QuackBarrett threatens to sue me for Libel
Ilena Rose
cc: Tim Bolen (jur...@yahoo.com)
Never a dull moment!
A few weeks ago, I posted an Opinion piece of Tim Bolen's regarding an
apparently successful hate campaign by "Quackbusters" Polevoy and Barrett
to remove Ms. Christine McPhee's radio show off of Canadian radio. (The
references to those postings are listed below.)
Although I am sure QuackBarrett can afford far more expensive attorneys
than I, I still doubt that posting an opinion piece of another, on a
public bulletin board constitutes "libel." QuackBarrett has every
opportunity to publicly respond in kind, but has chosen instead to attempt
to extort $$$$$$$ from me and threaten serious legal ramifications.
QuackBarrett claims: "We have in our possession a copy of the police
report concluding that Dr. Polevoy did nothing wrong. Do you think that a
judge or jury will excuse you for posting Bolen's lie that the police
judged him guilty? I do not."
I think it would very useful for Barrett to publish this police report in
its entirety.
In re-reading Mr. Bolen's Opinion piece, I notice nowhere that he claims
that QuackPolevoy was found guilty. If in fact, in Mr. Bolen's piece, it
declares that the police "judged him (QuackPolevoy) guilty," I will of
course, retract that statement that I published in good faith. However,
from my reading, Mr. Bolen stated:
"THE FACTS...
Polevoy, police reports show, STALKED Canadian Radio Personality Christine
McPhee, until, terrified, she called in police. He followed her around,
affecting disguises, for months - then further terrified her by e-mailing
her the details of his stalking actions. Police agencies felt it
necessary to assign armed uniformed officers to protect McPhee from
Polevoy. Reports show that McPhee was not the only female Polevoy
stalked."
Further, Barrett claims: "Neither I nor Quackwatch had anything to do
with anything that was done to Christine NcPhee or her show. Before you
continue to spread criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what
you say."
This rings a bit hollow to me. For one, why is Barrett threatening to sue
me, and not Polevoy?
Does Barrett deny that Polevoy was a main figure in the "witchhunt" to
remove Ms. McPhee's program?
It is my understanding that Quacks Barrett & Polevoy are closely aligned
and work together through lists and various other ways. Why is Barrett
speaking on behalf of Polevoy?
I'm not a total stranger to Cyber Libel ~ in fact, I am currently
researching and writing on this matter, after my very successful
completion of Phase One of a libel suit I have against a Silicone
Manufacturer and others. Here are the references to my case for anyone
interested.
http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=659115248&CONTEXT=967226334.1643184172&hitnum=4
Judge's ruling on my case against Silicone Manufacturer, Patrick J. O'Leary
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658723712&CONTEXT=967226091.797442058&hitnum=11
My original application for Ex Parte with Judge ...
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658699803&CONTEXT=967226091.797442058&hitnum=13
My Declaration to the Court
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658699862&CONTEXT=967226091.797442058&hitnum=19
My Points & Authorities to the Court
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are the original postings I made of Mr. Bolen's Opinion piece,
followed by Barrett's Libel Threats.
http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658066171&CONTEXT=967225164.1337393175&hitnum=43
#1 SLEAZY "QUACKBUSTER" SCAM SHUTS DOWN CANADA1S NUMBER ONE "ALTERNATIVE
MEDICINE RADIO SHOW...
http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658066276&CONTEXT=967225164.1337393175&hitnum=44
#2 SLEAZY "QUACKBUSTER" SCAM SHUTS DOWN CANADA1S NUMBER ONE "ALTERNATIVE
MEDICINE RADIO SHOW...
http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658066499&CONTEXT=967225164.1337393175&hitnum=38
#3 SLEAZY "QUACKBUSTER" SCAM SHUTS DOWN CANADA1S NUMBER ONE "ALTERNATIVE
MEDICINE RADIO SHOW...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:48:32 -0400
From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
Reply-To: sbi...@quackwatch.com
To: il...@san.rr.com, sbi...@quackwatch.com
Subject: Libel warning
Tim Bolen's message that you posted on misc health.alternative and
talk.politics.medicine contains many false and defamatory statements
about me and Dr. Polevoy. The fact that you are posting someone else's
message does not excuse you from responsibility. We are planning to file
suit against him in the near future. We are prepared to name you as a
defendant also. If you want to escape liability, it would be a good idea
to remove your message and any other like it very quickly.
The message you posted states that a police investigation concluded that
Dr. Polevoy was guilty of criminally staling Christine McPhee. That
statement is false and defamatory. We have on our possession a document
from the polkice stating that their investigation found no criminal
wrongdoing. I am not going to take the time to list the other statements
in Bolen's message that are false. Rest assured that there are many.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:11:32 -0400
To: ilena rose <il...@san.rr.com>
From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
Subject: Libel: Final notice
Re: Alt.misc.health message #19 on DejaNews
Neither I nor Quackwatch had anything to do with anything that was
done to Christine NcPhee or her show. Before you continue to spread
criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what you say.
About a week or two ago, I sent you a warning and requested that you
removeyour psting of Tim Bolen's libelous message falsely accusing
Dr. Polevoy of stalking and various other things. You responded that
you didn't think that posting someone else's message to a news group
could make you liable for damages. I strongly suggest that you ask an
attorney about this.
We have in our possession a copy of the police report concluding that
Dr. Polevoy did nothing wrong. Do you think that a judge or jury will
excuse you for posting Bolen's lie that the police judged him guilty?
I do not.
Since my last message, I have learned that messages posted to
alt,misc.health can get reposted to a large number of groups, not
just to DejaNews. Neither Dr. Polevoy not I intend to tolerate this
situation. This message is intended to offer you an opportunity to
enter into an amicable settlement instead of winding up with greater
expense defending yourself in court. With reservation of rights,
here's my offer:
1. You will pay me $500 to compensate me for the time I have had to
waste in tracking down your messages.
2. You will provide me with a letter directing any Internet provider
hosting a message from you about me or Dr. Polevoy to remove it. If
you have something you want to say about me that is not libelous, or
if a previous message was not libelous, you can post it again.
This offer will expire at midnight, August 31.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105
Telephone: (610) 437-1795
URL#1: http://www.quackwatch.com
URL#2: http://www.chirobase.org
URL#3: http://www.mlmwatch.org
URL#4: http://www.nutriwatch.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More to be revealed ...
May God Bless Us All
Ilena Rosenthal
@-->-->-- @-->-->-- @-->-->-- @-->-->-- @-->-->-- @-->-->--
Raising consciousness as to the dangers of silicone toxicity
and breast implants.
Visit our Newsgroup at:
alt.support.breast-implant
Visit our Forum (no manufacturer interference) at:
http://www.toxic-exposure.com/forums/Breast_Implants/index.html
Visit our Newsgroup websites at:
http://www.toxic-exposure.com Dow documents & Discussion Forum
http://www.info-implants.com/Quebec/Espoir/03.html (you'll see my photo here)
http://members.xoom.com/TLM1940/tony/Ilena/index1.html (100+ articles)
http://members.xoom.com/TLM1940/tony/Ilena/index2.html (100+ articles)
http://www.junkscience.com/dec99/ilena.htm (press release of my lawsuit
against Inamed/McGhan etc.)
http://www.homestead.com/sosalines/SOS.html Great side with lots of info
on complications from saline inplants
http://www.internet-connect.com/implants/
http://members.tripod.com/~justice_8/Silicone-Holocaust.html
http://womnhlth.home.mindspring.com
http://www2.privatei.com/~coss/coss
http://hometown.aol.com/dowlied/page/index.htm
http://ej.rsna.org/ej3/0112-99.fin/index.htm (Drs. Middleton & McNamara's
outstanding MRI Study)
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/index.html FDA Saline Studies
http://www.guidestar.org/search/report/gs-report.adp?ein=95%2d2664938 (our
non-profit foundation listing ~ misspelled name and the IRS is slow at
updating):
http://justice.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us/charity/charity.taf?_function=list&_UserReference=89D8887373D8FEDC3955D403
~ The Humantics Foundation as California charity
For info on Informative booklet: Breast Implants: The Myths, The Facts,
The Women
http://www.internet-connect.com/implants/dowchemresults1.html
Bill22
Have to watch what you say in the new cyberspace?
Esp. in health :-)?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ilena Rose
Fascinating.
You believe that calling someone a "quack" is defamatory, yet your
website, "quackwatch" names many fine physicians "quacks" ~ including Drs.
Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra.
Seems to me like "quack" is in the eyes of the beholder.
You claims you "know not" what happened to Ms. McPhee.
I do not believe that is true in any way. How could you have in his
possession a "police report" on her, and yet know nothing? Are you
claiming no knowledge of this?
http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Quack-radio/touch990626letter.html
You claim: "Good faith is not a defense when accusing someone of a crime.
A retraction will not rectify the fact that your message has been read by
people all over the world who may not see the retraction"
How will lining your pockets with the $2000 you are attempting to extort
from me rectify anything? I did publish Mr. Bolen's opinion piece in good
faith.
QuackBarrett ... I find your method of witch hunts and your history of
chasing down and attempting to destroy the lives of those who don't
goosestep to the AMA and the Pharmaceutical Cartel despicable.
Ilena Rosenthal
New Extortion Letter from QuackBarrett:
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:23:02 -0400
To: il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose)
From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
Subject: Re: QuackBarrett threatens to sue me for Libel
>
>I think it would very useful for Barrett to publish this police report in
>its entirety.
>
>In re-reading Mr. Bolen's Opinion piece, I notice nowhere that he claims
>that QuackPolevoy was found guilty. If in fact, in Mr. Bolen's piece, it
>declares that the police "judged him (QuackPolevoy) guilty," I will of
>course, retract that statement that I published in good faith. However,
>from my reading, Mr. Bolen stated:
Good faith is not a defense when accusing someone of a crime.
A retraction will not rectify the fact that your message has been
read by people all over the world who may not see the retraction.
>
>"THE FACTS...
>Polevoy, police reports show, STALKED Canadian Radio Personality Christine
>McPhee, until, terrified, she called in police. He followed her around,
>affecting disguises, for months - then further terrified her by e-mailing
>her the details of his stalking actions. Police agencies felt it
>necessary to assign armed uniformed officers to protect McPhee from
>Polevoy. Reports show that McPhee was not the only female Polevoy
>stalked."
A police report is a report written by the police.
No police report showed that he stalked anyone.
The police report states that the police found no wrongdoing.
Your reposting of this libel is further evidence of malice.
If you wanted to know the answer, you could have asked me privately.
>Further, Barrett claims: "Neither I nor Quackwatch had anything to do
>with anything that was done to Christine NcPhee or her show. Before you
>continue to spread criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what
>you say."
>
>This rings a bit hollow to me. For one, why is Barrett threatening to sue
>me, and not Polevoy?
I made the threat because your post also libels me.
I mentioned the Polevoy matter because it is so clear-cut.
>Does Barrett deny that Polevoy was a main figure in the "witchhunt" to
>remove Ms. McPhee's program?
I neither know nor care about what he did and what happened to her.
>It is my understanding that Quacks Barrett & Polevoy are closely aligned
>and work together through lists and various other ways. Why is Barrett
>speaking on behalf of Polevoy?
Calling me a quack is defamatory and is further evidence of malice.
My offer to settle for $500 is hereby withdrawn.
The price is now $2,000.
The deadline for agreeing is midnight Sunday, Monday Aug 28 (New York time)
I urge you again to consult an attorney.
--
kaalga
that i found particularly interesting:
(i have provided some ((substitutions)) for entertainment's sake)
**********************************************
Here are some questions I would like Christine McPhee ((Barrett)) and/or station
management ((QW friends)) to answer:
Did Christine McPhee ((Barrett)) bend the facts on her ((his)) show ((website))
in any way?
Has she ((he)) ever interviewed anyone while doing her ((his)) show ((website)),
who had a critical word about any of her ((his)) guests or topics?
Did she ((he)) interview people with the intent of selling their ((his)) books,
or vitamins or tapes as part
of an infomercial type of show ((or promoting his websites and/or his
'reputation'?))
If her ((his)) show ((website)) is not news or information, what is it?
((((QW is propaganda, imho. so i presume that the QW supporters feel her show was
propaganda too. wellnow, aren't they all just two sides of the same friggin
coin.....))))
When Christine McPhee ((Barrett)) puts on her ((his)) broacaster's ((sci-med
webgod)) hat, what is she ((he))?
What are her ((his)) qualifications as the host of a health show ((alt-health
bashing website))?
(((i understand that barrett has an MD in psyche. and it's one earned long ago
and without any recent real life use.)))
**********************************************************************************************************
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
George Santayana
the world needs a Few Good Skeptics...
http://scientium.com/editors/mcnamara/cynical.htm
http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
Ilena Rose
Doesn't this say that Sherrell's case was dismissed?
Would appreciate any input anyone has on this case. It is my opinion, this
is a classic SLAPP suit he is threatening me with ... trying to silence an
activist.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/opinions/99D0282P.HTM
AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 1999, upon consideration of Defendant
Darlene Sherrell's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed on February 22, 1999, the
Answer of Plaintiff to Defendant Darlene Sherrell's Motion to Dismiss
filed on March 8, 1999, and Defendant Darlene Sherrell's Reply Brief, it
is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint
against Defendant Darlene Sherrell is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
I'd appreciate whatever
JS
Web which were nationally accessible amounted to "systematic and continuous
contact" with Pennsylvania, they do not cite any cases supporting this
proposition. If anything, the Third Circuit has consistently held that
national publications do not constitute "continuous and substantial
contacts" with the forum state. Gehling v. St. George's Sch. of Medicine,
Ltd., 773 F.2d 539, 542 (3d Cir. 1985); Reliance Steel Prods. Co. v. Watson,
Ess, Marshall & Enggas, 675 F.2d 587, 589 (3d Cir. 1982). We conclude that
the Defendant does not have "systematic and continuous" contacts with
Pennsylvania and Plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to meet this
high threshold. "
The Defendant's Web sites may include defamatory information about the
Plaintiff as the creator of the Quackwatch Web site, but the fact that such
information is accessible worldwide does not mean that the Defendant had the
intent of targeting Pennsylvania residents with such information. Decl.
Barrett 3/5/99 at 10, 22. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to provide any
evidence that Defendant's Web sites intended to target Pennsylvania
residents. "
"
"
6. We certainly do not hold Ms. Sherrell accountable for other Internet
users who have made links to her Web page or disseminated messages
originally written by her. See Decl. Barrett 3/5/99 at 14-15, 24, 28; Decl.
Sherrell 4/2/99 at 7-8. Regardless, none of this Internet activity by others
users targeted Pennsylvania residents. Id. "
"
7. The involvement of Internet users in such groups across the world are at
the option of the individual user, with the exception that some newsgroups
are moderated. See ACLU, 929 F. Supp. at 834-35. "
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/opinions/99D0282P.HTM
______________________________________________
I thought these points were interesting. My interpretation was that the
court had no "jurisdiction" and that in order to prevail ,the plaintiff had
to somehow prove the "remarks" were directed at penn. residents, (to harm
his professional career??) in any event if this man is now retired , I
personally don't understand how he could be professionally injured...it is
my understanding as well, that in order for a libel suit to prevail the
intent has to be malicious...(of course this is ONLY my opinion). I would
imagine if one is engaged in offering his opinion of "quacks" (and I use the
term loosely) he would have to expect some rebuttal or "questioning" of his
"position" or remarks....I don't think "questioning" or making an assumption
could actually be considered "libel"..(again just my opinion)....
It sounded to me like this case was dismissed.
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-25080...@24-25-197-105.san.rr.com...
smil...@my-deja.com
mainstream,Stephen Barrett, took some "how I can sue to scare people"
classes. He often sues publications and writers. He's the big bully of
a free press and frightens struggling writers away from tackling issues
he doesn't approve of. He has won out of court because he scares people
not because his cases have any merit - just like his case against
Darlene Sherrell. Polevoy is one of Barrett's cronies who posts
frequently to Barrett's healthfraud mailing list. But don't anger Mr.
Barrett - else you'll be banned from his list. Now Barret is teaching
others like dentist Michael Easley, Fluoridation Emporer (the one
without clothes), how to threaten to sue people who don't agree with
him or how to suppress information that will embarrass you and prove
you wrong.
Unfortunately, scientifically undereducated members of the press think
Barrett knows what he's talking about and often seek him out
to "balance" stories reporting on something new in the health field.
Carol P. is right the internet is revealing the truth to the world.
They may have influence over the mainstream media but they can't
control the internet but they are trying.
I think people should countersue Barrett and Easely because they files
lawsuit that are frivolous.
In article <ilena-25080...@24-25-197-105.san.rr.com>,
karen...@my-deja.com
anything that isn't mainstream,Stephen Barrett,
took some "how I can sue to scare people"
classes. He often sues publications and writers.
He's the big bully of a free press and frightens
struggling writers away from tackling issues he
doesn't approve of. He has won out of court
because he scares people not because his cases
cronies who posts frequently to Barrett's
healthfraud mailing list. But don't anger Mr.
Barrett - else you'll be banned from his list.
Now Barret is teaching others like dentist
threaten to sue people who don't agree with you
or how to suppress information that will
Unfortunately, scientifically undereducated
members of the press think Barrett knows what
he's talking about and often seek him out
to "balance" stories reporting on something new
in the health field.
In article <ilena-2508001130430001@24-25-197-
105.san.rr.com>,
il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
> To: sbi...@quackwatch.com
> cc: Tim Bolen (jur...@yahoo.com)
>
> Never a dull moment!
>
> A few weeks ago, I posted an Opinion piece of
Tim Bolen's regarding an
> apparently successful hate campaign
by "Quackbusters" Polevoy and Barrett
> to remove Ms. Christine McPhee's radio show off
of Canadian radio. (The
> references to those postings are listed below.)
>
gtige...@my-deja.com
fluoridation.
gtigerclaw
In article <ilena-25080...@24-25-197-105.san.rr.com>,
Todd Gastaldo
If you are reading, ARE you sbi...@enter.net?
See NY Times censoring?/'Quackbuster' Barrett snooping?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=660262328
I do hope you will stop your quackery.
You are promoting MASSIVE amounts of obvious MD quackery by failing to bust
it.
See especially my PRIORITY in,
RNs fear MDs/Adjusting James Rippe, MD and his Lifestyle Medicine
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663273205
Onward...
Mark Thorson <e...@netcom.com>
>>>><<<<If the meat of the case is that [Ilena Rosenthal] called Dr. Barrett
a "quack", she must be prepared to back up that statement with some sort of
evidence, such as a judgement against Dr. Barrett in which a court called
Dr. Barrett a "quack". Just her say so will not be adequate evidence....The
burden of proof is on her. If she cannot provide objective evidence (e.g.
from a medical licensing board) that Dr. Barrett is a quack, she must be
prepared to face the consequences for her statement. It is just exactly the
same case as if she accused Dr. Barrett of being a child molester. She must
provide evidence that establishes her statement as fact, otherwise she will
owe damages to Dr. Barrett.<<<<
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663773360
Todd D. Gastaldo, DC remarks:
I did not know that one needed evidence from a court or a medical licensing
board to defend a defamation lawsuit.
I had always assumed that if Dr. Barrett's words themselves demonstrate that
he is a quack - then it is not defamation to call him a quack.
This is why I call Dr. Barrett a quack.
>>>><<<<BEGIN excerpt of Columbia quack (Prof. Fox) helps Gastaldo...
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=601457476<<<<
According to "Quackbuster" Stephen Barrett, MD:
>>>><<<<Quackery's paramount characteristic is promotion ("Quacks quack!")
rather than fraud, greed, or misinformation.<<<<
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html
"Quackbusters" Fox and Barrett promote the HELL out of American medicine -
as they FAIL to quackbust OBVIOUS quackery that makes infants scream and
writhe and bleed and sometimes die...
[Aug. 29, 2000 update: See also Milbank's Dr. Fox Aaron's dad?/Nazi
quackbusters?/Nazi breast implants?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=658223293 ]
When infants are screaming, writhing and bleeding THOUSANDS of times per
day, NO information is the same as MISinformation.
"Quackbuster" Barrett, though, joins the largest pediatric trade union in
offering MISinformation about American medicine's most frequent surgical
behavior toward males...
See Why American medicine qualifies as a religion
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=590432966
>>>><<<<END excerpt of Columbia quack (Prof. Fox) helps Gastaldo...
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=601457476<<<<
"Quackbuster" Barrett censored me rather than respond substantively to the
FACT that he is FAILING TO QUACKBUST.
Failing to quackbust (censoring evidence of obvious quackery instead
quackbusting it) constitutes PROMOTION of quackery...
By his own definition then, "Quackbuster" Barrett is a quack.
See also CSICOP fraud/Rebecca Long/Therapeutic Touch
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=602174652
As a Fellow of CSICOP - as a Paranormal Claims investigator - "Quackbuster"
Barrett is doubly a quack for failing to quackbust:
American medicine routinely falls back on a claim of the paranormal - the
notion that a God commands infant mutilation - to "justify" perpetuation of
the false notion that American parents may choose to hire an MD to mutilate
because there are "religious" reasons for infant mutilation...
See the post reproduced below...
NOTE: "Forgetful Badanes" (in the post reproduced below) is John Badanes,
DC a "scientific" chiropractor according to Dr. Barrett in Chiropractic: The
Victim's Perspective [Amherst, NY: Prometheus 1995]
>>>><<<<BEGIN Forgetful Badanes/BABIES struggle/Barrett
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=485003655<<<<
Forgetful Badanes/BABIES struggle
Author: Todd Gastaldo <gast...@teleport.com>
Date: 1999/06/02
Forum: sci.med
more headers author posting history
Post Reply · Prev · Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Chiro-listers and Usenetters,
John Badanes, DC wrote:
>>>> Todd Gastaldo struggles...<<<<
Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:
Todd Gastaldo SOARS EFFORTLESSLY. : )
BABIES struggle...as MDs mutilate...
To "perform" their roughly 1.5 million assaults and batteries per year,
M.D.s use a device called the Olympic Circumstraint (manufactured in
Washington state):
"In less than 30 seconds a nurse can immobilize the struggling infant
securely in the correct position with Circumstraint. Soft, wide Velcro
straps encircle the infant's elbows and knees, depriving him of leverage.
He's held securely without danger of escape...[The Circumstraint elevates
the hips]...perfectly presenting the genitalia." [From an ad for the
Olympic Circumstraint, manufactured in Washington state, emphasis added.]
Incredibly, two members of the Board of Directors of this Washington State
Circumstraint manufacturer wound up on a California jury hearing NO
CIRC-affiliated attorney Charles Bonner try a botched circumcision case. A
mistrial was declared when the bizarre coincidence of having two
Circumstraint manufacturer representatives on the jury was discovered.
[Personal communication with the judge's chambers and with Mr. Bonner's
office, 1994; NO CIRC is the National Organization of Circumcision
Information Resource Centers.]
The only thing more bizarre than two Circumstraint jurors in a botched
circumcision case, is the fact that another NO CIRC-affiliated attorney
argued another circumcision case - the London case - and presented the court
with no testimony to rebut the claim of little Adam London's doctor that
there are medical benefits to infant circumcision. (At the time, every
respected medical association in North America was on record stating that
there are no medical indications.)
Even as little Adam's mother represented her son, his/their attorney stated
in writing that parents are liable to be prosecuted for child abuse because
they consent to circumcision. (Little Adam's NO CIRC attorney "forgot" that
parents must give INFORMED consent; and he forgot also that little Adam's
mother, Trudie London, had gone on national television and told Phil Donahue
that the doctor had told her that babies can't feel pain. Adam's father, a
Jewish physician, in essence opposed his son in the lawsuit; because, as he
said in Edell's national television spot, circumcision put Adam "on my
team." Edell, another Jewish physician, was announcing the London case on
national television.)
[Aug 29, 2000 note: For an update of Edell's bizarre "anti" circumcision
behavior, see Edell: "Nurses line up a bunch of babies..."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663713251]
While these sham NO CIRC-affiliated cases were being litigated, Dr. A.
Cullen Richardson chairman of ACOG District IV stated: "[I]f the court finds
in favor of the plaintiff in either of these two circumcision cases under
litigation, informed consent would be worthless...'It's a little
scary...[that the] two suits...weren't thrown out of court automatically,'
he said...A finding for the plaintiff would...wipe out routine infant
circumcision...Dr. Richardson said." [Richardson quoted in Ob.Gyn.News
(Nov15-30)1986;21(22):18]
Dr. Badanes admits his ignorance - then stands on it:
>>>>I am not aware that Stephen Barrett publishes anything about
"mass infant mutilation"...I would think it is impossible
to distort medical literature about circumcision when you don't
even write about circumcision. Right, Todd?...You can't get anything right,
can you, Todd. Why, you're not only dishonest, but incompetent, too.<<<<<
Dr. Badanes acts/accuses in haste...
The fact of the matter is, Barrett DOES write about circumcision - and he
distorts the medical literature in doing so.
Here is something I posted on the usenet...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to Barrett, Jarvis et al.: "During the 1970s an American Academy
of Pediatrics task force concluded that there were no valid medical
indications for newborn infants to be circumcised. In 1989...the Academy
concluded...that there is no clear-cut medical answer on circumcision..."
[Barrett, Jarvis et al. Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions.
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark 1997:87.]
"Quackbusters" Barrett and Jarvis are simply wrong. In 1989, although the
AAP Task Force generated plenty of pro-circumcision headlines, the 1989 AAP
Task Force report restated (for about the third time) AAP's "no valid
medical indications" position.
During 1989, the AAP Task Force meetings (which were closed) did generate
pro-circumcision propaganda, and the propaganda was so thick that the
Medical Tribune came out with the following headline:
MEDICAL TRIBUNE 30:16 (8 June 1989)
FORGET THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT CIRCUMCISION
AAP IS AGAINST ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/1989.06.08%3aMedicalTribune
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The above excerpt about Barrett was taken from...
http://x45.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=296136971&CONTEXT=928348927.1470
693438&hitnum=27 <---Aug 29, 2000 update: This is a DEAD LINK
Dr. Badanes asks:
>>>>...[I]sn't that your stated gripe (above) with Stephen Barrett.. that he
"selectively" doesn't include it in his "quackbusting?" <<<<
Barrett failing to include circumcision in his "quackbusting" is ONE of my
stated gripes...
Here is another of my stated gripes about Barrett and circumcision...
>>>>>>>> BEGIN Gastaldo's second stated gripe about Barrett <<<<<<<<<<<
I was recently reminded of another venue (besides NCAHF) by which
"Quackbuster" Barrett might stop the infant mutilation. This venue occurred
to me when Dr. James Edwards shared the following report from The Skeptical
Inquirer, reportedly via Prof. Joseph Keating...
<<<<<<< BEGIN Prof. Keating's message about Dr. Barrett >>>>>>>>>>>
Drs. Barrett, Herbert, Jarvis, Renner, Sampson et al., members of the
Council for Scientific Medicine, have announced the creation of a new
periodical, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, which will be
published by Prometheus Books, publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer. The new
journal purports to "defend scientific medicine." The announcement is made
in the September/October 1997 issue of Skeptical Inquirer (p. 51).
Subscription to the periodical, published twice a year, are $50 for
individuals and $90 for institutions. To subscribe: call (800) 421-0351; or
fax your credit card number to (716) 691-0137; or e-mail
PBook...@aol.com; or write SRAM, Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive,
Amherst NY 14228-9826
<<<<<<< END Prof. Keating's message about Dr. Barrett >>>>>>>>>>>
If memory serves, Dr. Barrett is involved in The Skeptical Inquirer's
efforts to investigate claims of the paranormal. [Barrett is a Fellow of the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.]
Since infant mutilation is said to confer upon some infants, title to all
the land between the Nile and the Euphrates and the people living thereon,
surely such a paranormal claim deserves Dr. Barrett's immediate attention
since it makes many American infants "religiously" scream and writhe and
bleed...
"Quackbuster" Barrett, ostensible investigator of claims of the paranormal,
IGNORES the undisputable evidence that ancient and modern rabbis are
advising the amputation of far more foreskin than God originally/allegedly
commanded:
"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This
was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46. (Wallerstein, a Jew, had
previously won the American Medical Writers Award for his 1980 book,
"Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.)
http://x45.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=269966625.5&CONTEXT=928348927.14
70693438&hitnum=34
June 2, 1999 update: It matters not whether rabbis/mohelim are amputating
far more foreskin than God originally/allegedly commanded. On U.S. soil -
by federal statute - the excision of "any part" of a GIRL'S genitals is now
explicitly illegal. Since it is illegal on U.S. soil to afford females
protection from harm that is not also afforded males, the new federal law
will be quite useful. And there are also 50 state child abuse laws; and one
legal scholar has written: "[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of
religion, are inadequate to prevent the states from using their authority to
treat circumcision as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with
enforcement...is through criminal prosecution under existing state laws."
[Brigman WE: Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional
issues. Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57]
Legal scholar Brigman, just cited, came to his conclusion without noting
that MDs have a long history (which continues in 1999; see above) of using
phony "lack of myelin" neurology to "inform" parents.
The American Jewish Congress co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act to prevent states from invoking the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 Smith
decision to end ritual circumcision with the child protection statutes
[Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10]...
But mutilating infants for religious purposes was illegal before the U.S.
Supreme Court issued Oregon Employment v. Smith (1990) - and in any event,
the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
that finally passed...
To summarize regarding "religious" circumcision, the following three points
are key:
1) Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's
Law of Return. This indicates that even "religious" circumcision is a
CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond.
("[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism:
his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan,
1973,1993]
2) Modern rabbis are advocating the amputation of FAR MORE infant foreskin
than God originally/allegedly intended: "Originally, the surgery involved
only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic
Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to
appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]
3) "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed
to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators on
our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons
1994:387])
Ending the screams saves $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVES the
mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.
I say again:
Since infant mutilation is said to confer upon some infants, title to all
the land between the Nile and the Euphrates and the people living thereon,
surely such a paranormal claim deserves Paranormal Claims Investigator
Barrett's immediate attention since it makes many American infants
"religiously" scream and writhe and bleed...
>>>>>>>> END Gastaldo's second stated gripe about Barrett <<<<<<<<<<<
Dr. Badanes suggests that *I* am to blame for the ongoing mass infant
mutilation...
He asks,
>Has it occurred to you that
>these are two reasons that the "the infant `screams'" (as you so
>"accurately" have characterized the issue) persist?
No need for Dr. Badanes to put quotes around the word accurate. Infants DO
scream - and writhe - and bleed - and sometimes die - but the infant screams
were perpetuated just months by AAP perpetuating its 1989 "potential medical
benefits" SCAM...
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bel/crap/crimes.htm
[Aug. 29, 2000 update: See also TWO lying Foxes/MDs and DCs in bed
together?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=586079191]
Also, there is AAP's ongoing perpetuation of the ol' "lack of myelin"
scam...
As I noted in the post to which Badanes "responded" (by stating his
ignorance then standing on it)...
Barrett does NOTHING as his MD colleagues STILL promote their mass infant
mutilation with phony "lack of myelin" neurology - two BILLION dollars'
worth of infant mutilations after I pointed out in 1987 that they were still
claiming that babies can't feel pain for lack of myelin...
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bel/crap/crimes.htm
Dr. Badanes concludes by expressing his hope that by labelling his question
"rhetorical" I won't SPAM chiro-list with my response....
>Not that you
>will notice, but that's a rhetorical question, Todd... not an
>invitation to SPAM chiro-list. But, this too, donchano.
>
Dzuiba willing, I don't need an invitation to SPAM chiro-list - not when
chiro trade unions are ignoring mass fetal skull squashing spinal
manipulation by MDs and those who ape them...
Just as Dr. Badanes needed a reminder that Barrett writes on circumcision,
he may need a reminder that,
Barrett also does nothing about fetal skull squashing spinal manipulation -
even as Barrett's MD colleagues lie about it - even as they indirectly
admit their bizarre spinal manipulation is KILLING some fetuses...
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/bel/sorcier.htm#skull
Dr. Badanes is so forgetful...
Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
Posted to the usenet (sci.med and alt.circumcision)
>>>><<<<END Forgetful Badanes/BABIES struggle/Barrett
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=485003655<<<<
I say again...
Dr. Barrett,
If you are reading, ARE you sbi...@enter.net?
See NY Times censoring?/'Quackbuster' Barrett snooping?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=660262328
I do hope you will stop your quackery.
You are promoting MASSIVE amounts of obvious MD quackery by failing to bust
it.
See especially my PRIORITY in,
RNs fear MDs/Adjusting James Rippe, MD and his Lifestyle Medicine
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663273205
Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
8948 SW Barbur Blvd
Box 6
Portland, OR 97219
FAX (815) 366-2814
TEL (503) 640-0456
http://www.egroups.com/group/chiro-list
l
Ilena Rose
<gast...@gte.net> wrote:
**Dr. Barrett,
**
**If you are reading, ARE you sbi...@enter.net?
**
Did he have the courtesy of replying, Todd.
I've been getting lots of interesting info on him, including someone who
doesn't believe he is a board certified psychiatrist. Does anyone know ? ?
That is the same address that I received the message trying to extort
first $500 then $2000 from me:
X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:23:02 -0400
To: il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose)
From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
Subject: Re: QuackBarrett threatens to sue me for Libel
>
>I think it would very useful for Barrett to publish this police report in
>its entirety.
>
>In re-reading Mr. Bolen's Opinion piece, I notice nowhere that he claims
>that QuackPolevoy was found guilty. If in fact, in Mr. Bolen's piece, it
>declares that the police "judged him (QuackPolevoy) guilty," I will of
>course, retract that statement that I published in good faith. However,
>from my reading, Mr. Bolen stated:
Good faith is not a defense when accusing someone of a crime.
A retraction will not rectify the fact that your message has been
read by people all over the world who may not see the retraction.
>
>"THE FACTS...
>Polevoy, police reports show, STALKED Canadian Radio Personality Christine
>McPhee, until, terrified, she called in police. He followed her around,
>affecting disguises, for months - then further terrified her by e-mailing
>her the details of his stalking actions. Police agencies felt it
>necessary to assign armed uniformed officers to protect McPhee from
>Polevoy. Reports show that McPhee was not the only female Polevoy
>stalked."
A police report is a report written by the police.
No police report showed that he stalked anyone.
The police report states that the police found no wrongdoing.
Your reposting of this libel is further evidence of malice.
If you wanted to know the answer, you could have asked me privately.
>Further, Barrett claims: "Neither I nor Quackwatch had anything to do
>with anything that was done to Christine NcPhee or her show. Before you
>continue to spread criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what
>you say."
>
>This rings a bit hollow to me. For one, why is Barrett threatening to sue
>me, and not Polevoy?
I made the threat because your post also libels me.
I mentioned the Polevoy matter because it is so clear-cut.
>Does Barrett deny that Polevoy was a main figure in the "witchhunt" to
>remove Ms. McPhee's program?
I neither know nor care about what he did and what happened to her.
>It is my understanding that Quacks Barrett & Polevoy are closely aligned
>and work together through lists and various other ways. Why is Barrett
>speaking on behalf of Polevoy?
Calling me a quack is defamatory and is further evidence of malice.
ka&g
>
> That is the same address that I received the message trying to extort
> first $500 then $2000 from me:
>
> X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:11:32 -0400
> To: ilena rose <il...@san.rr.com>
> From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
> Subject: Libel: Final notice
hmmm. i find the below statement of barrett's (ir it is his statement) rather
ironic (given the exchanges that i had with him regarding his labeling certain
people and/or practices as quackery on his website without having provided any
info resources to back his opinions----those 'to-be-posted' entries)
> ......Before you continue to spread
> criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what you say.
and this is just downright ludicrous:
>
> Calling me a quack is defamatory and is further evidence of malice.
> My offer to settle for $500 is hereby withdrawn.
> The price is now $2,000.
> The deadline for agreeing is midnight Sunday, Monday Aug 28 (New York time)
> I urge you again to consult an attorney.
that was a pretty stupid thing to type (if this is indeed something that
barrett sent to ilena).
barrett: pay-me-off-and-i-won't-sue-you-for-libel-for-calling-me-a-quack.
ilena: now-i-will-have-you-for-blackmail, if-this-IS-you.
how much more absurd can these things get??!!
what a bunch of fanatical freaks.
Ilena Rose
In article <39B1014F...@mpinet.net>, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net> wrote:
**Ilena Rose wrote:
**
**>
**> That is the same address that I received the message trying to extort
**> first $500 then $2000 from me:
**>
**> X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
**> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:11:32 -0400
**> To: ilena rose <il...@san.rr.com>
**> From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
**> Subject: Libel: Final notice
**
**hmmm. i find the below statement of barrett's (ir it is his statement) rather
**ironic (given the exchanges that i had with him regarding his labeling certain
**people and/or practices as quackery on his website without having provided any
**info resources to back his opinions----those 'to-be-posted' entries)
**
**> ......Before you continue to spread
**> criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what you say.
**
**and this is just downright ludicrous:
**
**>
**> Calling me a quack is defamatory and is further evidence of malice.
**> My offer to settle for $500 is hereby withdrawn.
**> The price is now $2,000.
**> The deadline for agreeing is midnight Sunday, Monday Aug 28 (New York time)
**> I urge you again to consult an attorney.
**
**that was a pretty stupid thing to type (if this is indeed something that
**barrett sent to ilena).
**
**barrett: pay-me-off-and-i-won't-sue-you-for-libel-for-calling-me-a-quack.
**
**ilena: now-i-will-have-you-for-blackmail, if-this-IS-you.
**
**how much more absurd can these things get??!!
**
**what a bunch of fanatical freaks.
**
************************************************************************************************************
**
**Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten
your aim.
**George Santayana
**
**the world needs a Few Good Skeptics...
**
**http://scientium.com/editors/mcnamara/cynical.htm
**http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
pon...@my-deja.com
HEY ILLENA AND ALL THE REST OF YOU, THIS IS FOR DENTISTRY NOT THIS
GARBAGE, GET DENTAL OR GET OUT OF OUR BACK YARD.
tEMPUS fUGIT
Pontic
Ilena Rose
It appears from my research that QuackBarrett's "expertise" (read,
sponsors) extends to being an amalgam apologist ... perhaps pontic, you'd
do better to skip posts you don't want to read.
In article <8osf7n$19t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pon...@my-deja.com wrote:
**In article <ilena-02090...@24-25-197-105.san.rr.com>,
** il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
**> all those are quotes from his correspondence to me.
**>
**
** HEY ILLENA AND ALL THE REST OF YOU, THIS IS FOR DENTISTRY NOT THIS
**GARBAGE, GET DENTAL OR GET OUT OF OUR BACK YARD.
**tEMPUS fUGIT
**Pontic
**> In article <39B1014F...@mpinet.net>, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net>
**wrote:
**>
**> **Ilena Rose wrote:
**> **
**> **>
**> **> That is the same address that I received the message trying to
**extort
**> **> first $500 then $2000 from me:
**> **>
**> **> X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
**> **> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:11:32 -0400
**> **> To: ilena rose <il...@san.rr.com>
**> **> From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
**> **> Subject: Libel: Final notice
**> **
**> **hmmm. i find the below statement of barrett's (ir it is his
**statement) rather
**> **ironic (given the exchanges that i had with him regarding his
**labeling certain
**> **people and/or practices as quackery on his website without having
**provided any
**> **info resources to back his opinions----those 'to-be-posted' entries)
**> **
**> **> ......Before you continue to spread
**> **> criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what you say.
**> **
**> **and this is just downright ludicrous:
**> **
**> **>
**> **> Calling me a quack is defamatory and is further evidence of
**malice.
**> **> My offer to settle for $500 is hereby withdrawn.
**> **> The price is now $2,000.
**> **> The deadline for agreeing is midnight Sunday, Monday Aug 28 (New
**York time)
**> **> I urge you again to consult an attorney.
**> **
**> **that was a pretty stupid thing to type (if this is indeed something
**that
**> **barrett sent to ilena).
**> **
**> **barrett: pay-me-off-and-i-won't-sue-you-for-libel-for-calling-me-a-
**quack.
**> **
**> **ilena: now-i-will-have-you-for-blackmail, if-this-IS-you.
**> **
**> **how much more absurd can these things get??!!
**> **
**> **what a bunch of fanatical freaks.
**> **
**>
**************************************************************************
**************************************
**> **
**> **Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have
**forgotten
**> your aim.
**> **George Santayana
**> **
**> **the world needs a Few Good Skeptics...
**> **
**> **http://scientium.com/editors/mcnamara/cynical.htm
**> **http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
**>
**
**
**Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
**Before you buy.
Joel M. Eichen
>It appears from my research that QuackBarrett's "expertise" (read,
>sponsors) extends to being an amalgam apologist ... perhaps pontic, you'd
>do better to skip posts you don't want to read.
Hi Ilena,,
Stephen Barrett,
Dean Edell
CDC
USPHS
US HEW
etc.
Not one negative word is said about amalgam -- only the caveat that
more research is encouraged to explore the POSSIBILITY of harmful
effect.
Cheers,
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
``
David Wright
Ilena Rose <il...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>wrong again davey ... barrett's disinformation campaigns include dentistry
Oh, how cute -- you're using a disparaging nickname for me.
>... you also could avoid all posts with my name on them and save yourself
>the embarassment of further demonstrating that your posts lack substance
>... only more ProQuackBarrett drivel ...
I didn't support Barrett in my post. I just said I didn't like your
post.
>btw davey ... since you have admitted the PR firms do have shills posting
>here on Usenet ... and claim that that doesn't include you ... who do you
>guess is the Shill for the RapidAnti-Alt-Meders here on this group?
Who says there is one? Just because they exist doesn't mean they're
on every street corner.
-- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders."
Ilena Rose
**>btw davey ... since you have admitted the PR firms do have shills posting
**>here on Usenet ... and claim that that doesn't include you ... who do you
**>guess is the Shill for the RapidAnti-Alt-Meders here on this group?
**
**Who says there is one? Just because they exist doesn't mean they're
**on every street corner.
i don't believe that misc.health.alternative is any "street corner" but nice
stab at distraction
Junk$cientist Marcia Angell is now writing a book on "alternative
medicine" ~ probably to do for alt.med what she did for breast implants
... put the $cience back 30 years.
so, who do you
David Wright
I don't think there are any. However, you can just feel free to
scream and point in all directions, OK? Since you've never withdrawn
your charge that I'm one such, I'm sure I'll make your list no
problem. Along with anyone else who doesn't agree with you and says
so, probably.
health...@my-deja.com
il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
>
> wrong again davey ... barrett's disinformation campaigns include
dentistry
yourself
> the embarassment of further demonstrating that your posts lack
substance
> ... only more ProQuackBarrett drivel ...
>
posting
you
>
> **>
> **>It appears from my research that QuackBarrett's "expertise" (read,
> **>sponsors) extends to being an amalgam apologist ... perhaps
pontic, you'd
> **>do better to skip posts you don't want to read.
> **
> **Yeah, that's it. That other guy should read your posts before he
> **reads them, so he'll know that he doesn't want to read them. It
> **couldn't possibly be that you're posting to the wrong newsgroups and
> **now frantically looking for a way to justify yourself. God forbid
> **you should have to admit a mistake.
> **
> ** -- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for
Anyone
> ** These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> ** "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> ** were standing on my shoulders."
>
barrett and his useless compadre polevoy have reputations that could
not possibly sustain a libel action......looks like a quack, walks like
a quack, spews like a quack.....
barrett is not a "dr" and polevoy is in his final death throws as
a "dr" as he defends, yet again, more investigations by the College of
Physicinas and Surgeons of Ontario, OHIP, and the Kitchener-Waterloo
Police...
god bless both of you and if either of you are sucessful in your
actions (extortions) against Ms. Rosenthal, we'll double the ante..
and barrett, what happened to your link with Oncolink....seems they're
a little concerned with your extremist views.....
and polevoy..... any new patients lately?....OHIP is not interested in
funding your lunatic vigliante crap.....and who's carl?.....hey we
didn't give him ms....
Ilena Rose
**I don't think there are any. However, you can just feel free to
**scream and point in all directions, OK? Since you've never withdrawn
**your charge that I'm one such, I'm sure I'll make your list no
**problem. Along with anyone else who doesn't agree with you and says
**so, probably.
**
actually, others may be, but i'm not convinced you are here for
philantropical reasons ...
as far as putting anyone who "doesn't agree with" me on a "list" ~ sounds
like QuackLogic ... unsupportable but anything to try to put me down ...
fact or not
Peter Bowditch
>barrett and his useless compadre polevoy have reputations that could
>not possibly sustain a libel action......looks like a quack, walks like
>a quack, spews like a quack.....
>
>barrett is not a "dr" and polevoy is in his final death throws as
>a "dr" as he defends, yet again, more investigations by the College of
>Physicinas and Surgeons of Ontario, OHIP, and the Kitchener-Waterloo
>Police...
>
>god bless both of you and if either of you are sucessful in your
>actions (extortions) against Ms. Rosenthal, we'll double the ante..
>
>and barrett, what happened to your link with Oncolink....seems they're
>a little concerned with your extremist views.....
>
>and polevoy..... any new patients lately?....OHIP is not interested in
>funding your lunatic vigliante crap.....and who's carl?.....hey we
>didn't give him ms....
The name "healthwatcher" in the faked email address is the name of the
web site run by a Dr Polevoy who I assume is the "polevoy" mentioned
in the message. I've heard stories before about people using deja
addresses which include the names of other people (someone once used
"peterbowditch666"). I wonder if there is any connection between the
writer of the message above and other users of fake names.
I notice that the subject of the thread has been changed by the
addition of the words "not to mention a right wing fringe lunatic".
Again, I seem to remember being called that sort of thing myself. It
must be another coincidence.
I think the door to the padded cell has been left ajar and the Gutless
Anonymous Liar has found his way to the computer in the common room.
Still gutless. Still anonymous. Still a liar.
........................................................
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Who, despite threats, STILL has a web site
The Millenium Project - The fundaments of the 'net
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
(and at five other places on the 'web)
David Wright
>
>
>**I don't think there are any. However, you can just feel free to
>**scream and point in all directions, OK? Since you've never withdrawn
>**your charge that I'm one such, I'm sure I'll make your list no
>**problem. Along with anyone else who doesn't agree with you and says
>**so, probably.
>**
>
>actually, others may be, but i'm not convinced you are here for
>philantropical reasons ...
Who said I was? I'm here because I sometimes pick up useful
information, and because I like the way the fur flies.
>as far as putting anyone who "doesn't agree with" me on a "list" ~ sounds
>like QuackLogic ... unsupportable but anything to try to put me down ...
>fact or not
What color is the sky on your planet? You are exactly the sort of
person who'd decide that "those who do not support us, we will
destroy." Or at least put on an enemies list.
Ilena Rose
You are exactly the sort of
**person who'd decide that "those who do not support us, we will
**destroy." Or at least put on an enemies list.
Again Davey ... you are embarassing yourself ... you are describing not me, but
Quacks Barrett & Polevoy's Vigilantes / True Believers who set out to
destroy any
therapy or person who doesn't goosestep to the PRO AMA / PRO PHARMACEUTICAL
CARTEL propaganda with religious, self-righteous, self-congratulating
misplaced zealous beliefs
that only they "know" THE way.
andrew_...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <ilena-04090...@24-25-197-105.san.rr.com>,
> Ilena Rose <il...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >wrong again davey ... barrett's disinformation campaigns include
dentistry
>
> Oh, how cute -- you're using a disparaging nickname for me.
>
> >... you also could avoid all posts with my name on them and save
yourself the embarassment of further demonstrating that your posts lack
>
> I didn't support Barrett in my post. I just said I didn't like your
> post.
>
> >btw davey ... since you have admitted the PR firms do have shills
posting here on Usenet ... and claim that that doesn't include you ...
who do you guess is the Shill for the RapidAnti-Alt-Meders here on this
group?
>
> Who says there is one? Just because they exist doesn't mean they're
> on every street corner.
That's just the nature of paranoia; self-importance and high anxiety...
Surely Ms Rose is worthy of constant surveilance!
healthw...@my-deja.com
> The Millenium Project - The fundaments of the 'net
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> (and at five other places on the 'web)
>
oh the irony of it.....if you had to do any of this face to face you'd
be doubling your depends.......
David Wright
>In article <5njbrssrg3gfucipv...@4ax.com>,
> pet...@ratbags.com wrote:
>> I think the door to the padded cell has been left ajar and the Gutless
>> Anonymous Liar has found his way to the computer in the common room.
>> Still gutless. Still anonymous. Still a liar.
>
>oh the irony of it.....if you had to do any of this face to face you'd
>be doubling your depends.......
That's particularly humorous coming from an anonymous poster who,
despite his change of identities, is still transparently the same
person, and the same dropper of vague threats -- all of which turn out
to be either false or gibberish.
-- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
healthw...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <8p92c1$ltt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <healthwatcher2@my-
false? gibberish?.....polevoy's site went down july 3,2000, complaints
have been filed and he's being investigated.....barrett, who is not a
dr, but pretends to be, has lost most of his links,
including "oncolink" and was declared not an "expert" at the schachter
trial, disgraced and thrown out......what a surprise that one
was.....and mr. "i like to fuck dead rats-ditch", of gebesse
largesse.....has been order to tone it down, or have it shut down by
the ACS.....and wright, you're still a fat bastard......so fuck off!
by the way bowditch....your site is up and nothing, repeat nothing is
sacred.......and all of your suppliers are being contacted and given
copies of your site.....sexton at symantec loved it!!!!
>
slipped my brain bowditch, but i thought you should know, attacking me
and my business is personal and if i'm not off your fucking site by the
end of the day tomorrow i'm going to expand my campaign...and it will
get very very personal.....
healthw...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <8p92c1$ltt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <healthwatcher2@my-
false? gibberish?.....polevoy's site went down july 3,2000, complaints
have been filed and he's being investigated.....barrett, who is not a
dr, but pretends to be, has lost most of his links,
including "oncolink" and was declared not an "expert" at the schachter
trial, disgraced and thrown out......what a surprise that one
was.....and mr. "i like to fuck dead rats-ditch", of gebesse
largesse.....has been order to tone it down, or have it shut down by
the ACS.....and wright, you're still a fat bastard......so fuck off!
by the way bowditch....your site is up and nothing, repeat nothing is
sacred.......and all of your suppliers are being contacted and given
copies of your site.....sexton at symantec loved it!!!!
>
Peter Bowditch
How would I know I was doing it face to face? Would you introduce
yourself or would you continue to pretend to be someone else?
I notice that healthwatcher2 has started posting from the IP address
209.195.93.130. That has a familiar ring to it.
........................................................
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Who, despite threats, STILL has a web site
Peter Bowditch
Where do I start?
The "polevoy's site [that] went down july 3,2000" is at
http://www.healtheatcher.net even as we speak. I am not quite sure
what it means to say that someone "has lost most of his links". I know
I lose a few links from The Millenium Project from time to time, but
that's because the sites move or close down, not because they don't
like me.
I am pleased to see that some originality has returned to the versions
of my name, although "i like to fuck dead rats-ditch" is a bit long so
I can only give it 7 out of 10.
Nobody has "order" me to tone down my site, and the ACS cannot shut it
down (even if they wanted to). The only one who can shut down my site
is the hosting ISP, and he will not shut it down unless he receives a
court order or a take-down order from the Australian Broadcasting
Authority. Neither are likely.
One thing that this anonymous liar says is true - my site is certainly
up. Up on five servers under six domain names. And staying there.
>slipped my brain bowditch, but i thought you should know, attacking me
>and my business is personal and if i'm not off your fucking site by the
>end of the day tomorrow i'm going to expand my campaign...and it will
>get very very personal.....
Which business is that? I don't even know who you are, so how can I
attack your business?
Who are you? Who is this man? Does anybody know?
........................................................
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Who, despite threats, STILL has a web site
Kevin Filan
healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> you know what you have to do......if i'm not off your site i will send
> copies of your site to your suppliers, clients, and ABA......
>
> you've attacked me and my business and i will do the same......play
> time is over.....
*yawn* I give it a 5.8 at best. Not even a Cartooney
threat in there.
Peace
Kevin Filan
healthw...@my-deja.com
you know what you have to do......if i'm not off your site i will send
copies of your site to your suppliers, clients, and ABA......
you've attacked me and my business and i will do the same......play
time is over.....
healthw...@my-deja.com
remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your fucking
business and impale you in your local media.....take everything off
your fucking site..........
David Wright
>remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your fucking
>business and impale you in your local media.....take everything off
>your fucking site..........
Same threats as always. Empty, as always. How tedious.
healthw...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <8pb9hk$83l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <healthwatcher2@my-
deja.com> wrote:
>
> >remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your fucking
> >business and impale you in your local media.....take everything off
> >your fucking site..........
>
> Same threats as always. Empty, as always. How tedious.
>
> -- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for
Anyone
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> were standing on my shoulders."
>
healthw...@my-deja.com
you're listed mr. enema-ditch..........
healthw...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <8pb9hk$83l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <healthwatcher2@my-
deja.com> wrote:
>
> >remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your fucking
> >business and impale you in your local media.....take everything off
> >your fucking site..........
>
> Same threats as always. Empty, as always. How tedious.
>
> -- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for
Anyone
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> were standing on my shoulders."
>
a fact...
healthw...@my-deja.com
gutless?, anonymous?, liar?..........bowditch=dogfucker :)!
David Wright
>> hey wright....post you photo for the group you fat fuck...geek!
After you, Mr. Gutless Anonymous Liar.
Kevin Filan
Dunno if this helps, but your Anonymous Friend is posting
from Ottawa, Ontario.
* * * * *
Official name: ch1oco.bellglobal.com
Addresses: 206.47.244.30
Whois for ch1oco.bellglobal.com
.com is the global domain of USA & International Commercial
(Whois queries for .com domains can be performed at
http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois)
whois -h whois.crsnic.net bellglobal.com
Registrant:
Bell Sygma (BELLGLOBAL-DOM)
160 Elgin St. Flr. 12
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3J4
CA
Domain Name: BELLGLOBAL.COM
Administrative Contact:
Smith, Bonita (BSI241) bonita...@BELLNEXXIA.COM
Bell Nexxia
160 Elgin Street, Floor 12
Ottawa
Ontario
K2P 2C4
CA
1-800-565-0567 (FAX) 1-613-785-7544
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Riff, Sandie (SR5350) dns-...@BELLGLOBAL.COM
Bell Advanced Communications Inc
160 Elgin St. Flr 12
Ottawa
Ontario
K1G3J4
CA
1-800-565-0567 (FAX) 613-785-7544
Billing Contact:
Smith, Bonita (BSH233) dns-...@BELLNEXXIA.COM
Bell Sygma
160 Elgin Street, Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
CA
1-800-565-0567 (FAX) 1-613-785-7544
Record last updated on 18-Jul-2000.
Record expires on 30-Jul-2002.
Record created on 29-Jul-1995.
Database last updated on 7-Sep-2000 17:51:25 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.BELLGLOBAL.COM 198.235.216.1
NS2.BELLGLOBAL.COM 198.235.216.2
* * * * *
IP block lookup for 206.47.244.30
whois -h whois.arin.net 206.47.244.30
WorldLinx Telecommunications, Inc. (NETBLK-WORLDLINX-4)
160 Elgin Street, Floor 12
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
Ca
Netname: WORLDLINX03
Netblock: 206.47.0.0 - 206.47.255.0
Maintainer: LINX
Coordinator:
Daoust, Philippe (PD135-ARIN) n...@in.bell.ca
1-800-450-7771 +1 (416) 215-5423 +1 (416) 215-5423
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
NS1.BELLGLOBAL.COM 198.235.216.1
NS2.BELLGLOBAL.COM 198.235.216.2
ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
Record last updated on 26-May-2000.
Database last updated on 8-Sep-2000 18:31:10 EDT.
The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet
Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's.
Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related
Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information.
* * * * *
healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8pbef7$nsk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> > In article <8pb9hk$83l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <healthwatcher2@my-
> deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your
fucking
> > >business and impale you in your local media.....take everything off
> > >your fucking site..........
I say... do you kiss your Mother with that mouth?
Peace
Kevin Filan
Peter Bowditch
>In article <8pbqvd$t6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
>Dunno if this helps, but your Anonymous Friend is posting
>from Ottawa, Ontario.
Thanks, Kevin, but I know where he comes from. Because he keeps
changing his mind about whether it is him or someone else writing to
or about me, I have made a point of including the sending IP address
wherever I could in the list of his correspondence with me. You can
see the story at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/onews/
>> > In article <8pb9hk$83l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <healthwatcher2@my-
>> deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your
>fucking
>> > >business and impale you in your local media.....take everything off
>> > >your fucking site..........
>
>I say... do you kiss your Mother with that mouth?
I don't know about his mother, but he claims to have been using it on
my suppliers and other people. I am sure they are impressed.
Kevin Filan
pet...@ratbags.com wrote:
> Kevin Filan <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <8pbqvd$t6u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >
> >Dunno if this helps, but your Anonymous Friend is posting
> >from Ottawa, Ontario.
>
> Thanks, Kevin, but I know where he comes from. Because he keeps
> changing his mind about whether it is him or someone else writing to
> or about me, I have made a point of including the sending IP address
> wherever I could in the list of his correspondence with me. You can
> see the story at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/onews/
Color me impressed... you done got yourself a pet netkook!
I wonder if this O'Neill guy ever met Bradley Jessness: if not,
I think it would be a match made in hell. (In case you haven't
yet encountered MultiBrad, http://lart.com/brad/BradFAQ.html
should be an appropriate introduction).
> >> > >remember, bowditch, playtime is over......i will destroy your
> >fucking
> >> > >business and impale you in your local media.....take everything
off
> >> > >your fucking site..........
> >
> >I say... do you kiss your Mother with that mouth?
>
> I don't know about his mother, but he claims to have been using it on
> my suppliers and other people. I am sure they are impressed.
What exactly does he plan to tell your suppliers?
"Don't sell to Peter Bowditch. He fucks rats in the ass?"
Peace
Kevin Filan
(who hasn't had a pet Netkook since I got listed on Skidmark's
Usenet Home Front pages... )
healthw...@my-deja.com
a big thank you mr. "aboutassmartasabagofhammers" ditch....
as much as your obession needs to have these postings originate from
mr. o'neill, they did not......but a again, you have ascribed them to
mr. o'neill....that's what we wanted and that's what you've done, and
you've published them on your site....
your "vanity" always gets in the way doesn't it?....
here's one for you....."willfully publishing materials that are
trademarked and/or copyrighted, and/or materials for which either
trademark or copyright has been misappropriated is
considered............this includes materials such as electronic
communications by telephone, facsimile or internet...."
thank you for the ride and remember child abuse is a crime even in
australia.....
Peter Bowditch
"healthwatcher2" posted this message from the IP address
206.47.244.30, but he/she/it has also posted previously from
209.195.93.130, which just happens to be in Mr O'Neill's office. Mr
O'Neill needs to change the locks.
If someone wants to claim that I have breached their copyright, they
will have to say who they really are. Are you ready for that,
"healthwatcher2" (and 17 other email names)? Is "peterbowditch666"
going to claim I have breached copyright? How about
"peter_arse_ditch"? (By the way, both of them sent messages from
209.195.93.130 as well.)
And I see that the tired old tactic of "he's a child abuser, prove
he's not" is being suggested. How unoriginal.
healthw...@my-deja.com
what you pathologically fail to grasp, is that you can, and have been
"set up"......ip addresses can be forged, altered.......you continue to
obsessively publish and ascribe ownership to wrong the
source............ although you know this....you continue to do
it....and it's not the first time.....remember?.....that's why big pond
flushed you....the fun and exciting part is that your regulators have
"p-o-l-i-c-i-e-s" in place to deal with these sorts of problems....and
they include NSW authorities....we just had to trun up the volume to
get everyone's attention.....and that's all 'cause we don't want to give
everything away....
incidentally, why is it the NSW Police know you?
Peter Bowditch
206.47.244.30 at WorldLinx in Canada) wrote:
>what you pathologically fail to grasp, is that you can, and have been
>"set up"......ip addresses can be forged, altered.......
They certainly can be altered, but why would someone inventive enough
to come up with 18+ email addresses to talk to me and 23+ kindergarten
versions of my name only be able to forge about half a dozen IP
addresses (and all of them linking back to only three locations)?
>you continue to
>obsessively publish and ascribe ownership to wrong the
>source............ although you know this....you continue to do
>it....and it's not the first time.....remember?.....that's why big pond
>flushed you....
Date and time, please, for when "big pond flushed" me. Please note the
IP address from which I am sending this. It could have been forged, of
course, but it looks like a Telstra Big Pond one to me.
>the fun and exciting part is that your regulators have
>"p-o-l-i-c-i-e-s" in place to deal with these sorts of problems....
Which regulators might they be?
>and they include NSW authorities....
Which NSW authorities?
>we just had to trun up the volume to
>get everyone's attention.....and that's all 'cause we don't want to give
>everything away....
>
>incidentally, why is it the NSW Police know you?
Possibly because I'm in the telephone book.
healthw...@my-deja.com
ditch"....
by the way it's not because of the phone book......c'mon be honest with
us....share....
healthw...@my-deja.com
ditch"....
healthw...@my-deja.com
healthw...@my-deja.com
general division of the nsw court....naming you, and your isp......for
copyright and trademark infringement, libel slander and
defamation...this despite the fact you are judgement proof.....code of
worhtless.....
Peter Bowditch
>you are correct.....a statement of claimed has been filed with the
>general division of the nsw court....naming you, and your isp......for
>copyright and trademark infringement, libel slander and
>defamation...this despite the fact you are judgement proof.....code of
>worhtless.....
I am very impressed by "libel, slander and defamation". There appears
to be some overlap there.
Now, let me see ...
Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Compensation Court
Coroner's Court
District Court
Dust Diseases Tribunal
Drug Court
Fair Trading Tribunal
Industrial Relations Commission
Land and Environment Court
Local Courts
Supreme Court
Victims Compensation Tribunal
Nope. No "general division of the nsw court". Get a better lawyer.
Better still, get a lawyer. They threaten much better than amateurs
do.
And again, please tell me how reproducing the words of, eg,
"peter_arse_ditch" or "peter_dumb_ditch" could possibly be an
infringement of copyright unless the person or persons who used those
names cares to get up in court (perhaps a real court with a real name)
and swear that they called me all those names.
While you are talking to that lawyer, perhaps you should ask him to
explain how your case gets strengthened by your suggestions that I am
a child abuser or have a criminal record. There's nothing a judge
likes more than hearing some plaintiff (ask your lawyer what that word
means) start saying how the defendant (sorry, another big word) hurt
his feelings and that's why the plaintiff had to tell lies about him.
The Grouchybeast
> you know what you have to do......if i'm not off your site i will send
> copies of your site to your suppliers, clients, and ABA......
The really bizarre things about this threat (OK, *one* of the really
bizarre...) is that Peter Bowditch is a computer consultant. And the
Ratbags site is a slick, professional, beautiful web site. Anyone
looking for a consultant would be really impressed by it. So even if Mr
Anonymous really was drawing the attention of gebesse customers to the
Ratbags site, it would probably *improve* Peter's business. Weird, even
for here.
love
Anna
healthw...@my-deja.com
pet...@ratbags.com wrote:
> healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >you are correct.....a statement of claimed has been filed with the
> >general division of the nsw court....naming you, and your
isp......for
> >copyright and trademark infringement, libel slander and
> >defamation...this despite the fact you are judgement proof.....code
your operating assumption is that the claimant is the author of the
communication.....but the claimant is not.....get it....
Peter Bowditch
we all know where that is):
>your operating assumption is that the claimant is the author of the
>communication.....but the claimant is not.....get it....
So who is the claimant? Peterbowditch666, peter_arse_ditch,
dr_t_polevoy, ...? I've been told that these are all really me, so why
would I be suing myself?
If the claimant should speak to a lawyer, get him/her/it to ask the
lawyer to explain that anybody claiming a breach of copyright has to
admit that they wrote the stuff. If they simultaneously claim that
someone else wrote it, they might look a little silly. Don't forget to
mention the 27 versions of my name, especially my favourite, "i like
to fuck dead rats-ditch". That would look real good right at the top
of the first page of the libel/slander/defamation suit.
healthw...@my-deja.com
you miss the point mr. "sharp as a marble-ditch"....the claimant and
the author are two different people....the issue, and we are certain it
has escaped you, again, you dim bulb, is that you are publishing
information from one source and ascribing it to another....do you get
it yet!!!!.....if we said "you are a lunatic ratbastard" and you said
that bill clintstone said it, you would be slandering bill
clintstone....that's what's happened and that's the fun part...you
don't get it........it's not the claimant that has to account for "i
like to fuck dead rats", it's you, you stupid bastard, 'cause you
published it,.......but it' too late.......now.........?
Peter Bowditch
WorldLinx, Canada):
>you miss the point mr. "sharp as a marble-ditch"....the claimant and
>the author are two different people....the issue, and we are certain it
>has escaped you, again, you dim bulb, is that you are publishing
>information from one source and ascribing it to another....do you get
>it yet!!!!.....if we said "you are a lunatic ratbastard" and you said
>that bill clintstone said it, you would be slandering bill
>clintstone....that's what's happened and that's the fun part...you
>don't get it........it's not the claimant that has to account for "i
>like to fuck dead rats", it's you, you stupid bastard, 'cause you
>published it,.......but it' too late.......now.........?
Now, let me get this straight. There are three people involved here,
me, you and someone else who shares a computer and writing style with
both you and Mr O'Neill. You called me a ridiculous, vulgar name in a
Usenet posting which went to a potential audience of millions (and has
been archived in public places like deja.com). I published the message
on my web site, and by this action libelled some unnamed person. This
unnamed person also claims that I breached his/her/its copyright by
publishing their words..
So, you wrote it and I wrote it, and the "claimant" wrote it and
didn't write it, and I was not libelled by being called a stupid name
but the claimant was libelled by my repeating what the claimant wrote
and simultaneously did not write.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
healthw...@my-deja.com
read that quickly....
you have published who you alledge to be the source of the comments and
postings.........and, you are incorrect....the claimant is not the
author.....
in effect, you have libelled the claimant by publishing that he is the
author.......you know this and/or ought to have known this....and, we
understand, you have been previously advised by the claimant to this
effect, yet you persist.......
the burden of proof is yours.....you have have to prove who the author
is.....ip addresses are not admissible in your courts.......and you
have to prove your representation was not libelous......you probably
still don't get it, but that's to be expected....
over and out!
CBI
would be helpful to his case to be able to prove those things.
--
CBI, M.D.
Kevin Filan
healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> is.....ip addresses are not admissible in your courts.......
Does this warrant a "Clueless Newbie of the Month"
award?
Ummm... would you mind posting a pointer to the decision
which held IP Addresses weren't admissible as evidence in
Australian courts?
> and you
> have to prove your representation was not libelous......you probably
> still don't get it, but that's to be expected....
Based on the evidence I saw on Mr. Arse-Ditch's *ahem*
Mr. Bowditch's site, I would say that most courts would
quickly conclude that Mr. O'Neill and healthwatcher2 are
in fact the same person... and that Mr. O'Neill was nuttier
than a pecan pie.
Does that make me guilty of libel too?
> over and out!
Peace
Kevin Filan
(who needs a new pet netkook... )
healthw...@my-deja.com
Kevin Filan <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8plnd5$t3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > is.....ip addresses are not admissible in your courts.......
>
>
> which held IP Addresses weren't admissible as evidence in
> Australian courts?
>
> >
>
> Kevin Filan
> (who needs a new pet netkook... )
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
here's your pointer........"Rindo vs. Harwicke" NSW Court.....judge
ruled....."........ip addresses do neither confirm nor deny author and
can not be admissible.......burden of proof is the defendant's to
demonstrate to the court the indentity of the author and the evidence
supporting the author's claim......"
in all cases, the claimant is presumed innocent......and the onus is
the defendant's to prove his or her representation is based on fact...
god bless mr. bowditch............he has no facts....he has no
evidence...
if mr. o'neill, has authored the alledged communications, he might be
charged with "name-calling"...if there were such a charge....we
understand that mr. bowditch pulled the first punch by listing mr.
o'neill and/or his group as quackery........be delighted to see mr.
bowditch publish a singular fact that would suggest mr. o'neill or his
group of physicians, scientists, and researchers are quacks....
so mr. bowditch...here's the challenge....one fact...that's all.... one!
now we will see who the gutless liar is..........
healthw...@my-deja.com
healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8pn0r1$eri$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Kevin Filan <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > is.....ip addresses are not admissible in your courts.......
> >
> >
> > which held IP Addresses weren't admissible as evidence in
> > Australian courts?
> >
> > >
> >
> > Kevin Filan
> > (who needs a new pet netkook... )
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> ruled....."........ip addresses do neither confirm nor deny author and
> can not be admissible.......burden of proof is the defendant's to
> demonstrate to the court the indentity of the author and the evidence
> supporting the author's claim......"
>
> in all cases, the claimant is presumed innocent......and the onus is
> the defendant's to prove his or her representation is based on fact...
>
> god bless mr. bowditch............he has no facts....he has no
> evidence...
>
> if mr. o'neill, has authored the alledged communications, he might be
> charged with "name-calling"...if there were such a charge....we
> understand that mr. bowditch pulled the first punch by listing mr.
> o'neill and/or his group as quackery........be delighted to see mr.
> bowditch publish a singular fact that would suggest mr. o'neill or his
> group of physicians, scientists, and researchers are quacks....
>
> so mr. bowditch...here's the challenge....one fact...that's all....
one!
> now we will see who the gutless liar is..........
>
incidentally......
> the Rindo vs. Harwicke yielded a $40,000.00 punitive damage award to
the claimaint plus costs which exceeded $100,000.00..............
the defendant was also ordered to cease communication on the internet
or any activities which invovlved the use or operation of a computer
for no less than five years.......and the best part was the defendant
was an australian!.......
seems the australian courts don't take behavior like that of mr.
bowditch's that lightly........
healthw...@my-deja.com
substantiated evidence................you can't do it, can you?
i didn't think so....
Peter Bowditch
209.195.93.130):
>here's your pointer........"Rindo vs. Harwicke" NSW Court.....judge
>ruled....."........ip addresses do neither confirm nor deny author and
>can not be admissible.......burden of proof is the defendant's to
>demonstrate to the court the indentity of the author and the evidence
>supporting the author's claim......"
http://www.search.nsw.gov.au/law_justice_results.asp
>rindo appears 0 times in Law and Justice
>
> Sorry, no matches found.
> harwicke appears 0 times in Law and Justice
>
> Sorry, no matches found.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/search/casesearch2000.nsf/fieldsearch
Searching for party "rindo"
>CASELAW ONLINE Search Results
>
>
>0 relevant judgments found by your search.
Searching for party "harwicke"
>CASELAW ONLINE Search Results
>
>
>0 relevant judgments found by your search
Searching for keywords "ip addresses"
>CASELAW ONLINE Search Results
>
>
>0 relevant judgments found by your search.
Please cite the case. You lawyer will tell you the correct format of
the citation.
I just thought - how are you and the "claimant" going to prove that I
did anything? It could have been someone else pretending to be me and
forging the IP address of my web server.
CBI
"Kevin Filan" <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pn0r1$eri$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8plnd5$t3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > is.....ip addresses are not admissible in your courts.......
>
> Does this warrant a "Clueless Newbie of the Month"
> award?
>
> Ummm... would you mind posting a pointer to the decision
> which held IP Addresses weren't admissible as evidence in
> Australian courts?
>
> > and you
> > have to prove your representation was not libelous......you probably
> > still don't get it, but that's to be expected....
>
> Based on the evidence I saw on Mr. Arse-Ditch's *ahem*
> Mr. Bowditch's site, I would say that most courts would
> quickly conclude that Mr. O'Neill and healthwatcher2 are
> in fact the same person... and that Mr. O'Neill was nuttier
> than a pecan pie.
>
> Does that make me guilty of libel too?
>
Yes, but since the IP address will not be admissible in court he will not be
able to prove it was you that said it. :-)
healthw...@my-deja.com
the claims....this is common is all libel action....this applies to his
publication of communications and his nonsense claims on his site.....
healthw...@my-deja.com
> Now, let me get this straight. There are three people involved here,
> me, you and someone else who shares a computer and writing style with
> both you and Mr O'Neill. You called me a ridiculous, vulgar name in a
> Usenet posting which went to a potential audience of millions (and has
> been archived in public places like deja.com). I published the message
> on my web site, and by this action libelled some unnamed person. This
> unnamed person also claims that I breached his/her/its copyright by
> publishing their words..
>
> ........................................................
> Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
> Who, despite threats, STILL has a web site
> The Millenium Project - The fundaments of the 'net
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> (and at five other places on the 'web)
>
"you called me a ridiculous, vulgar name in a Usenet posting which went
to a potential audience of millions....."
let me get this straight, you publish whatever the hell you want, on
your web site, to untold audiences around the world....you lie, invent,
slander, defame.....but should be called "names" you're
affronted?...your only recourse is to tell the principal and your mommy
'cause name calling is not considered libel......moron....
healthw...@my-deja.com
> Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
> Who, despite threats, STILL has a web site
> The Millenium Project - The fundaments of the 'net
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> (and at five other places on the 'web)
>
that is a valid point......
the problem is this, however....
we are prepared to support mr. o'neill in his action...in ensuring that
he and his group are not subjected to unjustified criticism
and/or "scepticism"......in the case of peter bowditch and the
millenium project, we have acquired the appropriate certified
documentation with his signature and this has been verified.....this
documentation further reveals that he is the owner of the site....none
the less, the burden of proof is mr. bowditch's...on all issues....
the judgement is available....you're not looking in the right place...
Peter Bowditch
wrote:
>that is a valid point......
>
>the problem is this, however....
>we are prepared to support mr. o'neill in his action...in ensuring that
>he and his group are not subjected to unjustified criticism
>and/or "scepticism"......in the case of peter bowditch and the
>millenium project, we have acquired the appropriate certified
>documentation with his signature and this has been verified.....this
>documentation further reveals that he is the owner of the site....none
>the less, the burden of proof is mr. bowditch's...on all issues....
So here's how it works. You fax me a copy of this documentation with
my certified, verified signature on it within 24 hours. This is the
same fair offer I made to the Gutless Anonymous Liar when he made the
ludicrous claim that he search engines had delisted The Millenium
Project.
>the judgement is available....you're not looking in the right place...
I'm sorry, but I thought that the records of the NSW courts would be a
good place to look for judgements of those courts. Please cite the
case, using the correct form of citation.
healthw...@my-deja.com
sorry, but you can dig as we did.....not everything is on the
internet....you will have to paperchase.........as it concerns rindo
vs.harwicke......
concerning the matter of the fax....and the deadline....for what
purpose? what's in it for us?......
healthw...@my-deja.com
The challenge is to produce one substantiated piece of evidence that
supports Mr. Bowditch's claim that members of the Canadian Cancer
Research Group are quacks or the treatment provided by them is quackery.
24 hours.
healthw...@my-deja.com
"CBI" <c_ish...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Kevin Filan" <raksh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8pn0r1$eri$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > is.....ip addresses are not admissible in your courts.......
> >
> > Does this warrant a "Clueless Newbie of the Month"
> > award?
> >
> > Ummm... would you mind posting a pointer to the decision
> > which held IP Addresses weren't admissible as evidence in
> > Australian courts?
> >
> > > and you
> > > have to prove your representation was not libelous......you
probably
> > > still don't get it, but that's to be expected....
> >
> > Based on the evidence I saw on Mr. Arse-Ditch's *ahem*
> > Mr. Bowditch's site, I would say that most courts would
> > quickly conclude that Mr. O'Neill and healthwatcher2 are
> > in fact the same person... and that Mr. O'Neill was nuttier
> > than a pecan pie.
> >
> > Does that make me guilty of libel too?
> >
>
not be
> able to prove it was you that said it. :-)
>
healthw...@my-deja.com
no....that just makes you guilty of being gullible..........
Peter Bowditch
>In article <32b0sss2v55g3tj5r...@4ax.com>,
> pet...@ratbags.com wrote:
< snip>
>> So here's how it works. You fax me a copy of this documentation with
>> my certified, verified signature on it within 24 hours. This is the
>> same fair offer I made to the Gutless Anonymous Liar when he made the
>> ludicrous claim that he search engines had delisted The Millenium
>> Project.
>>
>> >the judgement is available....you're not looking in the right
>place...
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I thought that the records of the NSW courts would be a
>> good place to look for judgements of those courts. Please cite the
>> case, using the correct form of citation.
>sorry, but you can dig as we did.....not everything is on the
>internet....you will have to paperchase.........as it concerns rindo
>vs.harwicke......
You don't have to dig or paperchase anything. You have stated that a
court judgement exists. I don't need to see the words, just tell me
the reference.
>concerning the matter of the fax....and the deadline....for what
>purpose? what's in it for us?......
To prove you are not lying.
Time's up!
Peter Bowditch
>This goes out to Mr. Bowditch and his Fart Catchers:
>
>The challenge is to produce one substantiated piece of evidence that
>supports Mr. Bowditch's claim that members of the Canadian Cancer
>Research Group are quacks or the treatment provided by them is quackery.
>
>24 hours.
>
Before which time this person who refuses to give his name will have
supplied the following information:
1) Evidence of the existence of the "general division of the nsw
court"
2) Evidence that an action has been commenced in said court against me
and my ISP for libel, slander, defamation, breach of copyright and
trademark infringement
3) A correct citation of a court judgement, "Rindo vs Harwicke", which
banned someone from using a computer for five years
4) A faxed copy of a certified, verified document containing my
signature and showing that I own a web site at http://www.ratbags.com
5) Details of my criminal record
6) Information supporting the suggestion that I am a child abuser
7) A list of my clients
8) A list of my suppliers
9) Evidence that I have at some time been "flushed" by the ISP Telstra
Big Pond (or any other ISP)
10) Evidence that any Australian government department or authority,
either state or federal, is concerned in any with what I do on the
Internet
A claims about all these have been made within the last few days, all
of the above should be immediately available. Only a liar would have
said these things without something to back them up.
I will leave it for another occasion to discuss how people claiming to
have unconventional cures for cancer are the ones making the claims
and therefore the ones who have to provide evidence. People who draw
attention to these claims are simply expressing an opinion and have
nothing to prove. If I say I have a unicorn in my back yard then
people are perfectly entitled to doubt my claim. I can't prove it's
there by saying that the skeptics have failed to prove it is not.
healthw...@my-deja.com
didn't think you could provide any proof.....quack, charlatan, liar,
fraud.......
healthw...@my-deja.com
kbar...@freedom.net
>This goes out to Mr. Bowditch and his Fart Catchers:
>
>The challenge is to produce one substantiated piece of evidence that
>supports Mr. Bowditch's claim that members of the Canadian Cancer
>Research Group are quacks or the treatment provided by them is quackery.
>
>24 hours.
You are using vaccines for unrelated diseases to treat cancer, by your
own admission. And charging the patient 10 times the cost of the
treatment. This is quakery.
See http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/CCRG/
For more information.
Oh, and if you want to try to sue me for libel, my address and name
is:
Kristopher K. Barrett
444 S.E. 11th Ave., Apt. #A
Hillsboro, OR, 97123, USA.
See you in court, asshole.
An excerpt from the website follows:
CCRG - Canadian Cancer Research Group
Bill O'Neill's Greatest Hits
Alternative cancer care - Bill O'Neill and Mohamed Khaled June 24,
2000 - The Touch of Health syndicated radio show with Christine
McPhee. It's beamed around the world on the internet from several
stations. Guess what? When you call Khaled's office in the Burlington
area, you are given an appointment with Gabriele Sutton, a woman with
no official recognizable or regulated health designation in Ontario.
She was recently booted out of the University of Western Ontario's
Research Park because she claimed to represent UWO in her
presentations to the public. She's been inside a string of doctors'
and chiropractors' offices in Southwestern Ontario over the last few
years. She has also taught students to become alternative healthcare
assistants when there is absolutely no regulation by anyone in
Ontario. People have paid her tens of thousands of dollars to teach
them things like iridology, homeopathy, and herbology, none of them a
regulated health profession.
Cures of last resort April 20, 2000 - Eye magazine - Nate Hendley
Alternative cancer therapies bring high-priced hope and deadly
disappointment - Last December, as she neared the end of her fight
with cancer, curler Sandra Schmirler travelled to Ottawa for a
last-ditch attempt at treatment. There, the former Olympian sought out
the services of the Canadian Cancer Research Group (CCRG), a
controversial medical centre that practises alternative cancer
therapies.
These include vaccines designed to boost a patient's immune system so
the body can wage its own war on cancerous cells. The CCRG offers
other alternative treatments, some of which have been soundly rejected
by traditional medical authorities.
At news conferences, Schmirler told skeptical journalists that she had
full faith in the CCRG's treatment regime. The CCRG's therapies were
"based on facts and research ... [and] analysis of body chemistry,"
she said. But her esophageal cancer quickly took a turn for the worse
and she was admitted to Pasqua Hospital in Regina. There, Schmirler
died on March 2, two years after she led Canada's women's curling team
to a gold medal at the Nagano Olympics.
In spite of Schmirler's unsuccessful treatment, William O'Neill, CEO
of CCRG, says his centre is at the forefront of cancer research. He
describes his outfit as the "largest private cancer think-tank
research lab, treatment development laboratory and outpatient
treatment centre" in the country. Founded in 1992, the CCRG saw about
2,000 patients last year. These patients paid fees ranged from nothing
to a maximum of $10,000 for up to 12 months of treatment. The
treatments Schmirler received cost between $3,000 and $4,000.
End excerpt.
*********************************************
Kristopher K. Barrett, MODERATOR - A.H.M.
mhm26x22 Meow!
The Point is this -- There Is No Point.
Not on Usenet, anyway.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est
*********************************************
healthw...@my-deja.com
no mr. bowditch...you've gotten it all wrong again....to paraphrase
your trite analogy....you have said that someone else has a unicorn in
their backyard when clearly they don't, they have said they don't and
they have proven they don't....you have made the claim...therefore you
must substantiate it....and, you are unable to substantiate your
claim...you can not, you have not, and you are unable to substantiate
any of your claims....you are the worst kind of sceptic...you invent,
you lie, you cheat, you imagine, you obsess, you compulse, you are
truly a complete and utter asshole....
healthw...@my-deja.com
healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This goes out to Mr. Bowditch and his Fart Catchers:
>
> The challenge is to produce one substantiated piece of evidence that
> supports Mr. Bowditch's claim that members of the Canadian Cancer
> Research Group are quacks or the treatment provided by them is
quackery.
>
> 24 hours.
>
mr. bowditch
you have referred and listed mr. o'neill and the canadian cancer
research group as quacks....where is your evidence?......
if you can not produce the evidence, your claim has no grounds.....
healthw...@my-deja.com
kbar...@freedom.net wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:45:18 GMT, healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >This goes out to Mr. Bowditch and his Fart Catchers:
> >
> >The challenge is to produce one substantiated piece of evidence that
> >supports Mr. Bowditch's claim that members of the Canadian Cancer
> >Research Group are quacks or the treatment provided by them is
quackery.
> >
> >24 hours.
>
evidence........not some lunatic imagings of a soon to ex-dr. i.e.
polevoy, who continues to be under investigation by the college of
physicians and surgeons for the province of ontario, known to the
kitchener-waterloo police, and considered a right-wing ratbastard in
his own community.....much like your father...
gob bless you mr. barrett jr....get genetic counselling...the spawning
can be stopped by only you!
quack...@my-deja.com
fer chrissakes kris getting off yer fuckin' computer and give yer
muther a call!
quack...@my-deja.com
pull your dick out your father's ass and look up for a minute....
see?
quack...@my-deja.com
the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.......asshole!
quack...@my-deja.com
have called yer muther or i'll smack you silly....
luv dr. dad
quack...@my-deja.com
quack...@my-deja.com
means?.......mmmmm....."K".....
kbar...@freedom.net
>evidence........not some lunatic imagings of a soon to ex-dr. i.e.
>polevoy, who continues to be under investigation by the college of
>physicians and surgeons for the province of ontario, known to the
>kitchener-waterloo police, and considered a right-wing ratbastard in
>his own community.....much like your father...
>
I am not closely related to the Mr. Barrett you are spatting with, but
the name did get my attention enough to do a bit of research.
Pray tell me, who is on the investigating committee for this Dr.
Polevoy? Name the person heading the investigation. I'd like to verify
your claim.
And please tell me what medical qualifications you have? Other than
advising clients to drink piss (homeopathy) and other forms of
quackery.
Oh, and here is another chance to sue me for libel :
You are a Quack.
>gob bless you mr. barrett jr....get genetic counselling...the spawning
>can be stopped by only you!
>
So you are giving me permission to have you sterilized? Good. I would
be more than happy to help prevent you from spawning. I was unaware
you were a fish, however...
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
*********************************************
MODERATOR - A.H.M.
>In article <4jm4sssdqg3m2a9ah...@4ax.com>,
> kbar...@freedom.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:45:18 GMT, healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
<massive snip>
>>
>
>fer chrissakes kris getting off yer fuckin' computer and give yer
>muther a call!
>
Good advise that. I hadn't heard from her in a while. My wife and I
set up a dinner date with her this month.
Thank you, quack!
MODERATOR - A.H.M.
>kris....
>
>pull your dick out your father's ass and look up for a minute....
>
>see?
>
I'll give you exactly one warning, Mr.O'Neill.
You do not want to take me on.
MODERATOR - A.H.M.
>oh...and by the way kris...
>
>the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.......asshole!
>
Wrong country, Quack. The Mr. Barrett you are fighting with hasn't
been a relation of mine as far back as the century before last.
But if you want a new opponent, fine.
MODERATOR - A.H.M.
>and by the way kris...stay the fuck outta my business...and you better
>have called yer muther or i'll smack you silly....
>
>
>luv dr. dad
>
Just talked to her.
As for your business, you have just made it mine.
This will be fun.
MODERATOR - A.H.M.
>apt "A"..... is that ground floor....loser!!!!!!!
>
Actually, it's a duplex.
I'd rather travel than make mortgage payments. And since I don't get
paid thousands to advise cancer patients to drink their own piss, I do
have to work for a living.
But then all con men consider people who make an honest dollar to be
"losers", so that notion an your part is expected, I guess.
kbar...@freedom.net
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:56:51 GMT, quack...@my-deja.com lifted the giant
obsidian doorknocker, and spake the following non sequitur:
>chris with a "K".....mmmmmm.....?....wonder what
>means?.......mmmmm....."K".....
>
Well, bud, it stands for the first initial of my middle name.
As for continuing this discussion, I am not sure if you are the quack I am
arguing with, or a troll.
So I will continue this discussion with healthw...@my-deja.com,
if he so chooses to post replies to me using that name.
As for this quackwatch nym:
Plonk!
--
*********************************************
Kristopher K. Barrett, Moderator of A.H.M.
Kevin Filan
healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> no mr. bowditch...you've gotten it all wrong again....to paraphrase
> your trite analogy....you have said that someone else has a unicorn in
> their backyard when clearly they don't, they have said they don't and
> they have proven they don't....you have made the claim...therefore you
> must substantiate it....and, you are unable to substantiate your
> claim...you can not, you have not, and you are unable to substantiate
> any of your claims....you are the worst kind of sceptic...you invent,
> you lie, you cheat, you imagine, you obsess, you compulse, you are
> truly a complete and utter asshole....
If Mr. Bowditch has claimed that the Canadian Cancer
Research Group is a "quack" organization, kindly allow
me to second him on that. Based on what I saw of your
website, it looks like you're in the business of preying
on sick, desperate people by providing them with information
about cures which are highly experimental at best and
dubious/fraudulent at worst... and making a profit doing so.
Given your behavior on here, I would hesitate before taking
any kind of medical advice from you. You have an obvious
penchant for making up facts when it suits your purpose,
and act like a drooling loon when you're called on the carpet
for misstatements -- not exactly things one looks for in a
"Cancer Counselor."
You may not realize it -- hell, I'm sure you don't -- but
you've managed to ruin your own reputation far more effectively
than Mr. Bowditch's website ever did. Of course, I'm sure we
can count on you to keep entertaining until your antics draw
the attention of Canadian law enforcement ala Frank Virga...
or until you run out of sockpuppets, whichever comes first.
(You got a ways to go before you catch up with Brad Jessness,
pal. Remember... you got some BIG kookshoes to fill if you
wanna come play with the big boys here on Usenet).
Peace
Kevin Filan
Alarca
> In article <8ptnki$al3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> healthw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > no mr. bowditch...you've gotten it all wrong again....to paraphrase
> > your trite analogy....you have said that someone else has a unicorn in
> > their backyard when clearly they don't, they have said they don't and
> > they have proven they don't....you have made the claim...therefore you
> > must substantiate it....and, you are unable to substantiate your
> > claim...you can not, you have not, and you are unable to substantiate
> > any of your claims....you are the worst kind of sceptic...you invent,
> > you lie, you cheat, you imagine, you obsess, you compulse, you are
> > truly a complete and utter asshole....
>
> If Mr. Bowditch has claimed that the Canadian Cancer
> Research Group is a "quack" organization, kindly allow
> me to second him on that. Based on what I saw of your
> website, it looks like you're in the business of preying
> on sick, desperate people by providing them with information
> about cures which are highly experimental at best and
> dubious/fraudulent at worst... and making a profit doing so.
<snip>
OK, I'll third Monsieur Bowditch on this. You are a QUACK, Monsieur
O'Neill, and a poor excuse for one at that. Did you forget to turn up at
the clinic for your depot injection this week?
Looks like a duck ... walks like a duck ... quaaaaaaack.
Alarca
Peter Bowditch
>In article <20000915175433...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>> >Challenge: A.K.A. Put up or Shut Up
>> >From: kbar...@freedom.net
>> >Date: 9/15/00 12:26 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <4jm4sssdqg3m2a9ah...@4ax.com>
>>
>> Oh gee, you wouldn't just happen to be the son of Steve *Quack*
>Barrett would
>> you??
>>
>> I thought he didn't have anything to do with trying to get the radio
>show
>> cancelled.
>>
>> Hmmmm............
>>
>> Maybe you and daddy should get your stories straight??
>>
>> If you aren't his son (which I greatly doubt), then I apologize.
>>
>> Jan
>> \
>
>
>hey!!!!!!..... he's my freakin' son...you gotta
>problem?.....beef?.....let me know and i'll smack him around...
>
>
>sincerely:
>
>steve "if it ain't flat, it sure ain't round" barrett........
>who said i'm a member of the kkk?....i'll smack him too!!!!
>
>aka duck-fucker....you can find me at http://www.quackfuck.com
In a wonderful example of irony, Mr O'Neill was responding here to Jan
Drew. If you look at http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=631361456 you
can see one of the places where he suggested to me that Jan was
writing the stuff that I was attributing to him.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Kirk Kolas
Alarca wrote:
> > If Mr. Bowditch has claimed that the Canadian Cancer
> > Research Group is a "quack" organization, kindly allow
> > me to second him on that. Based on what I saw of your
> > website, it looks like you're in the business of preying
> > on sick, desperate people by providing them with information
> > about cures which are highly experimental at best and
> > dubious/fraudulent at worst... and making a profit doing so.
>
> <snip>
>
> OK, I'll third Monsieur Bowditch on this. You are a QUACK, Monsieur
> O'Neill, and a poor excuse for one at that. Did you forget to turn up at
> the clinic for your depot injection this week?
>
> Looks like a duck ... walks like a duck ... quaaaaaaack.
Allow me to jump on the bandwagon here: I wonder how the families of
terminally ill cancer patients would react if they knew that they were handing
over money to a person that behaves like Mr. O'Neill (assuming that these
multiple personalities are all him).
It's really quite sad.
--
Kirk Kolas
Ontario Veterinary College
Class of 2002
drfr...@my-deja.com
Kirk,be careful or you risk the wrath of healthwatcher 2 (I'm
anxiously awaiting the sequel coming out to post as
healthwatcher 3). You know it would be funny if the guy(s)
-assuming split personalities- weren't serious. I take it back-
it's outright sick!!
frank
Dr. Roland R. Hicks
I have a site I would like you to visit.
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
--
Dr. Roland R. Hicks
Doctor of Chiropractic
All good things come from above-down-inside-out
Natural Alternative to Celebrex/Vioxx:
http://drhicks.joint-pain.com/
Internet Marketing to Win:
http://www.aboutimw.com/drhicks.html
Nutrition Guaranteed To Get Results:
http://freelife.com/Sites/drhicks/redir.cfm?page=/info/welcome/welcomehome.c
fm
toll free (877) 791-8686
email drh...@netscorp.net
_________________________________
Ilena Rose <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-01090...@24-25-197-105.san.rr.com...
> In article <lYOq5.79$Nq.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Todd Gastaldo"
> <gast...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> **Dr. Barrett,
> **
> **If you are reading, ARE you sbi...@enter.net?
> **
>
> Did he have the courtesy of replying, Todd.
>
> I've been getting lots of interesting info on him, including someone who
> doesn't believe he is a board certified psychiatrist. Does anyone know ? ?
>
> That is the same address that I received the message trying to extort
> first $500 then $2000 from me:
>
>
> X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:11:32 -0400
> To: ilena rose <il...@san.rr.com>
> From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
> Subject: Libel: Final notice
>
> Re: Alt.misc.health message #19 on DejaNews
> Neither I nor Quackwatch had anything to do with anything that was
> done to Christine NcPhee or her show. Before you continue to spread
> criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what you say.
>
> About a week or two ago, I sent you a warning and requested that you
> removeyour psting of Tim Bolen's libelous message falsely accusing
> Dr. Polevoy of stalking and various other things. You responded that
> you didn't think that posting someone else's message to a news group
> could make you liable for damages. I strongly suggest that you ask an
> attorney about this.
>
> We have in our possession a copy of the police report concluding that
> Dr. Polevoy did nothing wrong. Do you think that a judge or jury will
> excuse you for posting Bolen's lie that the police judged him guilty?
> I do not.
>
> Since my last message, I have learned that messages posted to
> alt,misc.health can get reposted to a large number of groups, not
> just to DejaNews. Neither Dr. Polevoy not I intend to tolerate this
> situation. This message is intended to offer you an opportunity to
> enter into an amicable settlement instead of winding up with greater
> expense defending yourself in court. With reservation of rights,
> here's my offer:
>
> 1. You will pay me $500 to compensate me for the time I have had to
> waste in tracking down your messages.
> 2. You will provide me with a letter directing any Internet provider
> hosting a message from you about me or Dr. Polevoy to remove it. If
> you have something you want to say about me that is not libelous, or
> if a previous message was not libelous, you can post it again.
>
> This offer will expire at midnight, August 31.
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Stephen Barrett, M.D.
> Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
> P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105
> Telephone: (610) 437-1795
> URL#1: http://www.quackwatch.com
> URL#2: http://www.chirobase.org
> URL#3: http://www.mlmwatch.org
> URL#4: http://www.nutriwatch.org
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> X-Sender: sbi...@mail3.enter.net
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:23:02 -0400
> To: il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose)
> From: "Stephen Barrett, M.D." <sbi...@quackwatch.com>
> Subject: Re: QuackBarrett threatens to sue me for Libel
>
> >
> >I think it would very useful for Barrett to publish this police report in
> >its entirety.
> >
> >In re-reading Mr. Bolen's Opinion piece, I notice nowhere that he claims
> >that QuackPolevoy was found guilty. If in fact, in Mr. Bolen's piece, it
> >declares that the police "judged him (QuackPolevoy) guilty," I will of
> >course, retract that statement that I published in good faith. However,
> >from my reading, Mr. Bolen stated:
>
> Good faith is not a defense when accusing someone of a crime.
> A retraction will not rectify the fact that your message has been
> read by people all over the world who may not see the retraction.
> >
> >"THE FACTS...
> >Polevoy, police reports show, STALKED Canadian Radio Personality
Christine
> >McPhee, until, terrified, she called in police. He followed her around,
> >affecting disguises, for months - then further terrified her by e-mailing
> >her the details of his stalking actions. Police agencies felt it
> >necessary to assign armed uniformed officers to protect McPhee from
> >Polevoy. Reports show that McPhee was not the only female Polevoy
> >stalked."
>
> A police report is a report written by the police.
> No police report showed that he stalked anyone.
> The police report states that the police found no wrongdoing.
> Your reposting of this libel is further evidence of malice.
> If you wanted to know the answer, you could have asked me privately.
>
> >Further, Barrett claims: "Neither I nor Quackwatch had anything to do
> >with anything that was done to Christine NcPhee or her show. Before you
> >continue to spread criticisms, I suggest that you attempt to verify what
> >you say."
> >
> >This rings a bit hollow to me. For one, why is Barrett threatening to sue
> >me, and not Polevoy?
>
> I made the threat because your post also libels me.
> I mentioned the Polevoy matter because it is so clear-cut.
>
>
> >Does Barrett deny that Polevoy was a main figure in the "witchhunt" to
> >remove Ms. McPhee's program?
>
> I neither know nor care about what he did and what happened to her.
>
>
> >It is my understanding that Quacks Barrett & Polevoy are closely aligned
> >and work together through lists and various other ways. Why is Barrett
> >speaking on behalf of Polevoy?
>
> Calling me a quack is defamatory and is further evidence of malice.
> My offer to settle for $500 is hereby withdrawn.
> The price is now $2,000.
> The deadline for agreeing is midnight Sunday, Monday Aug 28 (New York
time)
> I urge you again to consult an attorney.
> --