Drugging Kids

"Raving Loonie" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
This post is using the GoogleGroups proper quoting. I will now post
the
other way.


Mark Probert wrote:
Please use the Google feature which allows for proper quoting.

thank you.

"Jan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health
From: "Mark Probert" Mark - Find
messages by
this author
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:02:25 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 10 2005 10:02 am
Subject: Drugging Kids
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show
original | Report Abuse



"Twittering One" wrote in message


oups.com...


Your point?


There are good articles out there.

Yes, many.

Ms. Drew posts articles without reading them,

Mark is rather arrogant, he has no idea what I read.

However we all know he doesn't read, just posts of the top of his
head
and calls his lies facts.

I am sure she would never
post one which refutes everything she claims.

That also a proven lie.

Nothing unusal for Mark the pathetic liar.

Jan




... "Raving Loonie", here.

It would seem that I am getting the 'hang' of it.

Any suggestions on the 'hide/show' thingy?

Unless you are really proud of "it" hide "it" and do not show "it."

....Quote... ....Quote... ...Quote... ...Quote... ...Quote...

"Raven,
What for?"
~ Moi

"The following may be of use
To someone ~

'The main objection
To religious myths is that,
Once made,
They are so difficult to destroy.

Chemistry is not haunted by the phlogiston theory
As Christianity
Is haunted
By the theory of a God
With a craving for bloody sacrifices.
But it is also a fact that
While serious attempts are constantly being made
To verify scientific myths, religious myths,
At least under Christianity
And Islam,
Have become matters of faith
Which it is more or less impious to doubt,
And which we must not attempt to verify
By empirical means.
Chemists believe
That when a chemical reaction occurs,
The weights of the reactants are unchanged.

If this is not very nearly true,
Most of chemical theory is nonsense.
But experiments are constantly being made
To disprove it....

Chemists welcome such experiments
And do not regard them
As impious
Or even futile.'

~ J.B.S. (John Burdon Sanderson) Haldane
(1892-1964), British scientist,
From "Science and Theology as Art-Forms,"
Possible Worlds and Other Papers,
Harper [1927]

(from Bartleby.com)

[Melville's Bartleby, O, indeed?]

I wish to point out that Jan has many of the qualities
Of an
'excellent' researcher."
~ Raving

"Who's Jan? You mean
That guy, riding a bike, who stopped
For that dyke, just because
It was the right thing to do?"
~ Moi

'As with anyone,
She doesn't have "eyes" at the back of her head."
~ Raving

"O, hindsight? O,
But we all do, if only we think, reflect,
Consider our exeperience!
It's foresight we more often lack, although, true,
With experience, training, too,
We quip ourselves to anticipate the hurdle,
And leap accordingly, or surmount
Danger, or exercise judgement, and negotiate
Danger. If in doubt, call an expert ~
That's the wise thing to do!"
~ Moi

"When a scientist
Or anyone is focusing on an objective,
They muster all the resources to prove the point.
To achieve the objective."
~ Raving

"O, hm, I am not sure
That's quite right. More like ~ Control yoru exeriment,
Isolate your effects. And then, after
A good experimental design, results tabulated,
Look again, look under every rock,
Until you find something you're looking for,
Or something you're not,
For both possess value,
Both bear knowledge. But remember ~ Don't
Look under rocks
Crush you, if you're all alone,
With no one to rescue
You!"
~ Moi

"Scientists do this very well.
They muster all their intellect, all of their rational tools,
All of their skill resources
And investigative machinery in the pursuit
Of demonstrating 'whatever'."
~ Raving

"Yes, indeed. Science
Teaches, too!"
~ Moi

"Are any of us mostly "ever"
Any different from this?"
~ Raving

"Sure! We so often stumble
Blindly, for, a helping hand we need."
~ Raving

"When we are LOOKING AHEAD,
We don't see what is behind us
....or beside
us,
.... or slightly to the 'side' of wherein
We are intensely and concertedly fixing our gaze!"
~ Raving

"O, not.
I look both ways, or I try."
~ Moi

"It's EVERYBODY's "problem" & strength,
Mark!

.... see it for what it "is".

I hope it helps.

Haldane's critique
ALSO applies to 'scientist's.

.... although, it wouldn't
Occur to "consider" such."
~ Raving

"Argus?
Are you Gus,
My Asparagus, my l'esparier, my Polar bear?"
~ Moi

Mark Probert wrote:
"Raving Loonie" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
This post is using the GoogleGroups proper quoting. I will now
post
the
other way.


Mark Probert wrote:
Please use the Google feature which allows for proper quoting.

thank you.

"Jan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit,
misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health
From: "Mark Probert" Mark - Find
messages by
this author
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:02:25 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 10 2005 10:02 am
Subject: Drugging Kids
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual
Message |
Show
original | Report Abuse



"Twittering One" wrote in message


oups.com...


Your point?


There are good articles out there.

Yes, many.

Ms. Drew posts articles without reading them,

Mark is rather arrogant, he has no idea what I read.

However we all know he doesn't read, just posts of the top of
his
head
and calls his lies facts.

I am sure she would never
post one which refutes everything she claims.

That also a proven lie.

Nothing unusal for Mark the pathetic liar.

Jan




... "Raving Loonie", here.

It would seem that I am getting the 'hang' of it.



Probert probes -
"

Any suggestions on the 'hide/show' thingy?

Unless you are really proud of "it" hide "it" and do not show "it."



"

Hmmm. I see what you mean
Kinky ?

My problem is this:

When I use 'gOOgle' to do 'this or that', I'm uncertain as to whether
'Google Gerbils' is going to

hide "it" or ...

=============== *** SHOW *** =============== "it"

It would seem that there are occasions wherein this is problematic, if
not 'embarassing', if not distracting.

As you well know, 'cutting' it, is a whole different story.

Since I am from the 'old school'; meaning that I have yet to get around
to learning HTML, Thus, I haven't figured out yet:

How, when and why, 'thingies' POP IN or POP OUT


Example:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...159f81b574612d

I haven't gone back to John's useful 'posting' to see if there is an
answer for me there. I'll do so.

However else it may be; can you provide any further 'advice' to check
that I am 'zipped up' BEFORE I expose myself in public.

It would seem to have to do with parsing 'nesting levels' and tags and
angle brackets

- The trials & errors of 'posting and removing' through
'experimentation' is also amusing. ... for a few. Surely, it drives
others 'nuts'.


Can anyone help?

I appologize for my ignorance. I gave up keeping 'current' when each
revision of "whatever" came with a shelf-full of documentation. I
figured that the 'time' it would take me to adsorb 'it'was well beyond
the ETA of the'next' shelf of revisions. It was a loosing battle. I
felt as if I was being buried in a blizzard of ignorance.

Silly me.
Now, there is "No more documentation"; standard; in the 50 lbs
'software' box. Only drink coasters.

P. S.

"It wasn't until I had performed by first autopsy that I realized that
even the drabest human exteriors could contain the most beautiful
viscera. After that, I would console myself for the plainness of my
fellow bus-riders by dissecting them in my imagination."
--J. B. S. Haldane


the Raving Loonie

"I haven't gone back to John's useful 'posting'
to see if there is an
answer for me there. I'll do so.

However else it may be;
can you provide any further 'advice' to check
that I am 'zipped up' BEFORE I expose myself in public.

It would seem to have to do with parsing
'nesting levels' and tags and
angle brackets

- The trials & errors of 'posting and removing'
through
'experimentation' is also amusing.
... for a few. Surely, it drives
others 'nuts'.

Can anyone help? "
~ Raving

"Don't be silly, Raving.

Just ignore these silly asad-posters and their
Demand that you nest every message according to usenet 'etiquite.'
Geez, this is usenet, not a hospital,
Or a doctor's office, where precision,
Honesty, and documentation
Matter!

Just be reasonable, not obsessive, when
Hanging out on the Web.
Enjoy.

But remember, life matters,
So do your best, try to do the tried and true,
If it works, and improve upon it.

If not, consult an expert, offer an alternative,
Get a second opinion, etc.
If you have the presence of mind to do so ~
If not, you're in danger, so
Holler out,
Very loud.

No harm will come to you
If you post on usenet without nesting every quote."
~ Moi

On 10 Feb 2005 15:07:49 -0800, "Jan" wrote:

Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health
From: "Mark Probert" Mark - Find messages by
this author
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:02:25 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 10 2005 10:02 am
Subject: Drugging Kids
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Twittering One" wrote in message


roups.com...


Your point?


There are good articles out there.

Yes, many.

Ms. Drew posts articles without reading them,

Mark is rather arrogant, he has no idea what I read.

However we all know he doesn't read, just posts of the top of his head
and calls his lies facts.

I am sure she would never
post one which refutes everything she claims.

That also a proven lie.

Nothing unusal for Mark the pathetic liar.

Jan

Mark, do you want to tell us about your little friend here?

_g

"george of the jungle" wrote in message
...
On 10 Feb 2005 15:07:49 -0800, "Jan" wrote:

Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health
From: "Mark Probert" Mark - Find messages by
this author
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:02:25 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 10 2005 10:02 am
Subject: Drugging Kids
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Twittering One" wrote in message


roups.com...


Your point?


There are good articles out there.

Yes, many.

Ms. Drew posts articles without reading them,

Mark is rather arrogant, he has no idea what I read.

However we all know he doesn't read, just posts of the top of his head
and calls his lies facts.

I am sure she would never
post one which refutes everything she claims.

That also a proven lie.

Nothing unusal for Mark the pathetic liar.

Jan

Mark, do you want to tell us about your little friend here?

Jan and I have a
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooong history. She
calls anyone a liar who disagrees with her or where she does not understand
what was written, which is quite often. She has an especially hard time with
analogies, metaphors, similes, hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, etc.

And, I will not even mention her hatred of Jews, Catholics, Gays, Atheists,
or anyone who does not sit in her pew (which is a metaphor that I believe
needs no explanation.)

Joe knows her, too.

"Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message
...

"george of the jungle" wrote in message
...
On 10 Feb 2005 15:07:49 -0800, "Jan" wrote:

Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit, misc.health.alternative,
misc.kids.health
From: "Mark Probert" Mark - Find messages by
this author
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:02:25 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 10 2005 10:02 am
Subject: Drugging Kids
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Twittering One" wrote in message


roups.com...


Your point?


There are good articles out there.

Yes, many.

Ms. Drew posts articles without reading them,

Mark is rather arrogant, he has no idea what I read.

However we all know he doesn't read, just posts of the top of his head
and calls his lies facts.

I am sure she would never
post one which refutes everything she claims.

That also a proven lie.

Nothing unusal for Mark the pathetic liar.

Jan

Mark, do you want to tell us about your little friend here?

Jan and I have a
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooong history.
She
calls anyone a liar who disagrees with her or where she does not
understand
what was written, which is quite often. She has an especially hard time
with
analogies, metaphors, similes, hyperbole, sarcasm, satire, etc.

And, I will not even mention her hatred of Jews, Catholics, Gays,
Atheists,
or anyone who does not sit in her pew (which is a metaphor that I believe
needs no explanation.)

Joe knows her, too.

Hi Mark,

Um... Is she saying that Twittering and Raving Loonie are two of your
aliases?

--Patti

Raving Loonie wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
"Twittering One" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your point?

There are good articles out there.

Ms. Drew posts articles without reading them, as I am sure she
would
never
post one which refutes everything she claims.

I had a brief look and she indeed seems to be a very, very
cautions/pedantic person. I don't mean "such" as disrespect. ... just
a
partial obsrvation.

*IN your opinion*, Mr suck up to Mark Probert.

What you suggest seems in keeping with such.

I suggest you take a good look at Mark Probert's, harassing, lying
posts.

I have helped others and will continue.

I suggest you look up *Thanks to Jan

Jan wrote:

" *IN your opinion*, Mr suck up to Mark Probert.

What you suggest seems in keeping with such.

I suggest you take a good look at Mark Probert's, harassing, lying
posts.

I have helped others and will continue.

I suggest you look up *Thanks to Jan"



[When facing rejection] Most narcissists react defensively. ... They
devalue the person who made the disparaging remark, the critical
comment, the unflattering observation, the innocuous joke at the
narcissist's expense.

By holding the critic in contempt, by diminishing the stature of the
discordant conversant - the narcissist minimises the impact of the
disagreement or criticism on herself. This is a defence mechanism known
as cognitive dissonance.

http://www.voicelessness.com/narcissism.html

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/py...ead-parrot.htm


__________________________________________________ ____________________

Have you ever laughed at your image in a funhouse mirror? That's what
RL seems like to me. I realize that it isn't so -- that he's a
thinking and feeling 50-year-old man struggling to deal with his own
life, and not merely my own distorted reflection.
~ patti


See for ref:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ef8e61bf6c4031
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ed711887468cf7

"Raving Loonie" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jan wrote:

" *IN your opinion*, Mr suck up to Mark Probert.

What you suggest seems in keeping with such.

I suggest you take a good look at Mark Probert's, harassing, lying
posts.

I have helped others and will continue.

I suggest you look up *Thanks to Jan"



[When facing rejection] Most narcissists react defensively. ... They
devalue the person who made the disparaging remark, the critical
comment, the unflattering observation, the innocuous joke at the
narcissist's expense.

By holding the critic in contempt, by diminishing the stature of the
discordant conversant - the narcissist minimises the impact of the
disagreement or criticism on herself. This is a defence mechanism known
as cognitive dissonance.

http://www.voicelessness.com/narcissism.html

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/py...ead-parrot.htm


__________________________________________________ ____________________

Have you ever laughed at your image in a funhouse mirror? That's what
RL seems like to me. I realize that it isn't so -- that he's a
thinking and feeling 50-year-old man struggling to deal with his own
life, and not merely my own distorted reflection.
~ patti


See for ref:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ef8e61bf6c4031

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ed711887468cf7

I hate calling you Raving Loonie. I wish you'd pick a handle that isn't so
insulting.

You know, I actually thought you were sucking up to *Jan* in the post to
which she responded angrily. I thought you meant pedantic in the
"meticulous" sense (when you called her pedantic and cautious). I am as
confused as ever. I need a translator here. I worry that my posts are
coming across as mysterious as some here are to me.

BTW, I think that when you post links to earlier posts you are wasting your
time. Everbody who wanted to read them the first time.

I read Miss One's Voiceless link, and I think it's excellent -- better than
anything I came up with while *teasing* you. (Did I mention that I was
teasing you?) While I think that you and I have weaknesses in common (and
maybe I have a blind spot here), I think that we also have a fundamental
difference, and I'm not going to try to judge who's right. You seem to
think that everybody is listening to us, or they should be, and I think
almost no one ever listens to anyone else because they are all too busy with
their own stuff. Even if they *do* listen, there's only a slim chance that
they'll actually *understand.* We're like bacteria in a petri dish. Only
the ones who are micrometers or at most a millimeter apart have any hope of
communicating. People are like that because most of them are appropriately
focused on what interests them. We *are* relatively voiceless -- but I
prefer it that way, because then I feel free to speak my mind. Nobody's
listening to us except apparently Twittering. For some reason I think
Twittering thinks she needs to protect you from me. Oh, well. Apparently
everybody deserves compassion here but me. Poor me. I guess I'll go eat a
worm.

[Insert appropriate text about narcissism here.] ; )