I have no provable evidence or facts that in any
way show that Joel is not a wonderful lawyer and a credit to the legal
profession- in fact, let me say that in recognizing the error, that in the past
few days Joel has shown himself to be a really good one.
Sincerely,
Sarah Elizabeth Leonard Weiss
We Will STOP STEERE
From: aram...@cs.com (AramSarah)
<snipped>
A few days ago I made a post in a private, closed email group that did not
include Joel. Someone broke the rules of the group and sent my post directly
to him. Since then Joel has bombarded me with emails threatening lawsuits and
even began sending them to me from a new address when I blocked his old one. If
you have been questioning who was Kathleen's alleged "cohort", it was me.
So, what is this, like the 4th person (myself included) to be threatened with a
lawsuit from the famous person who has helped *thousands* of Lyme patients?
I believe the proper way to handle this is to turn this person into the true
"AOL Internet Police." Let them handle someone who continues to threaten and
harass. Since you're not on AOL, I'll forward the info to you so you can
contact them about this. Save all the posts as *evidence* that you are be
harrassed and threatened. Marleen
**************************************************************************
*******
ONLINE CONDUCT
AOL members are expected to act in a manner appropriate to each newsgroup in
which they participate. Failure to do so is a violation of AOL's Terms of
Service and will result in disciplinary action if reported to AOL. Each
newsgroup has its own specific guidelines for conduct and it is the
responsibility of the member to familiarize him- or herself with these
guidelines before posting to a newsgroup. Many newsgroups contain
regularly-posted guidelines, charters or FAQs (documents with answers to
frequently asked questions). See BEFORE YOU POST and Netiquette: START HERE for
additional guidelines.
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
lymef...@aol.com (We Will STOP STEERE) wrote:
> Subject: Retraction of Libel Concerning Joel Shmukler
> From: aram...@cs.com (AramSarah)
> <snipped>
It is TRUE that when you violated the criminal laws of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania that you were informed (not threatened) that
appropriate action would be taken.
Ironically enough that information was prompted by YOUR CLEAR violation
of the AOL TOS--when you sent a HATEFUL CRUDE AND VILE EMAIL TO ME
PRIVATELY containing coarse and offensive language.
Since AOL only sent YOU a warning it is laughable to call the the 'true
internet police.'
PLEASE waste your time and report me for giving Sarah FAIR WARNING and
being generous enough to give her an OPPORTUNITY to retract her clearly
defamatory statements concerning me as a lawyer.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You can think that I am not a
nice person and even post that is YOUR opinion--that is not defamatory
even though it is untrue--you are entitled to your uninformed and
moronic opinions on a wide variety of subjects. You are certainly
entitled to criticize my ideas.
I am an ardent advocate for freedom--including free speech and free
expression. I cherish the internet as one of the last bastions of
freedom in this age of political correctness. That is one thing I find
so offensive about YOU and others who constitute the Self appointed,
self righteous, sanctimonious, COGNITIVELY IMPAIRD and emotionally
disturbed Lymie Politically Correct thought policers. Your persistent
conduct in trying to stifle the views of others who raise questions,
provide suggestions, criticism or critique of Lyme 'activism' is not
ony offensive but a true threat to everyone's freedom. Further, it
poisons the atmosphere here and elsewhere in the Lyme 'community' and
alienates many with valuable contributions to provide. It is YOU and
those like YOU who sow the seeds of dissension and disrupt this
newsgroup an.
BUT there are limits to free speech. Slander, libel and defamation are
amongst those limits. Society has drawn bright lines to limit freedom
in order to protect the freedoms of others.
I will post seperately and provide some information about slander,
libel and defamation.
Marleen: I am not embarrassed or ashamed that I would avail myself of
the remedies available to me for the illegal AND offensive behavior
directed towards me--by YOU and others. YES--it saddens me, and makes
me pessimistic about the Lyme 'community' and humanity in general.
However, if it takes litigation to deter you and others from your
injurious, illegal, offensive and self destructive behavior
(destructive towards the Lyme community) then so be it. It is up to YOU
to conform your conduct to acceptable norms of behavior--as determined
by SOCIETY and OUR LAWS--not by cretinous fools and twits like YOU.
Finally, Marleen, you are woefully ignorant about so many things this
topic included. I did NOTHING to violate my TOS agreement with AOL so
go ahead--waste your time and report me--better than wasting other
people's time and energy.
It just so happens that what Sarah had written on the 'private' group
that used to be 125 people until Kathleen started kicking people off
out of her delusional beliefs that people were 'aiding and abetting the
ENEMY' was CLEARLY AND DEMONSTRABLY WRONG, SLANDEROUS, LIBELLOUS,
DEFAMATORY, INACCURATE AND UNTRUE!
Sarah understated her apology--it isn't just that she could not prove
what she said WAS true--I have all the evidence that it was
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
When someone tries to steal from me my reputation, they are trying to
steal that which is invaluable to ME and has no value to them. So it is
by definition an intentional and malicious act which can be punished
not just with compensation for the injuries suffered, but also with
PUNITIVE damages.
Once again: you are entitled to your opinions, as baseless and
uninformed as they consistently have proven to be. You are entitled to
disagree with me. You are entitled to dislike me. You are free to
respond to my ideas with your own--if you have any.
But I have a ZERO tolerance policy towards illegal conduct--whether it
be yours, Sarah's, Kathleen's or anyone else's. I will NOT apologize of
be stigmatized for using whatever remedies are available to me to deter
such conduct and/or to force it to cease and desist.
I don't WANT to have to sue anyone and have managed to avoid doing so
for most of my life--even though I am a lawyer I am NOT a personally
litigious person--or maybe BECAUSE I am a lawyer I avoid personal
litigiousness. HOWEVER, whatever personal insults and attacks I have to
put up with, I don't have to put up with ILLEGAL and OFFENSIVE conduct
which is clearly actionable. And I don't have to apologize for that
either! EVERYONE should feel unashamed to avail themselves of the
remedies provided by society and our legal system when they are injured
by the actionable conduct of others. There happens to be NOTHING wrong
with that--and there happens to be PLENTY wrong with the conduct that
provokes such a response.
Please look for my post on cyber slander, libel and defamation soon!
--
Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Der Bedrosian Family
volunteered their posts privately as evidence of
Harrassment, which by the way is an actionable
offense. And you dont' even need a lawyer,
you just turn in the evidence to your local police
and they do the rest, for free! Isn't America Great????
We Will STOP STEERE wrote:
> Subject: Retraction of Libel Concerning Joel Shmukler
> From: aram...@cs.com (AramSarah)
> <snipped>
> A few days ago I made a post in a private, closed email group that did not
> include Joel. Someone broke the rules of the group and sent my post directly
> to him. Since then Joel has bombarded me with emails threatening lawsuits and
> even began sending them to me from a new address when I blocked his old one. If
> you have been questioning who was Kathleen's alleged "cohort", it was me.
> *******************************************************************************
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
aram...@cs.com (AramSarah) wrote:
>
>
> A few days ago I made a post in a private, closed email group that
did not
> include Joel. Someone broke the rules of the group and sent my post
directly
> to him.
1. The 'private' email group consisted of 125 or so odd people (I mean
the odd part in more than one sense of the word). It is misleading to
try to minimize the potential impact by describing this as a 'private,
closed email group.'
2. The group DID include me until your 'cohort' began to unsubscribe
anyone perceived to be even remotely linked to ME. Of course your
cohort sees 'enemies' everywhere--an unfortunate sequelae of her
physical and psychological conditions.
3. The 'rules' of the group provided that UNLESS something was
marked 'NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION' it could be freely distributed. Your
defamatory and demonstrably untrue post was not so labelled. So there
was no violation by anyone of the rule you cite.
4. The 'rules' of the private group were NEVER violated by me or Jenny
or any of the others recently unsubscribed by the unmoderate moderator,
Kathleen.
5. Kathleen has repeatedly been asked to provide the post that she
claims I made on the internet in which I distributed materials marked
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. She has not done so because that NEVER occurred.
> Since then Joel has bombarded me with emails threatening lawsuits and
> even began sending them to me from a new address when I blocked his
old one.
Sarah: You should appreciate my generous offer to give you an
opportunity to AVOID being sued by giving you fair warning and the
opportunity to APOLOGIZE and to RETRACT your statement. I do NOT see an
apology, and I see a retraction HERE. However, you MUST retract your
statements ON that newsgroup too.
I did NOT have to give you any warning or any such opportunity. I could
have just begun suit.
Since you have not complied with the deadline I gave you (48 hours) nor
have you complied with my simple requests, you are not off the hook
yet. I will add that IF this ILLEGAL conduct occurs again you will NOT
receive any additional warnings or opportunities to avoid being sued.
> If you have been questioning who was Kathleen's alleged "cohort", it
was me.
>
> Someone (else) sent me the following information on libel:
>
> <<
> Libel is injury to reputation.
> Words, pictures or cartoons that expose a person to public hatred,
shame,
> disgrace or ridicule or induce an ill opinion of a person are
libelous.
> Actions for civil libel result mainly from news stories that allege
crime,
> fraud, dishonesty, immoral or dishonorable conduct….etc.
> There is only ONE complete and unconditional defense to a civil
action for
> libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE:(Note well that word,
> PROVABLY) Quoting someone correctly is not enough. The important
thing is to
> be able to satisfy a jury that the libelous statement is
substantially
> correct.
> >>
>
> I can't prove anything I said regarding Joel Shmukler in the above-
mentioned
> post.
Sarah: This is obviously very difficult for you to force out. The TRUTH
is that not only can you not prove what you said, but I can PROVE that
it is DEMONSTRABLY WRONG AND UNTRUE.
> On that basis I retract my statements concerning Joel Shmukler in
which I
> questioned his legal ability. I have no provable evidence or facts
that in any
> way show that Joel is not a wonderful lawyer and a credit to the legal
> profession- in fact, let me say that in recognizing the error, that
in the past
> few days Joel has shown himself to be a really good one.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sarah Elizabeth Leonard Weiss
Somehow I feel damned with the faintest of praise??? And I suspect that
the final comment was a bit sarcastic? In any event, IF you comply with
the original OFFER to retract your statements AND apologize, I am
inclined to let the matter drop. Again: you MUST retract the statement
on the group where you published it originally AND apologize. Even
though the deadline has passed for you to avail yourself of my generous
offer, I am still inclined to drop the matter IF IT IS NOT REPEATED
only if you comply with these very simple requests.
This was a start but unfortunately not enough. I am not trying to be
unreasonable--to the contrary, I and others including my very mean
lawyers, think that I am being MORE than generous in even making the
offer in the first place. I understand that it is quite a struggle for
you to admit that you were wrong and to do the right thing to make
things right, but I am going to require that you do so. I believe that
is the only way you will learn this lesson once and for all. ;-)
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
jd...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Fourth person, no, you left a few people out who have
> volunteered their posts privately as evidence of
> Harrassment, which by the way is an actionable
> offense. And you dont' even need a lawyer,
> you just turn in the evidence to your local police
> and they do the rest, for free! Isn't America Great????
Dear Miss TWIT: YES america is a great country. PLEASE: I beg of you:
continue to make the moronic comments that we all know you so well by!
And PLEASE attempt to take spurious actions against me. I will respond
appropriately with suits for malicious prosecution against YOU. PLEASE
report me to the police based on your complete misunderstanding of what
constitutes harassment! Please continue to post defamatory things about
me. I will be happy to take title to your home and seize all of your
assets whatever they may be. If you have no assets, I will simply sit
on the judgments until you do if you ever do. New Jersey is
particularly harsh when it comes to attempts to shield assets from
enforcement of money judgements!
I will donate the money to Lyme causes in which YOU and twits like you
are not involved with the proviso that you NEVER become involved with
those causes and organizations.
YES harassment IS an actionable offense. However, I have NOT harrassed
anyone and if you EVER bothered to inform yourself about the subjects
on which you purport to expertise (none of which you know much if
anything about) you would realize that the legal definition of
harassment does not cover ANY of MY conduct--and your understanding of
the word as used in the english language (if you even understand that
definition) is NOT the same as the definition of harassment under the
LAW.
So PLEASE go ahead. Why don't you dress in your ridiculous tick outfit
and go to the police station and report me? LOL ROTFL LMAO I'm sure
they will take you quite seriously! LOL Arachnid avenger??? LOL Try
ignorant, insufferable passive aggressive FOOL!
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
jd...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Fourth person, no, you left a few people out who have
> volunteered their posts privately as evidence of
> Harrassment, which by the way is an actionable
> offense. And you dont' even need a lawyer,
> you just turn in the evidence to your local police
> and they do the rest, for free! Isn't America Great????
Dear Miss TWIT you sanctimonious, self righteous, insufferable, passive
aggressive FOOL and to your moronic friend Marleen:
Just to follow up here is an ENGLISH language definition of harassment
AND the LEGAL definition. You will note that there is a BIG difference:
ha*rass (verb transitive): [French harasser, from Middle French, from
harer to set a dog on, from Old French hare, interjection used to
incite dogs, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German hier here --
more at HERE] First appeared 1617 1 a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE b : to annoy
persistently 2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids <~ed the enemy>
synonym see WORRY -- ha*rass*er (noun) -- ha*rass*ment (noun)
18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5504 HARRASSMENT BY COMMUNICATION OR ADDRESS:
(a) Offense defined--A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree
if, with intent to harass another, he
(1) makes a... communication or addresses to or about such
other person any lewd, lascivious or indecent words or language....
(2) makes...communications....in offensively coarse language
So be forewarned: your misinterpretation of what is legally actionable
as being the same as what just bugs YOU makes a big difference.
The law does not protect your unique and delicate sensibilities. The
law DOES protect my right to express myself which YOU (unsuccesfully)
try to stifle at every opportunity and in every way that you can.
I dare you to do more than make oblique and vague references
about 'private emails' and post whatever you claim
constitutes 'harassment' by ME since I have NEVER harassed ANYONE in my
entire life.
On the other hand, when it comes to illegal activity, here is a repost
from YOU which EVERYONE should read to see why I think YOU are
dangerous, and I ask EVERYONE to note the illegal activities that you
discuss planning and admit to having committed in the past. I am
posting two representative notes out of the many private responses I
received to this as well:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people wonder WHY the Lyme 'Activists' Concern me:
Ok: Now I think that these three posts speak VOLUMES about our FECKLESS
leaders in the Lyme community.
What is more astounding than Miss Twit's complete idiocy is that she
appears almost proud of it. What is more astounding than that is that
Kathleen feels this demonstrates how 'terribly funny AND brilliant'
Miss TWIT actually is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST 1: HI Kathleen:
Appreciated your info on Steere's published stuff to use
against him. I finally figured out what I was doing last
week when I was working on the stuff for the fliers.
I got two good two page pamphlets out of it.
Then I got confused about what I had left, if I had
already used it, how would I tell - because I wasn't tracking
and nobody else was up.
Good thing we don't have to explain these types of things
to anyone else except other lymies. I could not read
two blurbs and determine if they were the same and I had
already used one. Great, huh?
Last night at the LDA conference I had Lovey staying with
me since Oct. 31st, and I had Joan Green staying at the
hotel there and she and I had to talk aabout the 9th
so the three of us went out of the hotel for dinner, me driving.
We asked the front desk clerk where we could go and he
described a small strip of restaurants on US #1.
Which - me being in the middle lane and the other two, *talking*
(imaagine that) drove right by. Then I told everyone I drove right by
it. Then I tried to figure out why. Then I figured out it was because
I knew I was in the middle lane but *could not see* the
right lane to get over.
Then I had to wonder aloud why I could not see, before It (FINALLY)
dawned on me my glasses were on my necklace-thing instead of on my
face. I am driving with no glasses, the world is strange and beautiful
(and AN alien LANDSCAPE!).
Did the old double u-turn thing and first told everyone they must quiet
down so I could put my glasses on.
And of course they understood the whole thing perfectly. It was such a
relief. Anyone else, my husband, kids, would be going
WHAT? WHAT? etc., and HOW can you be DRIVING without
your GLASSES, you can't SEE without your GLASSES!
WHY do we have to be QUIET so you can PUT ON YOUR GLASSES???
Etc.
Anyway. I just wanted you to know that in spite of my mental challenge
the other night, and I do find myself initially declaring I am not low
oxygen
a lot these days when in fact I prob. am (see below) - I was prob. low
oxygen the other day but I DID use your material *fruitfully* and I
WILL use your
newest material and everyone is SO GLAD to get these flyers, Drs. and
Lymies alike, to see Steere's own words used etc.
It is the greatest! (PS I tell people the fliers are from your
postings.
I don't try to claim it as original work plus people wouldn't believe
it anyway (BUT you can't even PUT ON YOUR GLASSES right)
So thank you for your newest offereings, I forget whether its on Sci-
Med
or ActionLD. Not that I am low oxygen or anything.
RE: Low oxygen. That same general night (last week) I posted
to Pat Smith, denying I was low oxygen of course, suggesting
that I would stand across the street from OPMC on Thursdays,
with binoculars and a page of pictures of the Evil Men of
LD and determnine who was OPMC's expert witness against
Dr. B. I then told Pat once I found out who it was I was going to do
whatever it took to discredit him. I then stated I was going to drive
to "his" house and go thru his garbage on garbage nights until I got
some stuff I could use to blackmail, intimidate, or otherwise harass.
[I happened to mention how I had taught my first husband (that is my
new phrase for him) when we first met, how to go with
me on the different garbage nights in the different parts of town and
we would "salvage" and fix up and sell, etc., all of the "treasures" we
found. (Or keep, I still have two sets of chairs......reallly nice
when recovered, sanded, etc)]
I then again claimed not to be low oxygen to Pat.
Great, right? I sound like a subversive terrorist
about the secret witness and his garbage.
The difference betweeen then and now being *then* I claimed
not to be low oxygen.
*Now* I don't claim anything but, damn, it sounds like a good
idea, doesn't it?
(Laughing) - want to come along? I;ll pick you up.
Anyway thanks once again for your hard work, dahhhlling!
(MT) Jeannine Der Bedrosian
POST 2: OK, I guess I AM low oxygen. I was being
funny and sending a private note to Kathleen
and didn't notice I sent it to Sci Med.
For the record I am just kidding about
haunting anyone;s garbage and etc.
Sorry about that.
Repeat I was trying to be funny, humor seems
to be an elusive quality for me at times.
And I guess (damn I hate to say this) I really
am low oxygen ALL the time.
Forgive my indiscretion and ignore, thanks,
LunaTick again!
POST 3: LOL I am glad you wrote this to the group.
It shows people how terribly funny and brilliant
you are. How much genius can there be when one
is both an invertebrate and a vertebrate?
You transcend all intelligent life.
I shall never have to defend your intelligence
again for this slip of the addressline. :)
For you have the perception of the multieyed
and the superior brain off the creatively
imaginative.
WE LOVE YOU MISTICK!!
GLAD WE HAVE *ONE* ARTHROPOD ON OUR SIDE.
One Anthropomorphous Arthropod is better than
a team of Ivory-Towered RECLUSE spiders who
attempt to eviscerate us with their venomous
Guidelines.
Kathleen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1:
So this means we can blame LOW oxygen for the stupid idiotic things we
do? Cool.
What a depressing reminder of the kind of people who are "fighting the
good fight" huh? It's going to get to the point where I'll be
embarrassed to say I have Lyme for fear of being pigeon holed with
these brainless wonders. I have not had a credibility problem before
but they are going to make us all look like mental cases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 2:
How Kathleen read the rantings of a dangerous idiot who thinks it's
funny that she was driving when she couldn't see and is planning to
stalk doctors and trespass on their property and came up with the
conclusion that she was brilliant and funny is beyond me! It's also
quite scary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of *feckless*:
feck*less (adjective): [Scottish, from feck effect, majority, from
Middle English (Scottish) fek, alteration of Middle English effect]
First appeared circa 1585 1 : WEAK, INEFFECTIVE 2 : WORTHLESS,
IRRESPONSIBLE -- feck*less*ly (adverb) -- feck*less*ness (noun)
BCLyme
<jmsp...@aol.com> writes:
>Sarah: You should appreciate my generous offer to give you an
>opportunity to AVOID being sued by giving you fair warning and the
>opportunity to APOLOGIZE and to RETRACT your statement.
You are a total asshole, Joel.
Now, go stand in the corner and hold your breath while you wait for my
retraction you moron.
Sue me, too.
Regards,
Brian
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) wrote:
> In article <908mka$fvm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
> <jmsp...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >opportunity to AVOID being sued by giving you fair warning and the
> >opportunity to APOLOGIZE and to RETRACT your statement.
>
>
> Now, go stand in the corner and hold your breath while you wait for my
> retraction you moron.
>
> Sue me, too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
YOU to cease and desist is that you have not crossed the line between
expressing your stupid, baseless, uninformed, ignorant, imbecillic,
cretinous opinions to committing slander,libel or defamation.
You are entitled to think that I am an a**hole...although your use of
profanity only demeans YOU and proves your intellectual poverty. There
are much better ways to insult people than with coarse and offensive
language!
Of course, as I have previously pointed out to your fellow cretins: you
come to the battle of the wits only half armed! At least I am a TOTAL
a**hole in your opinion!
So I just think that you are a fool and a cretinous twit who takes
every single opportunity to take gratuitious potshots at me because of
your own deep insecurites.
BUT if you EVER do cross the line you will NOT receive a warning like
Sarah did and like Kathleen did. I'll just have to have you served at
your home address in Ansonia CT....you will get no further warning!
AS phil collins said: sue sue sue sue YOU....I'd love to Brian--just
give me a reason. However, I don't make idle threats so unless there is
a legitimate case, I won't sue you just to make your miserable life any
worse than it already is!
Ruth
> So this means we can blame LOW oxygen for the stupid idiotic things we
> do? Cool.
> What a depressing reminder of the kind of people who are "fighting the
> good fight" huh? It's going to get to the point where I'll be
> embarrassed to say I have Lyme for fear of being pigeon holed with
> these brainless wonders. I have not had a credibility problem before
> but they are going to make us all look like mental cases.
Oh come on. It was a funny letter. Humor, remember? Wow, what a concept.
Listen, folks, you are not gonna be able to sue Joel, or TOS him or stop
him in anyway from posting . What you can do is IGNORE him. It's easy.
Just don't respond( obviously I need to take my own advice).....Or if you
have no self control( like me), get a newsreader with a filter on it...and
then you won't have to look at his posts. Most e-mail servers have a way
of blocking unwanted e-mail as well. It is not hard. It will keep your
blood pressure under control.....
Then we can get back to fighting the real enemies.
Ruth, on a break from cleaning the house ( yechhhh).
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
aram...@cs.com (AramSarah) wrote:
>
>
> A few days ago I made a post in a private, closed email group that
did not
> include Joel. Someone broke the rules of the group and sent my post
directly
lawsuits and
> even began sending them to me from a new address when I blocked his
old one.
was me.
>
> Someone (else) sent me the following information on libel:
>
> <<
> Libel is injury to reputation.
> Words, pictures or cartoons that expose a person to public hatred,
shame,
> disgrace or ridicule or induce an ill opinion of a person are
libelous.
> Actions for civil libel result mainly from news stories that allege
crime,
> fraud, dishonesty, immoral or dishonorable conduct….etc.
> There is only ONE complete and unconditional defense to a civil
action for
> libel: that the facts stated are PROVABLY TRUE:(Note well that word,
> PROVABLY) Quoting someone correctly is not enough. The important
thing is to
> be able to satisfy a jury that the libelous statement is
substantially
> correct.
> >>
>
> I can't prove anything I said regarding Joel Shmukler in the above-
mentioned
> post.
which I
> questioned his legal ability. I have no provable evidence or facts
that in any
> way show that Joel is not a wonderful lawyer and a credit to the legal
> profession- in fact, let me say that in recognizing the error, that
in the past
> few days Joel has shown himself to be a really good one.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sarah Elizabeth Leonard Weiss
>
that we haven't heard from Helen yet who along with the other three
always joins in ganging up on ME when any chance presents itself) is
that on the very thread where Sarah reluctantly offers a 'retraction'
when faced with the possibility of being sued, is that the others feel
they have to chime in and attack me. Sarah is reluctantly admitting
that she was WRONG yet still the others take that as yet another chance
to bash ME--the one who was wronged!
Go figure!
BTW: I forgot to add that making vague references to things that NEVER
occurred as MISS TWIT did is a McCarthyite tactic. And Kathleen's
unsubstantiated and untrue allegations about my alleged violations of
the SECRECY of her action list are the same type of thing. Simply
fabricated excuses for THEIR wrongful behavior.
You guys are a small but unfortunately vocal minority of narrow minded
reactionary twits! And I have ZERO TOLERANCE for any of you any more!
We Will STOP STEERE
In article <908mka$fvm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
<jmsp...@aol.com> writes:
>Sarah: You should appreciate my generous offer to give you an
>opportunity to AVOID being sued by giving you fair warning and the
>opportunity to APOLOGIZE and to RETRACT your statement.
You are a total asshole, Joel.
Now, go stand in the corner and hold your breath while you wait for my
retraction you moron.
Sue me, too.
Regards,
Brian
Thank you Brian for that laugh! I didn't retract or apologize either.
Marleen
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
185.s439.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.com>,
Rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth ) wrote:
>
> > So this means we can blame LOW oxygen for the stupid idiotic things
we
> > do? Cool.
> > What a depressing reminder of the kind of people who are "fighting
the
> > good fight" huh? It's going to get to the point where I'll be
> > embarrassed to say I have Lyme for fear of being pigeon holed with
> > these brainless wonders. I have not had a credibility problem
before
> > but they are going to make us all look like mental cases.
>
concept.
>
> Listen, folks, you are not gonna be able to sue Joel, or TOS him or
stop
> him in anyway from posting . What you can do is IGNORE him. It's
easy.
> Just don't respond( obviously I need to take my own advice).....Or if
you
> have no self control( like me), get a newsreader with a filter on
it...and
> then you won't have to look at his posts. Most e-mail servers have a
way
> of blocking unwanted e-mail as well. It is not hard. It will keep your
> blood pressure under control.....
>
> Then we can get back to fighting the real enemies.
>
> Ruth, on a break from cleaning the house ( yechhhh).
>
see and go careening past the exit. I don't think it is funny to harass
and stalk anyone--even the doctors we disagree with. I don't think it
is funny that MISS TWIT the MISTAKEN tries to use citations and
materials she has not read and misunderstands in representing herself
as a spokesTWIT for the Lyme community--especially when those materials
have been provided by Kathleen and are slanted, biased, strident, taken
out of context etc.
I think that damages our credibility and sets us back. I also don't
think that it is amusing to pretend to be a tick, or post as 'miss tick
dahhling' this is NOT a big joke--this is a serious illness which ruins
the lives of many people. I don't think it is funny to go to capitol
hill to meet our representatives without a clue what you are talking
about dressed as a big fat tick (she must have had a blood meal from an
elephant she is so engorged--I thought ticks quit feeding when they got
that fat) because how could ANYONE take us seriously???????? What
amazes me is that she must have gotten past security--I guess they rely
on the metal detectors. Luckily for her they don't have meNtal
detectors. Can you picture them trying to hancuff her? Or ordering her
to lie down on the floor face down and her rolling from side to side?
Or on her back with her many legs flailing wildly in the air?
See I DO have a sense of humor. I just don't find our feckless self
appointed 'leaders' funny--only feckless. God save us all!
The one thing that MISS TWIT THE MISTAKEN ever said that I agree with
is that the ENEMY IS US! And she is on the list of real dangers to our
cause! Along with the other Joel haters on this thread.
And Ruth: As I have said many many times: EVERYONE is free to disagree
with me and to ignore me--change the channel there are so many here on
the internet. That is your right and everyone else's too! I applaud
your decision to exercise that right if you so choose!
Have a nice day! ;-)
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
since they are such complete wimps, and it was your first reported
offense you received only a warning notice--next time your service will
be suspended and the time after that you will be dropped by AOL
completely. Of course that won't keep you off the internet and if I
didn't have better things to do I would have reported you to the police
since what YOU did actually did violate the harassment statute Marleen.
In fact, I may still report you...the statute of limitations has not
run out. And next time I definitely will. You receive no further
warnings from ME!
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
lymef...@aol.com (We Will STOP STEERE) wrote:
> From: bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme)
>
> In article <908mka$fvm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
> <jmsp...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Sarah: You should appreciate my generous offer to give you an
> >opportunity to AVOID being sued by giving you fair warning and the
> >opportunity to APOLOGIZE and to RETRACT your statement.
>
> You are a total asshole, Joel.
>
> Now, go stand in the corner and hold your breath while you wait for my
> retraction you moron.
>
> Sue me, too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
> Thank you Brian for that laugh! I didn't retract or apologize either.
> Marleen
>
will go in the moron's joke book--written by and aimed at morons. It
made YOU laugh!
Kathleen
Kathleen
> 5. Kathleen has repeatedly been asked to provide the post that she
> claims I made on the internet in which I distributed materials marked
> NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. She has not done so because that NEVER occurred.
This was all NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION stuff.
This was posted here.
Subject: Kathleen Dickson: Role Model for the mentally ill here????
From: Joel M. Shmukler, Esq <jmsp...@aol.com>
Date: 2000/11/28
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
Kathleen: You have been posting voluminously of late regarding your
belief that 'Lyme is a BRAIN disease.' You have suggested that we join
the National Assn for the Mentally Ill. You have posted here and
elsewhere extensively about the neurologic and neuropsychiatric effects
of Lyme. You have proudly proclaimed yourself to be mentally ill (and
provided MORE than ample evidence from your postings). You have written
extensively suggesting that a good plan would be for us all to be
insitutionalized and treated for mental illness.
You fancy yourself a 'leader' in the great Lyme crusades (which BTW
fits the clinical criteria for your paranoid schizophrenia).
A leader doesn't ask their followers to do anything they wouldn't do.
Do you follow this? The suggestion is CHECK YOURSELF IN SOMEWHERE and
be a good role model for your followers. You can all insitutionalize
yourselves TOGETHER and from the safe CONFINES of a LOCKED WARD you can
plan your great crusade and your brilliant plans to expose everyone who
DARES to disagree with you as the LIARS and FRAUDS that you so
sincerely believe they are--cause everyone is out to get you, right?
You are a danger to yourself and to others. I will forward some of your
postings to a couple of the LLMD shrinks hoping they can intervene to
help you.
GET SOME HELP KATHLEEN!!! NOW!!!!! A mind is a terrible thing to
waste...
--
Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE
================================================
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
kathleen...@snet.net wrote:
> >
> > 5. Kathleen has repeatedly been asked to provide the post that she
> > claims I made on the internet in which I distributed materials
marked
> > NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION. She has not done so because that NEVER
occurred.
>
> This was posted here.
Kathleen:
1. All of the matters obliquely referred to in this post were things
that YOU posted HERE first before I ever commented on them;
2. You posted these things on multiple boards/lists/newsgroups
including many that have no silly not for distribution rules;
3. NONE of those things was labelled NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION anyway even
on action lyme--although I no longer have access so I can't copy them
or access them to provide proof;
4. You are now making things up to rationalize your bizzare behavior
based on your delusional states. This is very very sad and pathetic.
5. Once again you have made a complete fool of yourself. And shown
yourself to be a LIAR since EVERYONE here knows that YOU have posted
all of that stuff on this very newsgroup--which means that my
commenting upon it is fair game.
Kathleen: Thank you for reposting my critiques, ideas and suggestions
regarding action lyme, lyme 'activism', the LDA, national lyme bill and
the ct legislation. I stand behind all of those posts.
Funny thing though: YOU CLAIM that those very posts are so disruptive
and destructive and do so much to damage your 'plans' and our cause.
Now YOU are REposting the things YOU found so offensive in the first
place.
That is what is known as a scorched earth strategy: You are willing to
do ANYTHING even engage in posting things YOU think are disruptive and
destructive in order to try to make whatever your point is--especially
if you think it can discredit me in some fashion.
Guess what Kathleen: You do not have to go to such lengths to
desperately try to make your point (whatever it is). Your point is very
clear. We can all see it.
ON TOP OF YOUR HEAD!
Get some help Kathleen!
> --
> Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE
> ================================================
jl...@aol.com
>
> Subject: Kathleen Dickson: Role Model for the mentally ill here????
> From: Joel M. Shmukler, Esq <jmsp...@aol.com>
> Date: 2000/11/28
Kathleen -
This post is dated 11/28; you kicked us off the list 11/24, so this
post CANNOT be the reason. You've also spoken about these issues on
scimed, anyway.
Furthermore, you still haven't pointed out what in the world I did that
was in violation of action list rules, or what any of the other
innocent people who have been booted off in the past week have done.
Where's the beef?
Jenny
Jonathan R. Strong
<Joel M. Shmukler> wrote:
>>snip<<
> AS phil collins said: sue sue sue sue YOU....<
I either missed that Phil Collins song -- or more likely, forgot it...
Or did you mean, "Sussudio"? In an interview, he mentioned that they had the melody down, but no
lyrics when they went into a practice session. He ad-libbed "su-su-sudio" to keep time and get
the feel of what the vocal would sound like against the band. They all liked it enough so that
they never bothered writing "real" lyrics for the song...
- Jon
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
Jon: I was referring to the same song but using the phonetic
pronunciation....I actually knew the real title although I admit I was
WRONG in misreading the Fallon post.
I also suspect that you forget very little. You are far too coherent,
rational, articulate and intelligent. Or if this is your brain on Lyme
you musta been really scary smart before???? Probably both--you forget
very little and were scary smart before--and still are!
BCLyme
(Susan Fein) writes:
>x-no-archive:yes
>
>
>>
>>You are a total asshole, Joel.
>>
>>Now, go stand in the corner and hold your breath while you wait for my
>>retraction you moron.
>>
>>Sue me, too.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Brian
>
>Ya know, I realize everyone has the right to free speech, but it's getting so
>that even with Kathleen, Joel and Frank in my kill file, I can't get away
>from
>all the ugliness. Surely others are also wishing it would end... all the
>name
>calling and hatefulness y'all can muster isn't going to teach anyone to be a
>better person, nor enlighten anyone about Lyme disease, nor make the illness
>more bearable.
>
>What exactly is this newsgroup for again? Or have y'all just given up hope
>of
>it ever being of any useful support to anyone ever again, making yourselves
>content to throw excrement at one another?
>
>We *all* have strong feelings about the initial combatants here, but some of
>us
>are trying to keep from adding to the awfulness of it all.
>
>If you must express your hate and contempt for others, could you please
>consider doing it in private, or maybe, just MAYBE not doing it at all?
>
>Stepping off soapbox,
>
>Susan
Sorry, I choose not to stand by quietly while Joel attempts his hostile
takeover of our newsgroup while continually threatening people with laughable
lawsuits.
This doesn't appear to be a case where ignoring will provide a desirable
result. He enjoys reading himself too much.
Regards,
Brian
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
people just think you are a hypocritical cretinous fool, you have
chosen to open your mouth and prove the point! Is today a cretin
holiday since that appears to be a religion for you?
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) wrote:
> >>You are a total asshole, Joel.
> >>
> >>Now, go stand in the corner and hold your breath while you wait for
my
> >>retraction you moron.
> >>
> >>Sue me, too.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Brian
<Susan fein's post SNIPPED>
>
> Sorry, I choose not to stand by quietly while Joel attempts his
hostile
> takeover of our newsgroup
Who the hell said this was YOUR newsgoup you presumptious jerk? This is
a PUBLIC forum to which I contribute a great deal of substantive
information which is much more than can be said for YOU. You only
appear to add your gratuitous potshots at me whenever you think it is a
good opportunity to gang up on me with the other couple of
unfortunately vocal twits and lunatics who constitute a distinct but
unfortunately vocal minority.
while continually threatening people with laughable
> lawsuits.
There is NOTHING laugable about suing someone for damaging my good
name, especially when the slander is directed at me as an attorney not
just as a person or Lymie or member of this community.
If YOU had a good name to damage you might have a sense of the value of
what has been damaged maliciously and deliberately.
What if someone were to damage your reputation as a leader of cretinism
which you have worked so hard to achieve? LOL
>
> This doesn't appear to be a case where ignoring will provide a
desirable
> result. He enjoys reading himself too much.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
Maybe if YOU tried NOT starting fights with ME it would work? Worth a
try--just restrain yourself and don't stick your nose into fights that
don't involve or concern YOU. Go play in traffic...
BCLyme
>> Sorry, I choose not to stand by quietly while Joel attempts his
>hostile
>> takeover of our newsgroup
In article <9099kh$v0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
<jmsp...@aol.com> writes:
>Who the hell said this was YOUR newsgoup you presumptious jerk?
Joel;
Please examine more closely what I wrote (see above).
It says *our* not my.
Please pay closer attention.
Regards,
Brian
Jonathan R. Strong
> pronunciation....I actually knew the real title although I admit I was
> WRONG in misreading the Fallon post.
>
> I also suspect that you forget very little. You are far too coherent,
> rational, articulate and intelligent. Or if this is your brain on Lyme
> you musta been really scary smart before???? Probably both--you forget
> very little and were scary smart before--and still are!
Scary yes -- especially when I look at the mirror first thing in the
morning! Smart - in some ways, but as my neuropsych shows, there
are great holes in what's left of the intellect. Have to admit, thought,
that with increasing duration of treatment, the brain as a whole seems
to be functioning better -- noticeably -- week by week. Almost afraid
to get encouraged about this, lest it be temporary! (ever read "Flowers
for Algernon" or see the movie "Charlie"?).
Next goal is to start getting more sleep so what's left of the brain can
continue healing!
- Jon
BCLyme
(Susan Fein) writes:
>x-no-archive:yes
>
>
>In article <20001201170439...@nso-mk.aol.com>,
>bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) writes:
>
>>Sorry, I choose not to stand by quietly while Joel attempts his hostile
>>takeover of our newsgroup while continually threatening people with
>laughable
>>lawsuits.
>>
>>This doesn't appear to be a case where ignoring will provide a desirable
>>result. He enjoys reading himself too much.
>>
>
>I understand your frustration, but don't see any change in his behavior as a
>result of your namecalling.. just a further deterioration of the overal ng.
>
>It seems to me that as long as you let someone else determine how you behave,
>you're handing over the controls.
>
>Susan
Susan:
If a store clerk provides you with incredibly rude service how do you react?
Would you flash them a warm smile and say thank you very much? I wouldn't.
Would you ignore them? I wouldn't. It's possible that you and I conduct
ourselves very differently when it comes to this sort of thing but I'm betting
were more alike than not.
I don't see what's happening here on the newsgroup as being much different than
the store clerk scenario described above other than the fact that encounters
with such extremely rude clerks are typically rare occurances vs. Joel's rude
and childish behavior which we have all been subjected to so frequently that it
seems continuous.
Susan, please don't confuse the free choices that I make in how I decide to
respond to such abusiveness and negativity with 'letting someone determine how
I behave.' I assure you, I've handed over no controls - at least not yet.
Is it your suggestion that we all sit by quietly and give Joel free reign to
dominate the newsgroup with his views?
Or was it that you just didn't like my referring to him as an asshole? I must
say, that wasn't a proud moment for me but everyone has their limits and he has
a unique way of reaching most people's.
Please keep in mind that he and his girlfriend, Jenny, who acts in staggered
tandem with him, seem to keep getting kicked off of e-mail lists and discussion
boards. This gives the distinct impression that maybe, just maybe, it's not the
entire world who is wrong.
Regards,
Brian
BCLyme
Susan:
and childish behavior which we have all been subjected to so frequently, it
seems continual.
Susan, please don't confuse the free choices that I make in how I decide to
respond to such abusiveness and negativity with 'letting someone determine how
I behave.' I assure you, I've handed over no controls - at least not yet.
Is it your suggestion that we all sit by quietly and give Joel free reign to
dominate the newsgroup as he sees fit?
The Bogus Prophet
>suf...@aol.comnospam >(Susan Fein) writes:
>>bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) writes:
>>>Sorry, I choose not to stand by quietly while Joel attempts his hostile
>>>takeover of our newsgroup while continually threatening people with
>>>laughable lawsuits.
>>>
>>>This doesn't appear to be a case where ignoring will provide a desirable
>>>result. He enjoys reading himself too much.
>>
>>I understand your frustration, but don't see any change in his behavior as a
>>result of your namecalling.. just a further deterioration of the overal ng.
>>
>>It seems to me that as long as you let someone else determine how you behave,
>>you're handing over the controls.
>
>Susan:
>
>If a store clerk provides you with incredibly rude service how do you react?
>Would you flash them a warm smile and say thank you very much? I wouldn't.
>Would you ignore them? I wouldn't. It's possible that you and I conduct
>ourselves very differently when it comes to this sort of thing but I'm betting
>were more alike than not.
Let me preface my comments that I really do want to contribute to this
stupid, useless, destructive, selfish thread beyond a post or two. If
anyone doesn't like what I have to say, fine, EMAIL me, DO NOT POST IT
HERE, there is no need to add to the clutter that makes it difficult for
people for find useful information. This being said:
I would like to remind people what the purpose is of this newsgroup. The
following is from the charter for this newsgroup and which LIMITS DISCUSSION
TO THE TOPICS SPECIFIED THEREIN:
The charter, culled from the call for votes:
| The proposed newsgroup, sci.med.diseases.lyme, is intended
| for discussion about the many different aspects of Lyme Disease as
| experienced by patients, their caregivers, friends and family members,
| doctors and other medical professionals, or anyone affected by or
| involved with Lyme Disease, as well as those who wish to learn about its
| symptoms, latest treatment options and its prevention.
I do not see mention of store clerks, personal vendettas, libel, personal
attacks, or lawsuits as being on-topic in the above paragraph.
| Anyone with an interest in Lyme Disease is free to post,
| including the medical and scientific community, as this newsgroup
| is interested both in fostering communication between Lyme Disease
| sufferers from all parts of the globe, as well as providing an open
| forum for the exchange of medical and scientific information which
| can be useful to all participants. Above all, we wish to encourage a
| supportive and open atmosphere for the free exchange of opinions and
| information.
Again, I do not see mention of store clerks, personal vendettas, libel,
personal attacks, or lawsuits as being on-topic in the above paragraph.
| The following are examples of possible posting topics:
|
| - questions regarding any aspect of Lyme Disease
| - symptoms and problems arising from the onset of new symptoms
| - treatments and therapies, both conventional and alternative
| - emotions, including fears and anxieties caused by this illness
| - social issues regarding this illness
| - problems in the medical community in regard to Lyme Disease
| - new information and resources available about the disease
| - related practical problems or solutions
| - Lyme Disease research findings
|
| Commercial advertisements may NOT be posted to this proposed group.
|
| LymeNet Mailing List will be gatewayed to sci.med.diseases.lyme.
Again, I do not see mention of store clerks, personal vendettas, libel,
personal attacks, or lawsuits as being on-topic in the above paragraph.
In the past, posting OFF-TOPIC was a grounds for complaints to an ISP
and even loss of service. Today, when people make death threats against
each other at the drop of a hat, such trivial things like being off-topic
are seen as being unimportant. Nonetheless, it is pretty pointless for
people who are posting OFF-TOPIC in a newsgroup to JUSTIFY their posting
OFF-TOPIC in a newsgroup. *Senior George Bush mode on* It's just wrong!
*Senior George Bush mode off* That is why such groups as alt.flame was
created so long, long ago, as a public forum for people who felt that
they just HAD to have an audience for their battles, and let's make no
mistake about this, HAVING AN AUDIENCE AND WINNING THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS
IS THE REASON WHY STUPID FLAMEWARS LIKE THIS ARE FOUGHT IN PLACES IN
THIS. I'm really sorry that there are are a couple of people here who
have real problems with each other but, you know, THIS IS SOMETHING FOR
THEM TO WORK OUT PRIVATELY. THIS IS A GLOBAL NEWSGROUP AND THE REST OF
WORLD DOESN'T REALLY CARE THAT A HANDFUL OF AMERICANS HATE EACH OTHER.
I just want to remind people that this newsgroup is not their private
reserve nor is it a court to resolve differences. If people really need
to engage to public flamewars, move to alt.flame or some other appropriate
venue. For people who still don't understand what I'm saying, re-read
the charter of the newsgroup several HUNDRED times until you do.
If you still don't understand after that, have an eight year old child
read it and explain it to you.
--
"You trying to work me, boy?" - Minerva,
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
"It's A Business, Stupid". The Bogus Prophet
The Bogus Prophet - bok...@panix.com Copyright 2000, Mike Palij
BCLyme
Prophet) writes:
>BCLyme <bcl...@aol.comkillspam> wrote:
>>suf...@aol.comnospam >(Susan Fein) writes:
>>>bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) writes:
>>>>Sorry, I choose not to stand by quietly while Joel attempts his hostile
>>>>takeover of our newsgroup while continually threatening people with
>>>>laughable lawsuits.
>>>>
>>>>This doesn't appear to be a case where ignoring will provide a desirable
>>>>result. He enjoys reading himself too much.
>>>
>>>I understand your frustration, but don't see any change in his behavior as
>a
>>>result of your namecalling.. just a further deterioration of the overal ng.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that as long as you let someone else determine how you
>behave,
>>>you're handing over the controls.
>>
>>Susan:
>>
>>If a store clerk provides you with incredibly rude service how do you react?
>>Would you flash them a warm smile and say thank you very much? I wouldn't.
>>Would you ignore them? I wouldn't. It's possible that you and I conduct
>>ourselves very differently when it comes to this sort of thing but I'm
>betting
>>were more alike than not.
>
>Let me preface my comments that I really do want to contribute to this
>stupid, useless, destructive, selfish thread beyond a post or two. blah, blah,
blah....<snip>
That's actually very funny. You want to limit your contribution to this
stupidity to just a couple of posts.
Aren't you the same Bogus Prophet who dragged us all through your 2 week long
public wit match with Frank DeGroot?
I could be wrong, it may have been another Bogus Prophet - it's a very common
name.
On the off chance that this was you, I refer you back to read the same
newsgroup charter that you so thoughtfully pointed out that others should read.
Regards,
Brian
Ruth
> I would like to remind people what the purpose is of this newsgroup. The
> following is from the charter for this newsgroup and which LIMITS DISCUSSION
> TO THE TOPICS SPECIFIED THEREIN:
>
> The charter, culled from the call for votes:
>
> | The proposed newsgroup, sci.med.diseases.lyme, is intended
> | for discussion about the many different aspects of Lyme Disease as
> | experienced by patients, their caregivers, friends and family members,
> | doctors and other medical professionals, or anyone affected by or
> | involved with Lyme Disease, as well as those who wish to learn about its
> | symptoms, latest treatment options and its prevention.
Does this mean we can joke around?
"If I can't dance then I don't want your revolution"-Emma Goldman (
paraphrased , actually..I can't remember exact quotes)
Ruth in Humor Helps The Immune System,NJ.
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) wrote:
> Susan:
>
> If a store clerk provides you with incredibly rude service how do you
react?
But I am NOT here to please YOU. I have no obligation or incentive to
do so. I am here to express myself and share information whether YOU
like it or not. You can IGNORE me or YOU can leave the NG which
wouldn't be a loss to the ng because the only thing you do here is
attack ME. You make NO substantive contributions. Good riddens to bad
rubbish would be my reaction if YOU left Brian. Or stay. I really don't
care. Keep attacking ME and risk that I will keep responding.
> Would you flash them a warm smile and say thank you very much? I
wouldn't.
> Would you ignore them? I wouldn't. It's possible that you and I
conduct
> ourselves very differently when it comes to this sort of thing but
I'm betting
> were more alike than not.
One problem with YOU is that YOU assume that YOU speak for OTHERS.
The above analogy is completely inapt. It is like comparing apples to
airplanes. It only demonstrates one point: the one on top of your head
you PINHEAD!
> I don't see what's happening here on the newsgroup as being much
different than
> the store clerk scenario described above other than the fact that
encounters
> with such extremely rude clerks are typically rare occurances vs.
Joel's rude
> and childish behavior which we have all been subjected to so
frequently that it
> seems continuous.
Once again YOU generalize your views and ASSume that YOU speak for
EVERYONE. The many people who are able to conduct themselves with
civilty are not subject to ANY rudeness from ME. Unlike YOU, I have the
ability to disagree agreeably. YOU on the other hand are so weak minded
and insecure that you cannot TOLERATE any disagreement, dissent or
criticsm. You are a little baby.
> Susan, please don't confuse the free choices that I make in how I
decide to
> respond to such abusiveness and negativity with 'letting someone
determine how
> I behave.' I assure you, I've handed over no controls - at least not
yet.
You have no control Brian although you would like to since you
obviously are such a complete control freak that YOU feel that YOU NEED
to control peoples opinions and are intolerant of any dissent. If you
cannot control ME then you feel that you must drive me away with
insults, taunts and abuse. But it won't work.
> Is it your suggestion that we all sit by quietly and give Joel free
reign to
> dominate the newsgroup with his views?
Again you have no basis to purport to speak for the entire group. You
refer to this as 'our' newsgroup but mean to exclude ME. You say 'we
all sit by' when YOU speak ONLY for YOURSELF.
There may be a group of people who wish this all would stop but it is
only a tiny group of three or four who blame ME and those are people
who think they have an axe to grind with ME--because they are narrow
minded reactionary TWITS and LUNATICS.
If YOU and THEY cut out the attacks and insults and organized campaign
of thought policing, then I would post without the fighting. My posts
consist of four main categories:
1. Informational posts in response to questions;
2. FYI new articles and information;
3. Opinions which I am entitled to express whether YOU agree or approve
or NOT;
4. Responses to cretins and twits who attack me first since they are
unable to respond substantively to category 3;
IF you and your fellow cretins and twits would learn tolerance for the
opinions of others, there would be no posts by me in category 4 which
is the only category that is objectionable--except to YOU.
So from my perspective it is YOU who is the cause of category 4 posts
so if you would just drop the mind control/thought control/approved
speech anti intellectual fascist cyber state crap there would be no
category 4 posts. But YOU are such a cyber nazi that all you can do is
say SIEG HEIL to Kathleen.
> Or was it that you just didn't like my referring to him as an
asshole?
Personally I was dissapointed because I am so much more creative that
you in calling YOU names--ANY fool can curse at others which you proved.
I must
> say, that wasn't a proud moment for me but everyone has their limits
and he has
> a unique way of reaching most people's.
You weren't proud of yourself for calling me an asshole? I assumed it
was a major intellectual achievement on your part?
Thank you for the compliment about my unique skills!
>
> Please keep in mind that he and his girlfriend, Jenny, who acts in
staggered
> tandem with him, seem to keep getting kicked off of e-mail lists and
discussion
> boards.
Other than the (IN)action list, name a group or discussion board that I
have been kicked off? This is an inaccurate McCarthyite smear attempt--
just like the one by MISS TWIT who I guess is your hero??? Other than
YOURSELF who you have waaaaaaaaaay too much admiration for you
narcisist.
This gives the distinct impression that maybe, just maybe, it's not the
> entire world who is wrong.
Since the basic 'fact' upon which you base your unjustified ASSumption
upon is WRONG it is YOU not the entire world that is WRONG Brainless.
Again the incredible arrogance to presume to speak for others reflects
only your deep insecurities at speaking only for yourself.
I am happy to express MY opinions whether or not anyone else agrees
with them (which MANY people happen to). But to me it doesn't matter if
my view is only my view--it is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
According to YOU and YOUR narrow minded views IF I were Galileo I ought
to admit that the earth was flat because YOU told me to--based upon
your presumption to speak on behalf of others.
If I were Dr Burrascano I ought to give in to the majority because they
are a majority--unlike YOU who only claim to be?
I stand up for what I think is right and have no fear that people might
disagree with me. That is fine--I welcome discussion and debate and for
those who conduct themselves civilly with me, I conduct myself with
civility in return--agree or disagree.
YOU are a majority of ONE. Speak for YOURSELF who is the only person
you really do speak for. No one elected YOU as their representative. No
one authorized YOU to speak for them. Don't pretend to be anything more
than the pathetic little half witted wimp that you are.
The only majority that YOU represent are the reactionary, narrow
minded, weak minded, brainless twits and cretins. I will admit that you
can speak for them.
The only reason that you cloak yourself in the will of a majority that
you claim to speak for but who don't exist is because you are so weak
minded that you cannot stand on your own and defend or explain your
positions or ideas without resorting to name calling. And even your
name calling is pathetic and childish: even most children can do better
than 'asshole.'
With all the respect that is due a cretin like you:
joel
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
bcl...@aol.comkillspam (BCLyme) wrote:
> That's actually very funny. You want to limit your contribution to
this
Well compared to your contributions to stupidity a couple of posts
doesn't seem like much. I think he is entitled if he wants.
>
> Aren't you the same Bogus Prophet who dragged us all through your 2
week long
> public wit match with Frank DeGroot?
See this is where I am totally lost. No one 'dragged' anyone through
anything. If YOU choose to read a thread like that or multiple threads
like that, well it is your choice.
What I actually found refershing about that fight was that for the most
part the whole friggin peanut gallery didn't feel the need to chime in
with their views--which is what contributes to the flame wars and
causes them to expand beyond their original contestants. It is like
throwing gas on a campfire.
Those two had it out and eventually it flamed right out.
And at least Mike comes to a battle of the wits more than half armed.
And so does Frank.
But the point is that it was between THEM.
The reason that flame wars with me and someone else become more is that
the thought policing types feel that they must get involved and thus
the flaming grows beyond what it would otherwise be to involve more
participants and more threads.
>
> I could be wrong, it may have been another Bogus Prophet - it's a
very common
> name.
Well you are so frequently and consistently wrong in everything you say
that it is just a basically safe assumption that you don't know what
YOU are talking about. But actually I do think it was mike and frank
you are referring to. So I guess that means this is a red letter day to
mark on one's calendars: Brian FINALLY got a fact correct!
Someone should put a little gold star on top of that big point on top
of your head! LOL
>
> On the off chance that this was you, I refer you back to read the same
> newsgroup charter that you so thoughtfully pointed out that others
should read.
Abide by it yourself you hypocrite! I don't see where it says that only
opinions that YOU approve of are permitted. I don't see where some
election was held that appointed YOU the head of the thought police. I
don't see where it says that only posters YOU like are permitted to
express their thoughts? Maybe I am missing something.
nimue
dated and overwrought. However, the kids love it, and the whole point is to
try to get them to read. I had one girl in class who would get very worked
up anytime anyone in the book was mean to the retarded Charlie. She would
say, "That is terrible! I would stand up for him if I was there!" She was
so cute. I would say, "That's because you are a beautiful person." Flash
forward one year, and I see this girl outside the school with her friends.
She says hello to me, turns to her friends, and proudly says, "Miss thinks I
am a beautiful person!" What this has to do with anything, I don't know,
but at least it's pleasant. As for comparing yourself with Flowers for
Algernon, well, imho, Jon, you are one of the most verbally gifted people I
have ever encountered, but you already knew I think that. You certainly are
more gifted than the author of Flowers (Daniel Keyes, I think? I have tried
to forget)!
Stephanie
Joel M. Shmukler, Esq
this
> >stupid, useless, destructive, selfish thread beyond a post or two.
> blah....<snip>
>
> That's actually very funny. You want to limit your contribution to
this
> stupidity to just a couple of posts.
>
week long
> public wit match with Frank DeGroot?
>
very common
> name.
>
> newsgroup charter that you so thoughtfully pointed out that others
should read.
>
>
> Brian
Typical for you Brian. You are able to engage in barely one exchange
with a person who disagrees with YOU before attacking them. You should
have been chief counsel for the McCarthy hearings where one dangerous
man purported to speak for all Americans and conducted a modern
equivalant to the Salem Witch trials. Those with different views are
considered dangerous and rather than responding to their views you
insist on putting them on trial. You are a weak minded, insecure,
reactionary twit. (I could have just called you an a*&hole but it
doesn't require much to be substantially more creative).
It just makes me LOL when YOU purport to speak for everyone here. Your
attempts to falsely portray yourself as a spokesperson for the people
is not only laughable but extremely revealing. You are insecure about
standing up for your OWN beliefs and lack the ability to defend YOUR
beliefs so you PRETEND that YOU speak for others. Or maybe you DELUDE
yourself into thinking it and sincerely believe that YOU represent the
masses.
Even if you DO represent the masses (which I am confident that you do
NOT), that wouldn't make you right anyway. Nor does it matter:
everyone, even those with minority views, are entitled to their own
beliefs and opinions. IF you truly represented a majority of anything
then you would have no problem tolerating dissent: after all, what
threat does a minority view pose to your need for control?
Your true fear is that your ideas and opinions will be revealed for the
defective inbred mutations that have resulted from years of only
engaging in discourse with others who already agree with you and which
are the product of a collective of similarly weak minded folks--a small
collection. YOur ideas suffer defects that make them unable to stand on
their own and you lack the ability to defend your ideas other than to
claim that they reflect a majority view. Which is true only to the
extent that they have emerged from a discrete and insular group who can
only tolerate others who already agree with them. So preaching to the
already converted and having them respond with huzzahs, has sadly led
you to believe that everyone thinks like you. Your intolerance for
others creates the self fulfilling prophecy where any dissenter is
driven away (and burned at the cyber stake in a flame war) so that your
insular little group remains insular. Thus are the defective notions of
Brian bred--along with the arrogance and intolerance that accompany
these notions and leads to the cybernazissm, thought policing,
intolerance and McCarthyite attitudes and tactics.
Weak inbred defective and deformed ideas from weak minded folks who aim
to dominate by shouting everyone else down. Sad and pathetic along with
incredibly intolerant!
YOU are NOT the world Brian despite your narrow egoistical view. *WE*
are the world--full of diversity which is a wonderful thing except for
the weak minded weak willed insecure thought policers like YOU!
The Bogus Prophet
Ruth <Rufi...@rcn.com> wrote:
>In article <90b1bv$md1$1...@panix6.panix.com>, bok...@panix.com (The Bogus
>Prophet) wrote:
>
>
>> following is from the charter for this newsgroup and which LIMITS DISCUSSION
>> TO THE TOPICS SPECIFIED THEREIN:
>>
>> The charter, culled from the call for votes:
>>
>> | The proposed newsgroup, sci.med.diseases.lyme, is intended
>> | for discussion about the many different aspects of Lyme Disease as
>> | experienced by patients, their caregivers, friends and family members,
>> | doctors and other medical professionals, or anyone affected by or
>> | involved with Lyme Disease, as well as those who wish to learn about its
>> | symptoms, latest treatment options and its prevention.
>
As long as the joke doesn't have to be explained, and kinda, sort, side glance,
squinty-eyed bears a resemblance to a Lyme topic, why not? :-)
>"If I can't dance then I don't want your revolution"-Emma Goldman (
>paraphrased , actually..I can't remember exact quotes)
>
>Ruth in Humor Helps The Immune System,NJ.
Sure enough. Some people around here need to spend more time laughing.
Jonathan R. Strong
> I have taught Flowers for Algernon. I don't much like it -- it's incredibly
> dated and overwrought. However, the kids love it, and the whole point is to
> try to get them to read. I had one girl in class who would get very worked
> up anytime anyone in the book was mean to the retarded Charlie. She would
> say, "That is terrible! I would stand up for him if I was there!" She was
> so cute. I would say, "That's because you are a beautiful person." Flash
> forward one year, and I see this girl outside the school with her friends.
> She says hello to me, turns to her friends, and proudly says, "Miss thinks I
> am a beautiful person!" What this has to do with anything, I don't know,
> but at least it's pleasant. As for comparing yourself with Flowers for
> Algernon, well, imho, Jon, you are one of the most verbally gifted people I
> have ever encountered, but you already knew I think that. You certainly are
> more gifted than the author of Flowers (Daniel Keyes, I think? I have tried
> to forget)!
> Stephanie
As I recall now, the movie was actually entitled, "Charly" -- based on the way the character
spelled his own name. I was 13 when it came out, and was at the right age to be drawn into the
story's sad turn of events regardless of it being trite, simplistic or overdone. Interesting to
realize that, when I recall the movie, I'm remembering it in terms of the way it impacted me
THEN (i.e., the way I encoded the movie in memory), rather than recalling an objective memory of
it that I can process in terms of an adult's perspective (assuming that I even have one now!).
I think you're right about the author being Daniel Keyes. The book didn't make a big impact on
me that year, because I had finished The Hobbit the year before and had begun a couple of year's
obsession with Tolkien -- which was certainly finer word craft than Keyes!
The Charly reference was due to a recurring flashback I've had to the story in recent
months.After having been on treatment for a pretty long time, I had been making fairly dramatic
progress and was getting my hopes up -- but then had a few abrupt backslides. The idea of daring
to believe that I was finally on my way to being free of Lyme disease -- but then having it
flare up again -- reminded me very suddenly of Charly's plight, even though I hadn't thought
about the story in something like 30 years. I still remember how bad I felt for Charly (at least
in the movie - played by Cliff Robertson - and remember I was 13!) when I watched him become a
charming genius, win over the lovely scientist who was studying him, fall in love -- and then
discover that he was inevitably returning to his former self.
When I can once again exercise the verbal gifts you describe (so nicely - thank you!!) in
real-time as part of a live conversation, I will be MOST pleased! As I've noticed before with
this illness, it's not so much that the intellectual capabilities of the brain are necessarily
damaged -- but the processing speed and ability to manage the process in real time has taken a
very heavy hit. Maybe that's part of the appeal of the internet and this newsgroup -- it's not
necessary to respond in real time, so I have the luxury of stopping, thinking, reviewing,
editing --- all before "uttering" a word.
Even though I've generally been able to distinguish good from bad literature pretty well over
the years, I was a sucker for a sad story line even as a young teen.
Time to put the spirochetes to bed. Hopefully the rest of the household will let me sleep late!
- Jon
Frank de Groot
It was a very impressive/interesting story.
Frank
Gcldsg
info and you are wasting it under this topic. I am going to repost it under a
suitable topic, but please don't post under this topic any more. Most people
will skip it and not read your really good discussion about Lyme disease.
Thanks,
Ann
Gcldsg
Please change the subject heading when you change the subject. PLEASE!!
The following may have been missed by a lot of people because it was posted
under the following subject heading:
>Subject: Re: Retraction of Libel Concerning Joel Shmukler -- OFF TOPIC
However, it has nothing to do with that subject and is not OFF TOPIC at all.
It is some really wonderful Lyme related commentary and so worth reading, I
have reposted it under an appropriate subject heading. Enjoy!!! And thanks to
Jon and
nimue!
Ann - OH
Gcldsg
after all!
Enjoy the following and please change the subject heading when you change the
subject.
Thanks,>Date: 12/3/00 2:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <wWmW5.15756$w35.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>
Jonathan R. Strong
- Jon (I think)