In Mark Thorson's World

Quoting:

During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and
other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now
retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.

The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath
Lake,
produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized as
addictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin
because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I
have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would
disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super Blue
Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.

Yet he claims he didn't lie.

Therefore using this logic, I could plaster all over the net:

Mark Thorson *deliberately* molests children.

In *my* world, I would never so such a thing, *characterize* with no basis.
simply because having no basis is : something on which something else is
established or based, which means I made it up. In *MY world* this is L Y I
N G.


Cell Tech states:

One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication
regarding
anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites.
Cell
Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech,
its
products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups. Cell
Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the
settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that
appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been
widely
circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct statement,
undo
all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate.

Now, if I were to plaster all over the net, Mark Thorson *deliberately*
molests
children, and this no basis statement were believed, it would more than
likely
greatly damage Mark's reputation, most likely lose his job, and most likely
cause personal problems for his family.

AFTER that happened, I could whistle a tune, saying, I had no basis for my
*characterization*, I had no basis for my *suggestions*, I hereby retract in
full.

It would be a bit late, but what the hey, I didn't lie.

===========

Because I have pointed this out, Mark repeats the lying and makes all kinds
of
garbage posts about me. He has no basis for those either.

In short, Mark didn't learn from his mistakes and has a huge problem, and
still
repeats his mistakes, never learning it's past time to *shut up*

Jan

Jan Drew the Accuser wrote:

Quoting:

During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and
other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now
retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.

The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath
Lake,
produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized as
addictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin
because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users. I
have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would
disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super Blue
Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.

Yet he claims he didn't lie.

What statement did I ever make about Cell Tech or
their products is a lie? The retraction does not
say any of my statements were false, much less
a lie.

I've asked you before, and you have never been
able to show me even one statement I made about
Cell Tech which is untrue, much less a lie.

When you accuse me of lying, that is a false
accusation. If you dispute that, kindly quote
one of these lies you claim I told.

You won't do that. And I know why you won't
do that. It is because you can't.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
news
Quoting:

During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this and
other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I
now
retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.

The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath
Lake,
produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized
as
addictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin
because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users.
I
have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would
disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super
Blue
Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.

Yet he claims he didn't lie.

Therefore using this logic, I could plaster all over the net:

Mark Thorson *deliberately* molests children.

In *my* world, I would never so such a thing, *characterize* with no
basis.
simply because having no basis is : something on which something else is
established or based, which means I made it up. In *MY world* this is L Y
I
N G.


Cell Tech states:

One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication
regarding
anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites.
Cell
Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech,
its
products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups. Cell
Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the
settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement that
appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been
widely
circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct statement,
undo
all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate.

Now, if I were to plaster all over the net, Mark Thorson *deliberately*
molests
children, and this no basis statement were believed, it would more than
likely
greatly damage Mark's reputation, most likely lose his job, and most
likely
cause personal problems for his family.

AFTER that happened, I could whistle a tune, saying, I had no basis for my
*characterization*, I had no basis for my *suggestions*, I hereby retract
in
full.

It would be a bit late, but what the hey, I didn't lie.

===========

Because I have pointed this out, Mark repeats the lying and makes all
kinds
of
garbage posts about me. He has no basis for those either.

In short, Mark didn't learn from his mistakes and has a huge problem, and
still
repeats his mistakes, never learning it's past time to *shut up*

Jan

Is there EVEN ONE sentence in your posting which
satisfies these two conditions:

a) It's a statement I made, not a statement made by somebody else.

b) It is a statement which is not true.

I say that there is no such statement. If you disagree,
please point out which statement that is.

You will never do that. You will never allow your
false accusation to be pinned down to any
specific statement, because then your accusation
would be easily and obviously proven untrue.
And then it would be obvious to everybody that your
accusation is a lie.

If you disagree with that, then please point out
which statement is a false statement made by me,
not a mass of statements including false statements
not made by me intermixed with true statements that
were made by me.

I've asked you to do this many times before, and
you've never done it. You instead repeat your
smokescreen of crap, in the vain hope that naive
people will believe there is something to your
accusations. There is not, and that is why you
will not cite any statement made by me which
is a lie.

Jan Drew" wrote in message
news
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
news
Quoting:

During the last several years, I have from time to time posted to this
and
other newsgroups a file of information called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I
now
retract the statements made in the Anatoxin-a Primer.

The Anatoxin-a Primer implied that Super Blue Green Algae from Klamath
Lake,
produced by Cell Tech, contains anatoxin-a (a neurotoxin I characterized
as
addictive), and that Cell Tech deliberately avoids testing for this toxin
because anatoxin-a is responsible for the effects reported by SBGA users.
I
have since been advised that Cell Tech conducts regular tests that would
disclose anatoxin-a, and that this toxin has never been found in Super
Blue
Green Algae. I had no basis for the suggestions I made in the Anatoxin-a
Primer, and I hereby retract it in full.

Yet he claims he didn't lie.

Therefore using this logic, I could plaster all over the net:

Mark Thorson *deliberately* molests children.

In *my* world, I would never so such a thing, *characterize* with no
basis.
simply because having no basis is : something on which something else is
established or based, which means I made it up. In *MY world* this is L Y
I
N G.


Cell Tech states:

One individual was responsible for a great deal of miscommunication
regarding
anatoxin-a, information which is still accessible on many Internet sites.
Cell
Tech sued Mark Thorson for posting defamatory statements about Cell Tech,
its
products and its personnel to various Internet or Usenet news groups.
Cell
Tech's lawsuit against Mr. Thorson has now been settled. As part of the
settlement agreement, Mr. Thorson has posted the Retraction Statement
that
appears below. Although he did retract the allegations that he had been
widely
circulating, we all know that one cannot, with a single correct
statement,
undo
all the harm done by many mis-statements that continue to circulate.

Now, if I were to plaster all over the net, Mark Thorson *deliberately*
molests
children, and this no basis statement were believed, it would more than
likely
greatly damage Mark's reputation, most likely lose his job, and most
likely
cause personal problems for his family.

AFTER that happened, I could whistle a tune, saying, I had no basis for
my
*characterization*, I had no basis for my *suggestions*, I hereby retract
in
full.

It would be a bit late, but what the hey, I didn't lie.

===========

Because I have pointed this out, Mark repeats the lying and makes all
kinds
of
garbage posts about me. He has no basis for those either.

In short, Mark didn't learn from his mistakes and has a huge problem, and
still
repeats his mistakes, never learning it's past time to *shut up*

Jan

snip the repeated, repeatedly.

Is there EVEN ONE sentence in your posting which
satisfies these two conditions:

a) It's a statement I made, not a statement made by somebody else.

b) It is a statement which is not true.

I say that there is no such statement. If you disagree,
please point out which statement that is.

Still can't do it, eh, Jan?

You are a despicable liar.

In misc.health.alternative Mark Thorson wrote:
: Is there EVEN ONE sentence in your posting which
: satisfies these two conditions:
:
: a) It's a statement I made, not a statement made by somebody else.
:
: b) It is a statement which is not true.

Even if she could find such a statement, it would not be a "lie" unless
it met two additional criteria, namely

c) The statement was made in the knowledge that it was not true.

d) The statement was made with the deliberate intent to deceive.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

"Richard Schultz" wrote in message
...
In misc.health.alternative Mark Thorson wrote:
: Is there EVEN ONE sentence in your posting which
: satisfies these two conditions:
:
: a) It's a statement I made, not a statement made by somebody else.

Well you did make a statement and you had to withdraw it , not
somebody else.

: b) It is a statement which is not true.

The statement you made had to be withdrawn as it was untrue.


Even if she could find such a statement, it would not be a "lie" unless
it met two additional criteria, namely

c) The statement was made in the knowledge that it was not true.

You have in your withdrawal confirmed that there was no knowledge
contributing to your statement so you have made a statement that was not
true in the first instance. ie: It was not backed up with any resemblance of
support.



d) The statement was made with the deliberate intent to deceive.

What other reason would be applicable. Mark was certainly not trying to sell
the stuff or increase sales.



-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."

In misc.health.alternative Rod wrote:
: "Richard Schultz" wrote in message
: ...
: In misc.health.alternative Mark Thorson wrote:

: : Is there EVEN ONE sentence in your posting which
: : satisfies these two conditions:

: : a) It's a statement I made, not a statement made by somebody else.
:
: Well you did make a statement and you had to withdraw it , not
: somebody else.

: : b) It is a statement which is not true.
:
: The statement you made had to be withdrawn as it was untrue.

: Even if she could find such a statement, it would not be a "lie" unless
: it met two additional criteria, namely

: c) The statement was made in the knowledge that it was not true.
:
: You have in your withdrawal confirmed that there was no knowledge
: contributing to your statement so you have made a statement that was not
: true in the first instance. ie: It was not backed up with any resemblance of
: support.

: d) The statement was made with the deliberate intent to deceive.
:
: What other reason would be applicable. Mark was certainly not trying to sell
: the stuff or increase sales.

Perhaps you could give a citation to the post that you are describing so
that we could tell if it was Mark Thorson or me to whom you were addressing
your remarks.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."