Mumps epidemic among the UNvaccinated - BEWARE

"stan" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jan Drew wrote:
"Marcia" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan Drew wrote:
"Marcia" wrote in message
oups.com...

stan wrote:
If you choose instead to cyberharass me, I will do everything
within
my power to see to it that you are prosecuted to the fullest
extent
of
the law for any and all such cyberharassment since it was made a
felony
upon the passage of the Violence Against Women's act of 2005.

Because if you came for the latter---you are going to get
yourself
in a
heap of trouble with the law since the laws all changed while you
were
away.

I think I may have to "cease and desist" responding
to
you. Oh brother - my sides are splitting....

I think most people have concluded that's the wisest choice.

marcia

Another one who wishes to sweep it ALL under the rug.

Proven hypocrite.

*The only people I belittle and attack are those who belittle and
attack
other people*.


Pay attention, Jan. The person I'm talking about has posted libelous
statements about me on Usenet. If you need them pointed out to you, let
me know.

You were not speaking of * a person*.

You were replying to stan.

HE has posted abuse. As is your habit..YOU overlooked that.

Yes - I know that by responding to this hayseed I am
only feeding into her. Call me weak. Now - dearest Jen,

Are you drunk, or is this your usual state of mind?

Can't follow.

Poor stan.

-stan

Madam:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:01:01 GMT, "Jan Drew" wrote:

[elided]

Pay attention, Jan. The person I'm talking about has posted libelous
statements about me on Usenet. If you need them pointed out to you, let
me know.

You were not speaking of * a person*.

You were replying to stan.

HE has posted abuse. As is your habit..YOU overlooked that.

Yes - I know that by responding to this hayseed I am
only feeding into her. Call me weak. Now - dearest Jen,

Are you drunk, or is this your usual state of mind?

I believe I am among many here in finding the posts of the person to whom you
are replying to be more than adequately rational and well constructed.

Can't follow.

Ah. Well, one might suggest a more appropriate venue.

Have you looked into any of the reading/comprehension fora? Or, perhaps, an
elementary course in forensics might be just the thing.

I do hope this is helpful.

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch


Poor stan.

-stan

"W.T. Hatch

Searched all groups Results 1 - 1 of 1 for
(0.07 seconds)


Nuff said.
snip



You were not speaking of * a person*.

You were replying to stan.

HE has posted abuse. As is your habit..YOU overlooked that.

Yes - I know that by responding to this hayseed I am
only feeding into her. Call me weak. Now - dearest Jen,

Are you drunk, or is this your usual state of mind?

Can't follow.


Poor stan.

-stan

Madam,

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:34:27 GMT, "Jan Drew" wrote:


"W.T. Hatch

Searched all groups Results 1 - 1 of 1 for
(0.07 seconds)


Nuff said.
snip

Might I suggest that your ability to search Usenet might be deficient?

But I do find myself wondering: is there a certain number of posts one is
expected to make from a particular address in order not to be dismissed by such
as yourself?

With that said, however, I must tell you that your comment, such as it was, will
not disturb my sleep. Nor will your non sequitur to me ennoble your feckless
(and, I daresay, feculent) comment to the original poster.

Most sincerely,
W.T. Hatch



You were not speaking of * a person*.

You were replying to stan.

HE has posted abuse. As is your habit..YOU overlooked that.

Yes - I know that by responding to this hayseed I am
only feeding into her. Call me weak. Now - dearest Jen,

Are you drunk, or is this your usual state of mind?

Can't follow.


Poor stan.

-stan

Marcia wrote:
Marcia wrote:
I am not psychotic and am in no danger of becoming psychotic. I do not
stalk people. I have never committed violence against anyone.

The two posts in response to yours are exactly the behavior I was
reacting against. If you don't see Linda as a liar and abuser, then I
have to think you're in alliance with her.

Imo, Stan didn't abuse the poster; the poster abused Stan.

marcia

I hope I won't have to continue defending this.

I *am* medication compliant and have been for years. I am not in denial
of my diagnosis, nor am I out of touch with reality, nor am I a danger
to anyone on- or off-line.

The person who keeps posting information about bipolar disorder,
"manic-depression," and "antipsychotics" is deliberately harassing and
defaming me. She is either under the mistaken impression that I am
stalking her, or actually *knows* I'm not stalking her, but is
deliberately attempting to manipulate people into believing she is a
victim of stalking in order to gain attention or sympathy or control or
whatever.

FYI about "anti-psychotics": I am not taking Seroquel any more.
Seroquel is an antipsychotic which is also used as a mood stabilizer
and anti-anxiety medication. I was not taking it for psychosis because
I do not become psychotic; I was taking it as a mood stabilizer.
Because it has been implicated as a cause of diabetes and other health
issues, many doctors are taking their patients off this medication. I
am now taking a *different* mood stabilizer, which happens *not* to be
an anti-psychotic, because I don't *need* anti-psychotic medication.

Bipolar disorder (aka Manic-Depression) is *not* a one-size-fits-all
disorder. I am stable, reasonable, rational and function well in the
community. If the person in question continues posting about violent or
criminal bipolar people, those descriptions do *not* apply to me.

If you walk up to one of those guys who rants on the street corner in
the city and start talking to him, he may start ranting about you
(because he's mentally ill). It doesn't matter, because everyone with
any sense can see that he's not in his right mind. If you then choose
to stay there and defend yourself against his ranting, maybe you're just
spitting into the wind. You are almost certainly one of the very few
here even reading sueme. For example, Like a lot of folks here, I have
sueme killfiled, so I never see her posts. However, I do read your
posts. Therefore, I found out about her Seroquel rant from your reply
to it, not from her post. (Not that I care.)

She likes to stir things up. You're letting her stir you up, so you're
giving her just what she wants. I think she's kind of like a little kid
who wants attention and approval, but who prefers negative attention
over being ignored. If you really want to get rid of her, why not
ignore her?

~Patti

"Sosueme" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jan Drew wrote:
"W.T. Hatch

Searched all groups Results 1 - 1 of 1 for
(0.07 seconds)


Nuff said.
snip

Yep!

Ilena, you, me, and ASAD's and MHA's polymorphous parade of perverted
yahoo's are all still alive and well after we posted for years while
our real names were known.


Any gutless coward who posts to forums chock full of poster whose
real names are known to one another is one of two things: A)
paranoid schizophrenic or B) psychopath up to no good.

Exactly.

O'Hush wrote:
Marcia wrote:
Marcia wrote:
I am not psychotic and am in no danger of becoming psychotic. I do not
stalk people. I have never committed violence against anyone.

The two posts in response to yours are exactly the behavior I was
reacting against. If you don't see Linda as a liar and abuser, then I
have to think you're in alliance with her.

Imo, Stan didn't abuse the poster; the poster abused Stan.

marcia

I hope I won't have to continue defending this.

I *am* medication compliant and have been for years. I am not in denial
of my diagnosis, nor am I out of touch with reality, nor am I a danger
to anyone on- or off-line.

The person who keeps posting information about bipolar disorder,
"manic-depression," and "antipsychotics" is deliberately harassing and
defaming me. She is either under the mistaken impression that I am
stalking her, or actually *knows* I'm not stalking her, but is
deliberately attempting to manipulate people into believing she is a
victim of stalking in order to gain attention or sympathy or control or
whatever.

FYI about "anti-psychotics": I am not taking Seroquel any more.
Seroquel is an antipsychotic which is also used as a mood stabilizer
and anti-anxiety medication. I was not taking it for psychosis because
I do not become psychotic; I was taking it as a mood stabilizer.
Because it has been implicated as a cause of diabetes and other health
issues, many doctors are taking their patients off this medication. I
am now taking a *different* mood stabilizer, which happens *not* to be
an anti-psychotic, because I don't *need* anti-psychotic medication.

Bipolar disorder (aka Manic-Depression) is *not* a one-size-fits-all
disorder. I am stable, reasonable, rational and function well in the
community. If the person in question continues posting about violent or
criminal bipolar people, those descriptions do *not* apply to me.

If you walk up to one of those guys who rants on the street corner in
the city and start talking to him, he may start ranting about you
(because he's mentally ill). It doesn't matter, because everyone with
any sense can see that he's not in his right mind. If you then choose
to stay there and defend yourself against his ranting, maybe you're just
spitting into the wind. You are almost certainly one of the very few
here even reading sueme. For example, Like a lot of folks here, I have
sueme killfiled, so I never see her posts. However, I do read your
posts. Therefore, I found out about her Seroquel rant from your reply
to it, not from her post. (Not that I care.)

She likes to stir things up. You're letting her stir you up, so you're
giving her just what she wants. I think she's kind of like a little kid
who wants attention and approval, but who prefers negative attention
over being ignored. If you really want to get rid of her, why not
ignore her?

~Patti

I appreciate your perspective on this, and know you're absolutely
right.

I had declared her "netdead" (on another group) a little while ago and
had about two peaceful weeks of ignoring her.

The reason I reacted this time was concern that people may believe this
current rant because she took actual information I posted in another
group to help someone about to go through med changes and distorted it
to make it sound like I'm psychotic, off medication and--this was the
best part--may kill someone. I don't know why I thought anyone would
believe that (I should give you all more credit), but it got under my
skin and I reacted.

Thanks to you and some others, I've had a good reality check and have
gotten grounded again, so it's back to ignoring her nuttiness.

I haven't forgotten Howard's stern admonition about newsgroup readers
and kill files, and have been trying to find one that's compatible with
my email program... as soon as that's solved, Linda and all her nyms
will be history.

Thanks for your support; I really do appreciate it.

marcia

stan wrote:
snipped
Well - since I do not know what ICS is, I'll have to
assume you mean this forum. Your tone has been far more hostile than
mine, which you already know. And, your reasoning and analysis have
been conveniently obtuse and circumlocuitous, which you also already
know, as it is by your own design and *intent*.

As you seem to hold to a double standard - you can say
whatever you want, and everyone else can say what...you...want, period.


I've decided that no one can look all that good having as
association with you - thus, this conversation is over. It just isn't
worth it. It's like talking a a wall. Ignorance is not knowing.
Stupidity/foolishness is choosing not to know. You are free to choose.

And I am free to behave wisely by regarding you
appropriately, thus, disregarding you. Done.


Wise move, Stan. There is a reason there are standing UDPs wrt certain
folks. You've discovered the reason.

Kitten

"john" wrote in message
...
[Media March 2006] Iowa mumps epidemic puzzles officials 'Of the 245
patients this year, at least 66 percent had had the recommended
two-shot vaccination, while 14 percent had received one dose, the
Public Health Department said.'Rabies

This apparent paradox is explained by the vaccination rate in the
population and the efficacy of the vaccination.

In a community of 100, 98% have been vaccinated (a similar rate to what
is being seen today in Iowa's K-12 schools and some colleges.) Thus 98
people are vaccinated and 2 people are not. Everyone is exposed to
mumps. What happens?

- 93 people (95% of the 98 who are vaccinated) in the community are
protected by the vaccine and do not get mumps.

- 5 people (5% of the 98 who are vaccinated) become ill with mumps
because the vaccine did not "take".

- 2 people who have never been vaccinated get ill because they have no
immunity to the disease

- Of the 7 (5 vaccinated +2 unvaccinated) people who get mumps, 71% (5/7
were vaccinated. (This is similar to what is happening now in Iowa.)

http://www.izcoalitionsta.org/powerp...UMPS%20ICN.ppt

Thus a large percent of the people with mumps have been vaccinated.
However, only 5% of vaccinated people get mumps while 100% of those not
vaccinated get the disease. As the site also points out, if the efficacy
of the vaccine is 95% and the whole population has been vaccinated, then
if the disease is introduced, all of the 5% for who the vaccine did not
may get the disease. 100% of the victims will be vaccinated! However
this will only be 5% of the population.