Dr. Mark R. Geier ... May God protect this brave doctor

LOL!!! I prove your entire post wrong so you go right back to your
original accusation... which I have also proven wrong.

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
FIRST Maxie says:

I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
*I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
presented. You have proven otherwise.

Snip...and then says that he did not read the articles whose links I posted:

If you read Kathy's articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
I did not follow those articles because that is not the point of this
discussion. The point is whether or not you're being honest in your
evlauation if the Geiers treatment. The evidence you've presented so
far suggests you are not.
Maxie, I am sure that you think that this is an inconsequential error on
your part, and you have a perfect explanation of why you remained clueless.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Mark, if you had even an ounce of credibility, you wouldn't need to
stoop to name calling nor would you have the need to twist reality like
this. The answer to your accusation, as any one reading this can see,
is right there *IN* your accusation. Let me emphasize a couple of
words so you can better comprehend:

I said:
I read *YOUR* links and they did not answer my question...

Then YOU said:
If you read *KATHY'S* articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
I did not follow those [KATHY'S] articles because that is not the point of this
discussion.

You're trying to make it look as though the same links were being
discussed. That's pathetic. It's no wonder no one here takes you
seriously. My initial assumption about you, that while you were of the
pro-medical mind you were at least willing to debate using the facts,
seems to have been incorrect. If you had the truth on your side, such
poor debating tactics wouldn't be necessary. At least I've learned
that I don't need to waste so much time on you. You apparently have no
credibility with those in this group.

I posted links to information.

YOU chose not to read them.

Your mind is closed.

Max C. wrote:
LOL!!! I prove your entire post wrong so you go right back to your
original accusation... which I have also proven wrong.

I re-read many of the posts you made, and have yet to find anything
approaching your grandiose claims.

Please provide the URLs of the messages where you think you did so. Note
that providing the message number in some newsreader or in Google Groups
is not the same thing, as that number can change if a message is posted
up thread.




Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Max.

Mark Probert wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
FIRST Maxie says:

I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
*I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
presented. You have proven otherwise.

Snip...and then says that he did not read the articles whose links I posted:

If you read Kathy's articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
I did not follow those articles because that is not the point of this
discussion. The point is whether or not you're being honest in your
evlauation if the Geiers treatment. The evidence you've presented so
far suggests you are not.
Maxie, I am sure that you think that this is an inconsequential error on
your part, and you have a perfect explanation of why you remained clueless.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mark, if you had even an ounce of credibility, you wouldn't need to
stoop to name calling nor would you have the need to twist reality like
this. The answer to your accusation, as any one reading this can see,
is right there *IN* your accusation. Let me emphasize a couple of
words so you can better comprehend:

I said:
I read *YOUR* links and they did not answer my question...
Then YOU said:
If you read *KATHY'S* articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.
I did not follow those [KATHY'S] articles because that is not the point of this
discussion.
You're trying to make it look as though the same links were being
discussed. That's pathetic. It's no wonder no one here takes you
seriously. My initial assumption about you, that while you were of the
pro-medical mind you were at least willing to debate using the facts,
seems to have been incorrect. If you had the truth on your side, such
poor debating tactics wouldn't be necessary. At least I've learned
that I don't need to waste so much time on you. You apparently have no
credibility with those in this group.
I posted links to information.

YOU chose not to read them.

Your mind is closed.

"Mark Probert" can not shut up...
Max C. wrote:
LOL!!! I prove your entire post wrong so you go right back to your
original accusation... which I have also proven wrong.

I re-read many of the posts you made, and have yet to find anything
approaching your grandiose claims.

Please provide the URLs of the messages where you think you did so. Note
that providing the message number in some newsreader or in Google Groups
is not the same thing, as that number can change if a message is posted up
thread.

*YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Max.


I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
*I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
presented. You have proven otherwise.

Mark, if you had even an ounce of credibility, you wouldn't need to
stoop to name calling nor would you have the need to twist reality like
this. The answer to your accusation, as any one reading this can see,
is right there *IN* your accusation. Let me emphasize a couple of
words so you can better comprehend:

said:


I read *YOUR* links and they did not answer my question...


Then YOU said:


If you read *KATHY'S* articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.

I did not follow those [KATHY'S] articles because that is not the point
of this discussion.



You're trying to make it look as though the same links were being
discussed. That's pathetic. It's no wonder no one here takes you
seriously. My initial assumption about you, that while you were of the
pro-medical mind you were at least willing to debate using the facts,
seems to have been incorrect. If you had the truth on your side, such
poor debating tactics wouldn't be necessary. At least I've learned
that I don't need to waste so much time on you. You apparently have no
credibility with those in this group.

Max.




I am tired of playing your asinine semantic games.

Then stop it. Never have you made your blatant misleading remarks so
easy to point out. You even gave everyone the link to prove your
deceptiveness. You purposefully deleted a KEY word in the definition
you posted from wikipedia... that word being "TEMPORARY." Allow me to
post it again in its entirety:

"Chemical castration is a form of TEMPORARY castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and
rapists.


It would appear that your credibility is no longer a concern for you.


Max.


My point is honesty. If you have the
truth on your side, you shouldn't need to resort to deception to convey
your message. You should just be able to present your case and have it
seen for what it is. That is not what has happened here.

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.


Max.

Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" can not shut up...

Which bothers the cleanse out of Jan, as she knows I have her 4-square
pegged.

Max C. wrote:
LOL!!! I prove your entire post wrong so you go right back to your
original accusation... which I have also proven wrong.
I re-read many of the posts you made, and have yet to find anything
approaching your grandiose claims.

Please provide the URLs of the messages where you think you did so. Note
that providing the message number in some newsreader or in Google Groups
is not the same thing, as that number can change if a message is posted up
thread.

*YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes

This was proven in the links to Neurodiversity I posted. I assume that
you read both articles and all the well documented links that Kathleen
spent the time finding.

So, what part do you disagree with? Please be specific and use your own
words.

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Max.


I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
*I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
presented. You have proven otherwise.

Max read some links, and stated that he did not read the links to
Kathleen's articles on Neurodiversity. If he had, that would have given
him all the facts a rational person needs.

Mark, if you had even an ounce of credibility, you wouldn't need to
stoop to name calling nor would you have the need to twist reality like
this. The answer to your accusation, as any one reading this can see,
is right there *IN* your accusation. Let me emphasize a couple of
words so you can better comprehend:

said:


I read *YOUR* links and they did not answer my question...


Then YOU said:


If you read *KATHY'S* articles and followed all of her links, you would
have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.

I did not follow those [KATHY'S] articles because that is not the point
of this discussion.

Which is INCORRECT. Kathleen's links are precisely the point of this
discussion.


You're trying to make it look as though the same links were being
discussed. That's pathetic. It's no wonder no one here takes you
seriously. My initial assumption about you, that while you were of the
pro-medical mind you were at least willing to debate using the facts,
seems to have been incorrect. If you had the truth on your side, such
poor debating tactics wouldn't be necessary. At least I've learned
that I don't need to waste so much time on you. You apparently have no
credibility with those in this group.

Max.




I am tired of playing your asinine semantic games.

Then stop it. Never have you made your blatant misleading remarks so
easy to point out. You even gave everyone the link to prove your
deceptiveness. You purposefully deleted a KEY word in the definition
you posted from wikipedia... that word being "TEMPORARY." Allow me to
post it again in its entirety:

"Chemical castration is a form of TEMPORARY castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and
rapists.

And, did I say it was anything other than temporary? If you claim that,
please post the URL of the message where I did.

It would appear that your credibility is no longer a concern for you.

My credibility is just fine. You provided proof that you play semantic
games and use logical fallacies.



Max.


My point is honesty. If you have the
truth on your side, you shouldn't need to resort to deception to convey
your message. You should just be able to present your case and have it
seen for what it is. That is not what has happened here.

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Yes, I would assume that Max would want me to let it go, as he cannot
prove his claims, while I did.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" can not shut up...

Which bothers the cleanse out of Jan, as she knows I have her 4-square
pegged.

ROTFLOL!!!

*Agreed. I wil lbe adjusting my style.*

*yes, I am adjusting it..fine tuning it...I do not need much to get iot
better...*

Poor Mark...motor mouth......

Max C. wrote:
LOL!!! I prove your entire post wrong so you go right back to your
original accusation... which I have also proven wrong.
I re-read many of the posts you made, and have yet to find anything
approaching your grandiose claims.

Please provide the URLs of the messages where you think you did so. Note
that providing the message number in some newsreader or in Google Groups
is not the same thing, as that number can change if a message is posted
up thread.

*YOU* are the one making claims he's going to chemically castrate
these children. The burdon of proof is on you. My guess is that your
claims are not true and that you're jumping to extremes

This was proven in the links to Neurodiversity I posted. I assume that you
read both articles and all the well documented links that Kathleen spent
the time finding.

So, what part do you disagree with? Please be specific and use your own
words.

Here they are....

Dumber than a box of rocks...

LOL!!!!!

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Max.


I read your links and they did NOT answer my question... nor did you.
*I* would have thought that such an "obvious" answer would be easily
presented. You have proven otherwise.

Max read some links, and stated that he did not read the links to
Kathleen's articles on Neurodiversity. If he had, that would have given
him all the facts a rational person needs.

Mark, if you had even an ounce of credibility, you wouldn't need to
stoop to name calling nor would you have the need to twist reality
like
this. The answer to your accusation, as any one reading this can
see,
is right there *IN* your accusation. Let me emphasize a couple of
words so you can better comprehend:

said:


I read *YOUR* links and they did not answer my question...


Then YOU said:


If you read *KATHY'S* articles and followed all of her links, you
would have those answers. That is what I did, sad that you did not.

I did not follow those [KATHY'S] articles because that is not the point
of this discussion.

Which is INCORRECT. Kathleen's links are precisely the point of this
discussion.


You're trying to make it look as though the same links were being
discussed. That's pathetic. It's no wonder no one here takes you
seriously. My initial assumption about you, that while you were of the
pro-medical mind you were at least willing to debate using the facts,
seems to have been incorrect. If you had the truth on your side, such
poor debating tactics wouldn't be necessary. At least I've learned
that I don't need to waste so much time on you. You apparently have no
credibility with those in this group.

Max.




I am tired of playing your asinine semantic games.

Then stop it. Never have you made your blatant misleading remarks so
easy to point out. You even gave everyone the link to prove your
deceptiveness. You purposefully deleted a KEY word in the definition
you posted from wikipedia... that word being "TEMPORARY." Allow me to
post it again in its entirety:

"Chemical castration is a form of TEMPORARY castration caused by
certain hormonal drugs. It was developed as a temporary preventive
measure or punishment, typically for male child sex offenders and
rapists.

And, did I say it was anything other than temporary? If you claim that,
please post the URL of the message where I did.

It would appear that your credibility is no longer a concern for you.

My credibility is just fine. You provided proof that you play semantic
games and use logical fallacies.

Yes, indeedy...

Marla...

From: "Marla Maples"
To:
Subject: Listserv?
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 06:50:44 -0800
Good morning!
I am a woman who was harmed by breast implants. I had them removed, but I am
still sick with FM and CFS.
I read the newsgroup where you are medciless atacked. I feel so sorry for
you.
I see that you have a support listserv. Can I sign up? That way, I can avoid
reading all that horrible stuff.
Marla Maples
Medford, OR




Max.


My point is honesty. If you have the
truth on your side, you shouldn't need to resort to deception to convey
your message. You should just be able to present your case and have it
seen for what it is. That is not what has happened here.

Just let it go. It's starting to get really pathetic.

Yes, I would assume that Max would want me to let it go, as he cannot
prove his claims, while I did.

Max was trying to do you a favor...you are too dumb to catch on....

Poor Marla....

The link below gives you access to an anti-MLM website with very
critical information regarding the practices of MLM (Multi Level
Marketing) companies, with links to critical studies, websites,
articles, research etc.

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/mlmpage/index.html

Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" can not shut up...
Which bothers the cleanse out of Jan, as she knows I have her 4-square
pegged.

ROTFLOL!!!

Do roll in the cleanse by-products.

*Agreed. I will be adjusting my style.*

Yes, I have, and I am more pointed than ever.


*yes, I am adjusting it..fine tuning it...I do not need much to get iot
better...*

Quite true.

Of course, what you posted has nothing to do with what I said.

Poor Mark...motor mouth......

Jan calls babyish names because she still has one foot in the sandbox.

Poor Jan.

Pathetic Jan.

Poopie Jan.

(Gotta get those numbers up!)

In article KMX0g.688843$084.23426@attbi_s22,
"Skeptic" wrote:

Orac, where have you been? Welcome back.

I spend most of my time blogging these days. It's much more rewarding
than butting heads with the like of Jan and her ilk. However,
occasionally, i can't resist coming back to the old stomping grounds to
see if anything's changed.

Sadly, nothing has.

--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://scienceblogs.com/insolence

In article ,
"Jan Drew" wrote:

"Orac" wrote
In article ,
Ilena Rose Ilena wrote:

Obviously Moron ... your opinions are just that ... your opinions ...

Dr. Geier has been a target of the dubious and unlicensed Barrett for
years ...

That's why I posted the opinion of non Pharma shills here for others
to decide themselves ...

You mean the same Dr. Geier

Actually she meant EXACTLY what she posted:

As did I:

You mean the same Dr. Geier who advocates chemical castration for
autistics and is trying to patent it to make money on it?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...rate_them_1.ph
p

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...o_patent_chemi.
php

The same guy who mines the VAERS database using very bad statistics and
math to "prove" a link between autism and mercury?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...psterdiving_y_
1.php

http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03...d-mercury.html

Yes, that Dr. Geier, who deserves all the abuse he takes from real
scientists.

--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://scienceblogs.com/insolence

In article ,
"Jan Drew" wrote:

The CDC is *organized Medicine*

Nuff said

Like I said in another post, nothing's changed. Jan still automatically
dismisses anything from what she perceives as "organized Medicine" and
uncritically accepts assertions from quacks like the Geiers, no matter
how ridiculous they are.

--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://scienceblogs.com/insolence