If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
"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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
"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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
"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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Freud to emergency - STAT!
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Mumps epidemic among the vaccinated - BEWARE
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tests for mumps prove unreliable | john | Kids Health | 0 | July 7th 06 10:35 PM |
Mumps Epidemic Includes 2/3 with TWO doses of MMR | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | April 18th 06 04:52 PM |
Mumps Epidemic Includes 2/3 with TWO doses of MMR | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 9 | April 12th 06 02:23 PM |
Mumps Epidemic Includes 2/3 with TWO doses of MMR | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | April 10th 06 10:58 PM |
Mumps Epidemic Includes 2/3 with TWO doses of MMR | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | April 10th 06 08:34 PM |