Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled

Rich.@. wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:34:46 GMT, Rich.@. wrote:


Cue Jan to accuse me of cyberstalking her simply for responding to her
post. Just watch.

Aloha,

Rich



On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:11:38 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
wrote:


cyberstalking


Some things are so predictable.

Sunrise, sunset, what you said...all the same level of predictability.

In article R1NTe.316480$_o.34622@attbi_s71,
"LadyLollipop" wrote:

"Orac" wrote in message
news
In article ZNsTe.313126$x96.152256@attbi_s72,
"LadyLollipop" wrote:

"Orac" wrote

snip

In article , Rich.@. wrote:

snip what the cyberstalker wrote

This thread is not about Jan

Perhaps not, but it is about your blithe dismissal of the death of a
5-year-child with "it happens, as with all procedures."

This thread is not about me, period.

Correct. It is about a quack who killed a 5-year-old. However, now that
you dismissed it with "it happens, as with all procedures," you're fair
game.


Nor your opinion.

Wrong, Jan. Every thread I choose to enter is about my opinion, just as
every thread *you* choose to enter is about your opinion. That's what
Usenet is for: expressing your opinion. Geez, that's a lame dodge, even
for you.

--
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://oracknows.blogspot.com

In article J7NTe.315424$x96.41710@attbi_s72,
"LadyLollipop" wrote:

Most interesting that so many of the *gang* cares so very much what I think.

Most amusing that Jan is so persistent in dodging a very simple question.

--
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://oracknows.blogspot.com

In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:

LadyLollipop wrote:
Most interesting that so many of the *gang* cares so very much what I
think.

The fact is, you are a judgmental blowhard. We just want to see if you
are consistent and not being selective.

I note that you, as usual, dodged the question.

Obviously, she's being selective...

--
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://oracknows.blogspot.com

Orac wrote:
In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:

Most interesting that so many of the *gang* cares so very much what I
think.

The fact is, you are a judgmental blowhard. We just want to see if you
are consistent and not being selective.

I note that you, as usual, dodged the question.


Obviously, she's being selective...


Jan is in training for the Usenet Olympics and will ten-peat for gold in
Dodge-The-Question.

"Orac" wrote in message
news (...)

If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Wrong question.

Actually, I wouldn't condemn Kerry as a quack because he killed the boy.
Plenty of allopathic treatments kill people. I have lost patients to
infections resulting from chemotherapy. I have had patients die following
surgery. For these treatments, there are benefits and risks. Unfortunately,
in both cases, the risks were worth the potential benefits.

Rather, I condemn Kerry as a quack because he took a needless risk with a
patient for no proven benefit and no valid theoreritcal reason to believe
that the treatment might work.

Jeff


--
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://oracknows.blogspot.com

In article .net,
"Jeff" wrote:

"Orac" wrote in message
news (...)

If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Wrong question.

Actually, I wouldn't condemn Kerry as a quack because he killed the boy.
Plenty of allopathic treatments kill people. I have lost patients to
infections resulting from chemotherapy. I have had patients die following
surgery. For these treatments, there are benefits and risks. Unfortunately,
in both cases, the risks were worth the potential benefits.

Rather, I condemn Kerry as a quack because he took a needless risk with a
patient for no proven benefit and no valid theoreritcal reason to believe
that the treatment might work.

Point taken. That's essentially what I meant; I should have elaborated a
bit.

--
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://oracknows.blogspot.com