Why Did "Aids Baby" Eliza Jane Really Die?

JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

JanD wrote:

It is NOTED NO reply from HCN.

So what? You have not replied to this question

JanD(ishonestly) snipped:



Jan, have you ever contacted anyone outside of usenet about Mark Lowry?

You have been asked that a million times, and you snip it. You are
afraid of the truth.

What is the problem, Jan, afraid to answer? Why not come clean?
Confession is good for your soul.

"montygram" wrote in message
oups.com...

(big snip)


Let's take the following example: no scientist has seen a planet form,
but there is little "controversy" on how this occurs, at least on a
general level. We know how great a force gravity is with very large
objects, and we know that no other force could be signficant at this
level. We know about the "big bang" though not every last detail is
known. From what is known, there is only one explanation,
scientifically, that makes sense, though some of the details might be
wrong. As Duesberg and others have pointed out, the "HIV/AIDS" claims
violate what were considered basic tenets of virology, and the PG and
other have pointed out that the isolation procedures used are
inconsistent with what was considered standard practice up to that
time. I will cite Etienne de Harven,. who worked in electron
microscopy (EM) primarily on the ultrastructure of retroviruses
throughout his professional career of 25 years at the Sloan Kettering
Institute in New York and 13 years at the University of Toronto:

Why is it that you quote Duesberg as having pointed out "the "HIV/AIDS"
claims violate what were considered basic tenets of virology" but completely
ignore his complete and definitive (and following the scientific method your
so concerned about) refutation of the Perth Groups claim that HIV has not be
isolated?

Furthermore please list for us the basic tenets of virology that HIV
violates. As to your example concerning the formation of planets more is
currently known about HIV then is known about how planets form yet you seem
to have one set of rules for accepting planet formation science and a
different higher standard for HIV.

"When retrovirus particles are legion, the study of molecular markers
can be useful, and provide an approach to quantification probably
better than direct particle counting under the EM (which I always found
very difficult). But when, using EM, retrovirus particles are absent
relying exclusively on 'markers' is a methodological nonsense.
'Markers' of what?"

You can read the rest at:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ehremarks.htm

Lastly, Noble's criticism of a publication may or may not be accurate,
but it has nothing to do with the scientific content of an article
published in it, and appears to be a "cheap shot" on Noble's part,
which again, is counter to the scientific method.

Having no "horse in this race," but being a scholar of the history of
science, I am interested in hearing about the science of those who
support or reject the "HIV/AIDS" claims, but what I have gotten from
Bennett and Noble only gives support to those who reject the "HIV/AIDS"
claims. I look forward to actual, on point scientific evidence to be
presented by them at this juncture, but I am not hopeful about this,
considering what they have put forth to this point.

Well being that you intentionally dismiss any facts that disagree with your
'faith' in the non-existence of HIV it is and would be a complete waste of
time to engage you in debate. This self induced blindness of yours is fully
evident in your description of Bennett's arguments in the BMJ debate. What
you don't understand you dismiss as somehow irrelevant, what you do
understand you distort and/or quote out of context.

Gary Stein

montygram wrote:
I see my response to Bennet's answer about the PG's "lies" did not
appear, so I will recreate it as best I can.

To Bennet:

I read through the BMJ debate pages a long time ago. Those who argued
with the PG look very silly, some refusing to cite sources or citing
sources that were irrelevant. To answer the question: "where did the
PG lie?" with such a response as "go read the BMJ pages" demonstrates
either a disingenuous attitude or a lack of understanding of the
scientific method, perhaps both. I will give you one more chance.
Explain to me in your own words and in detail exactly how the PG
"lied," or I will have to assume that you are either conflicted,
deluded, or lacking in mental capacity.

I also examined Chris Noble's first link in this post, so I will do so
here again:

He stated: "The Perth Group has claimed in may of their writings that
the genomes
of all RNA viruses vary by less than 1%. They have used this claim as
an argument for the nonexistence of HIV.


For example
"By comparison, two RNA containing viruses (polio and influenza, the
latter after 27 years of dormancy,) vary by less than 1%...""

but he left out the rest of the sentence:

"as do RNA molecules self-assembled in test tubes, denied the
organising influence of living cells.167, 168"

You then state:
"The reference that the Perth group provide for this claim is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&..."

Clicking on that link brings up the following:

Annu Rev Microbiol. 1987;41:409-33.

Rapid evolution of RNA viruses.

Steinhauer DA, Holland JJ.

Department of Biology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla
92093.

The high error rate inherent in all RNA synthesis provides RNA virus
genomes with extremely high mutation rates. Thus nearly all large RNA
virus clonal populations are quasispecies collections of differing,
related genomes (14, 49). These rapidly mutating populations can remain
remarkably stable under certain conditions of replication. Under other
conditions, virus-population equilibria become disturbed, and extremely
rapid evolution can result. This extreme variability and rapid
evolution can cause severe problems with previously unknown virus
diseases (such as AIDS). It also presents daunting challenges for the
design of effective vaccines for the control of diseases caused by
rapidly evolving RNA virus populations.

I'm not sure what point you are making here with regard to the
scientific method being properly applied to the "HIV/AIDS" claim, which
is really all that matters, so you will have to explain exactly what
it is you think this study says. In it, there is no reference to an
actual experiment being done. For all we know, the authors just
paraphrased some textbook passages in order to get someithing
published. If you are going to listen to a "scientist" who talks about
"certain conditions" and "other conditions" without explaining exactly
what he means, you are clueless about the scientific method. However,
if they are correct, it appears to add credence to what the PG and
others say about all the "junk" that bands at the retroviral density,
and the difficulty in knowing what is really there. I won't go any
further because the PG cover this in microscopic detail and it is the
cornerstone of their argument. If you have not read it or refuse to
address it, then there is no reason to continue with this element of
the discussion.

The "lie" issue is important to come back to here. The references the
PG used were not what you said, but instead the following:

167. Eigen, M., Schuster, P. (1977), "The hypercycle", Die
Naturwissenschaften 64:541-565.
168. Eigen, M., Gardiner, W., Schuster, P., Winkler-Oswatitsch, R.
(1981), "The origin of genetic information", Sci. Am. 224:78-94.

Neither of these papers support the Perth Group's claims. Manfred Eigen
was the person who coined the term quasispecies that descibe a
population of RNA viruses with extremely large genetic variation. This
is in direct contradiction to the Perth Group's claim that RNA viruses
vary by less than 1%.

I specifically asked the Perth Group for the correct citation for their
claim. This is what they answered in the BMJ rapid responses on the 9th
of March 2004:

"We have cited only one reference which was a review entitled "Rapid
evolution of RNA viruses" written by experts in this field. In this
reference one reads: "The type 3 Sabin poliovirus vaccine differed from
its neurovirulent progenitor at only 10 nucleotide positions after 53
in vitro and 21 in vivo passages in monkey tissue". [1] This is the
exact quote. We have never misquoted, misinterpreted it or made any
additions or subtractions, either intentional or by mistake. "


"1. Steinhauer DA, Holland JJ. Rapid evolution of RNA viruses. Annual
Review of Microbiology 1987;41:409-33. "


According to the apparent definition of the word "lie" used by you and
Bennett, this is an outrageous lie on your part. If you want to
nitpick and not address the crucial issue, you deserve to be foisted on
your own petard, as you were here.

It is a lie when you say "RNA viruses vary by less than 1%" and cite
the Steinhauer review that says that in many RNA viruses well over a
half of the base pairs in the genome can vary without any loss of
viability.

twaddle snipped

Chris Noble

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
JanD wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote

[all excuses, LIES and INSULTS snipped]

Lies still remain.

ALL THREE.

Jan removes my responses since she is utterly incapable of understanding
the written word.

Poor, Mark Probert, I understand him quite well. He uses this excuse and
insult everytime he is caught in his own LIES.


Here is something she snipped:

Actually, my posting, and YOUR RESPONDING, shows that you are incapable of
understanding the written word, and, further, that you are obsessed with
stalking, harassing and abusing me.

YOU and YOU ALONE are RESPONSIBLE for ALL of your LIES.

There is absolutely NO stalking, harassing, nor abusing.

You can snip...but people wiser than me have said:

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley, "Proper Studies", 1927

Totally agree.

The FACTS are.

Mark Probert Proves Himsef A Repeated Liar Again.







JanD wrote:

"Rich" wrote in message
. ..


"JanD" wrote in message
news:fUnnf.622634$_o.125740@attbi_s71...


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...


JanD wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote

[snip]

Snipping does not remove the truth:

Dumber than a box of rocks shows he is a liar again.


ROTFL! If YOU were smarter than a box of rocks, you would realize that
you just made the argument that snipping DOES remove the truth.


Poor Rich.

Actually, Mark posting again shows his repeated lies.


Anything to say about those lies huh, Rich?

Edited for focus

Remember, last year Hulda's Henchmen agreed that they could not


prove her claims.


I see Mark is repeating this LIE.



He can NOT show where they did any such thing.


Because he made up this LIE.




http://tinyurl.com/cxbh5

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/02230...tip0223051.pdf


Hulda's Henchmen have agreed that she is practicing quackery and that
they
cannot legally sell her crap in the United States.

The word *quackery* is NOT used.


LIE #1.


In the US. is NOT listed.

LIE #2.


There was NO agreement that anyone could not prove any claim


LIE #3.

I don't suppose, you can see any lies there?

--Rich


It is noted so far, Rich has not answered.

However in the past, he has LIED for Mark!

You have not answered these MANY questions

From LONG AGO!

YOU have made MANY claims, YOU have never been able to back up!


You have been asked that a million times, and you snip it. You are afraid
of the truth.

What is the problem, Mark, afraid to answer? Why not come clean?
Confession is good for your soul.

Mark Probert Makes Another Claim. Let's See* IF* He Can PROVE It!

You made a claim that you were a licensed babysitter. I was "just curious"?

Researcher (Sandra Cabot) and theWarns of Cancer Risk From rBGH
(non-organic) Dairy Foods

http://tinyurl.com/d4b23

http://tinyurl.com/c3qua

http://tinyurl.com/7985k

http://tinyurl.com/9l6sh

http://tinyurl.com/cyhmt

As I pointed out to the moron, he is far from ill.

You STILL have not shown WHERE you pointed this out!

You made a claim that you were a licensed babysitter. I was "just curious"?


You STILL haven't shown us WHERE I madede that claim!

You see, you complained that I called Ilena at her ADVERTISED phone
listing.

You STILL haven't shown WHERE I did any such thing.

The thread started with a claim that vaccines suppress the immune system.
You agreed. Please do copy and paste where I agreed.


You STILL haven't done so.

An one-time troll, screw-loose nutcase posted some diatriber and you now


attack someone who has posted here for years.

Attacking??


Just WHERE did Debbee attack DC?

Please post the attacking!

You STILL haven't been able to do so.

You admitted that you stalked me to asbi. OOOOps. Do copy and paste this
claim.


You STILL haven't been able to do so.

Jul 2 2004

Vaxa has been making claims for years. The FTC/FDA are reviewing them now.
Do show us they are being reviewed. I filed a complaint with the FTC after
I reviewed the URL you posted and saw the egregious violations. If and
when I hear from the FTC, I will let you know.


You LIED.

You have a LONG LIST of claims, that you have NEVER proven.

You can NOT because they are LIES.

You are NOT H O N E S T!

Cathy is your middle name Rosalind? If it is it will help me understand why
people keep changing your name! I'll respond to your email soon. Don't
worry about the time it took to get back to me, I too am running way behind
on my emails. I do finally have my flare pretty much under control. I
can't wait to be able to have some fresh fruit, veggies and a salad but I
have to wait at least a little longer to make sure nothing else gets me
blocked, but at least I am feeling better which is a start. :-) UM MOM
Susan


"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

JanD wrote:

"JohnDoe" wrote in message
. ..
cathyb wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

"JanD" wrote:


It is NOTED NO reply from HCN.

Caught at his own DISHONEST game.

Jan, Debbbeeeeee complained to an ISP when Kuruna said that
Debbbeeeeee was male. You complained when Ariebert Votewer kept
calling you "he".

I think you might find that Laetrile Person is female.


Once Jan has an idea in her little head, it's immovable. No doubt
she'll continue to claim that HCN is male, although she's been told
before that she's not

A fine example of how Rosalind lies.

In FACT, I have never been told that HCN was female before.

Yes, you have. By Peter Bowditch:

17. Peter Bowditch
Jun 22, 8:48 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Peter Bowditch - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:48:24 GMT
Local: Wed, Jun 22 2005 8:48 am
Subject: Mercury/Autism scandal---rollint stone magazine
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"LadyLollipop" wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"cathyb" wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:
"HCN"


If the post comes from this name, it is a definite clue, it is
*organized
medicine* LIES.


PLONK!


Please try to make sense.


Cathy


This forum is to voice your opinion, not to belittle others.


Jan doesn't like Chris's nick


The lies flow like honey.


I have never heard of Chris nick



I will go really slowly here.

"Chris's" is what is called by grammarians "possessive case". It
implies ownership of something by someone named "Chris". The fact that
this is a name is indicated by the capitalisation of the initial
letter, making it what is called a "proper noun". The word "nick", on
the other hand, is not a name, information implied by it starting with
a lower-case letter and immediately following a possessive. It is
short for "nickname" (a word derived from Old English "also name"),
and is a common Internet term used to refer to a pseudonym. (Where is
Tsu Dho Nimh these days, by the way?) It is reasonably obvious that
"HCN" is a nickname or pseudonym.


What could cause confusion to a non-English speaker is that the use of
"'s" as a suffix to indicate possession came originally from a
contraction of "his" (the contraction indicated by the apostrophe),
but in this case it is not a contraction of "Chris, his" but of
"Chris, her". Funny old language, English, isn't it?



Period.

Jan


snipped lies



--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Which means Jan just told yet another lie.





, in much the same way she continues to refer to
me as Rosalind (?!), to your sites as full of lies...

Of course, she's never actually produced any evidence for any of these
things.


BTW, sorry to hear about your diabetes, although I'm sure you're not
worried now that Jan's told you it's curable

There's another example.

No it's not. Here's where you said it:

84. JanD
Dec 13, 3:15 am show options


Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med, misc.health.alternative
From: "JanD" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:15:34 GMT
Local: Tues, Dec 13 2005 3:15 am
Subject: Why Did "Aids Baby" Eliza Jane Really Die?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...


"JanD" wrote:
Do come back. Rich, AFTER, YOU have been given five to seven years to
live.
Jan, I have an incurable disease.


NO. you do NOT.


Lies are rampant, as usual.

Apparently so! Perhaps you could stop?


snip yet more of Jan's lies

Cathy

Nope, of my first, middle and last names, none is Rosalind

Glad you're feeling better; speak to you soon.

Cathy


Sdores wrote:
Cathy is your middle name Rosalind? If it is it will help me understand why
people keep changing your name! I'll respond to your email soon. Don't
worry about the time it took to get back to me, I too am running way behind
on my emails. I do finally have my flare pretty much under control. I
can't wait to be able to have some fresh fruit, veggies and a salad but I
have to wait at least a little longer to make sure nothing else gets me
blocked, but at least I am feeling better which is a start. :-) UM MOM
Susan


"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

JanD wrote:

"JohnDoe" wrote in message
. ..
cathyb wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

"JanD" wrote:


It is NOTED NO reply from HCN.

Caught at his own DISHONEST game.

Jan, Debbbeeeeee complained to an ISP when Kuruna said that
Debbbeeeeee was male. You complained when Ariebert Votewer kept
calling you "he".

I think you might find that Laetrile Person is female.


Once Jan has an idea in her little head, it's immovable. No doubt
she'll continue to claim that HCN is male, although she's been told
before that she's not

A fine example of how Rosalind lies.

In FACT, I have never been told that HCN was female before.

Yes, you have. By Peter Bowditch:

17. Peter Bowditch
Jun 22, 8:48 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Peter Bowditch - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:48:24 GMT
Local: Wed, Jun 22 2005 8:48 am
Subject: Mercury/Autism scandal---rollint stone magazine
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"LadyLollipop" wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
. ..
"cathyb" wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:
"HCN"


If the post comes from this name, it is a definite clue, it is
*organized
medicine* LIES.


PLONK!


Please try to make sense.


Cathy


This forum is to voice your opinion, not to belittle others.


Jan doesn't like Chris's nick


The lies flow like honey.


I have never heard of Chris nick



I will go really slowly here.

"Chris's" is what is called by grammarians "possessive case". It
implies ownership of something by someone named "Chris". The fact that
this is a name is indicated by the capitalisation of the initial
letter, making it what is called a "proper noun". The word "nick", on
the other hand, is not a name, information implied by it starting with
a lower-case letter and immediately following a possessive. It is
short for "nickname" (a word derived from Old English "also name"),
and is a common Internet term used to refer to a pseudonym. (Where is
Tsu Dho Nimh these days, by the way?) It is reasonably obvious that
"HCN" is a nickname or pseudonym.


What could cause confusion to a non-English speaker is that the use of
"'s" as a suffix to indicate possession came originally from a
contraction of "his" (the contraction indicated by the apostrophe),
but in this case it is not a contraction of "Chris, his" but of
"Chris, her". Funny old language, English, isn't it?



Period.

Jan


snipped lies



--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Which means Jan just told yet another lie.





, in much the same way she continues to refer to
me as Rosalind (?!), to your sites as full of lies...

Of course, she's never actually produced any evidence for any of these
things.


BTW, sorry to hear about your diabetes, although I'm sure you're not
worried now that Jan's told you it's curable

There's another example.

No it's not. Here's where you said it:

84. JanD
Dec 13, 3:15 am show options


Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med, misc.health.alternative
From: "JanD" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:15:34 GMT
Local: Tues, Dec 13 2005 3:15 am
Subject: Why Did "Aids Baby" Eliza Jane Really Die?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


...


"JanD" wrote:
Do come back. Rich, AFTER, YOU have been given five to seven years to
live.
Jan, I have an incurable disease.


NO. you do NOT.


Lies are rampant, as usual.

Apparently so! Perhaps you could stop?


snip yet more of Jan's lies

Cathy

JanD(ingbat) wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

JanD wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote

[all excuses, LIES and INSULTS snipped]

Lies still remain.

ALL THREE.

Jan removes my responses since she is utterly incapable of understanding
the written word.


Poor, Mark Probert, I understand him quite well. He uses this excuse and
insult everytime he is caught in his own LIES.

Actually, your inability to understand the written word is what is
causing your delusions that people lie.

Here is something she snipped:

Actually, my posting, and YOUR RESPONDING, shows that you are incapable of
understanding the written word, and, further, that you are obsessed with
stalking, harassing and abusing me.


YOU and YOU ALONE are RESPONSIBLE for ALL of your LIES.

No, YOU and YOU ALONE are incapable of understanding the written word,
thus YOU and YOU ALONE are deluding yourself into thinking that people
are lying.

Of course, if that were not true, then the truth would be that you call
people liars because you are incapable of refuting what they say, and,
need to divert attention away from the weakness of your positions.

There is absolutely NO stalking, harassing, nor abusing.

Incorrect. Those are your three hobbies, and you learned them well from
your handler.

You can snip...but people wiser than me have said:

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley, "Proper Studies", 1927

Totally agree.

Then stop snipping facts and admit your perfidy.

The FACTS are.

Mark Probert Proves Himsef A Repeated Liar Again.

That is not a fact, but your delusion.

Sdores wrote:
Cathy is your middle name Rosalind? If it is it will help me understand why
people keep changing your name!

Jan learned that from her handler. Her handler needed some feeble manner
to discredit Cathy and one of her handler's tactics is to accuse the
person, read that target, of being someone else.

I'll respond to your email soon. Don't
worry about the time it took to get back to me, I too am running way behind
on my emails. I do finally have my flare pretty much under control. I
can't wait to be able to have some fresh fruit, veggies and a salad but I
have to wait at least a little longer to make sure nothing else gets me
blocked, but at least I am feeling better which is a start.

Wonderful!

:-) UM MOM
Susan


"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

JanD wrote:


"JohnDoe" wrote in message
. nl...

cathyb wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:


"JanD" wrote:



It is NOTED NO reply from HCN.

Caught at his own DISHONEST game.

Jan, Debbbeeeeee complained to an ISP when Kuruna said that
Debbbeeeeee was male. You complained when Ariebert Votewer kept
calling you "he".

I think you might find that Laetrile Person is female.


Once Jan has an idea in her little head, it's immovable. No doubt
she'll continue to claim that HCN is male, although she's been told
before that she's not

A fine example of how Rosalind lies.

In FACT, I have never been told that HCN was female before.

Yes, you have. By Peter Bowditch:

17. Peter Bowditch
Jun 22, 8:48 am show options

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Peter Bowditch - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:48:24 GMT
Local: Wed, Jun 22 2005 8:48 am
Subject: Mercury/Autism scandal---rollint stone magazine
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"LadyLollipop" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

"cathyb" wrote:


LadyLollipop wrote:

"HCN"


If the post comes from this name, it is a definite clue, it is
*organized
medicine* LIES.


PLONK!


Please try to make sense.


Cathy


This forum is to voice your opinion, not to belittle others.


Jan doesn't like Chris's nick


The lies flow like honey.


I have never heard of Chris nick



I will go really slowly here.

"Chris's" is what is called by grammarians "possessive case". It
implies ownership of something by someone named "Chris". The fact that
this is a name is indicated by the capitalisation of the initial
letter, making it what is called a "proper noun". The word "nick", on
the other hand, is not a name, information implied by it starting with
a lower-case letter and immediately following a possessive. It is
short for "nickname" (a word derived from Old English "also name"),
and is a common Internet term used to refer to a pseudonym. (Where is
Tsu Dho Nimh these days, by the way?) It is reasonably obvious that
"HCN" is a nickname or pseudonym.


What could cause confusion to a non-English speaker is that the use of
"'s" as a suffix to indicate possession came originally from a
contraction of "his" (the contraction indicated by the apostrophe),
but in this case it is not a contraction of "Chris, his" but of
"Chris, her". Funny old language, English, isn't it?




Period.

Jan


snipped lies



--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Which means Jan just told yet another lie.





, in much the same way she continues to refer to

me as Rosalind (?!), to your sites as full of lies...

Of course, she's never actually produced any evidence for any of these
things.


BTW, sorry to hear about your diabetes, although I'm sure you're not
worried now that Jan's told you it's curable

There's another example.

No it's not. Here's where you said it:

84. JanD
Dec 13, 3:15 am show options


Newsgroups: misc.kids.health, sci.med, misc.health.alternative
From: "JanD" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:15:34 GMT
Local: Tues, Dec 13 2005 3:15 am
Subject: Why Did "Aids Baby" Eliza Jane Really Die?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message


. ..



"JanD" wrote:

Do come back. Rich, AFTER, YOU have been given five to seven years to
live.

Jan, I have an incurable disease.


NO. you do NOT.


Lies are rampant, as usual.

Apparently so! Perhaps you could stop?


snip yet more of Jan's lies

Cathy

JanD wrote:
You have not answered these MANY questions

From LONG AGO!

Jan, have you ever contacted anyone outside of usenet about Mark Lowry?

You have been asked that a million times, and you snip it. You are
afraid of the truth.

What is the problem, Jan, afraid to answer? Why not come clean?
Confession is good for your soul.