From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 12, 8:13 am, "t" <tool...(a)> wrote:
> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)> wrote in message
> news:0825d5l910jl5k6auodj8fd7iehqb70r36(a)> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:35:49 +0100, in,
> > "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
> >>"dr_jeff" <u...(a)> wrote in message
> >>> We owe the dead nothing but the truth. I provided it. If you don't like
> >>> it, that tells me I did the right thing.
> >>> Jeff
> >>LOL.  You and truth are complete strangers
>  You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people?

Look up Esther Figueroa for starters.

From: dr_jeff on
t wrote:
> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)> wrote in message
> news:BYadnf5n9MWKvk7XnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)
>> t wrote:
> Bwahahaha!!!! quackwatch????? You post quackwatch as proof? What ARE
> vthey putting in your food? Hehehehehe!!! quackwatch, Bwahahahaha!!!
> Funny, you posted a funny! And you have a degree? Bwahahaha!!!
>>> You subscribe to the lie that Clark caused harm to people? Post proof .

Why don't go ahead and explain why the claims in the Quackwatch site are
incorrect instead of just dismissing them?

Do you think it's ok that she had to flee Indiana? Do you think it is ok
that she made a zapper that didn't do anything and charged people for
it? Is it ok if she had a clinic in Mexico because consumer protection
laws wouldn't allow her to have one in the US?

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <1a96593d-2746-4245-a5fc-fc31ec532389(a)>, Citizen Jimserac wrote:

> Bowditch, I understand your Quixotian crusade, but really, old dude,
> you're really exceeding the bounds of propriety in speaking of her in
> this matter and I must object, irrespective of the merits of Clark's
> methods.

CJ, are you telling us that you have nothing but good things to say
for *ANYONE* after they're dead?

Think carefully before answering.

| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)> -+
From: Bob Officer on
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:24:48 +0100, in,
"john" <nospam(a)> wrote:

>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)> wrote in message
>> Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)> wrote:
>>>On Oct 11, 12:41?pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...(a)> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:03:01 +0100, "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
>>>> >Bit late
>>>No, John posted.
>>>Bit late for that but good sentiments
>> And as I said at the time (and the time before, and the time before,
>> and ...) - I appreciate John posting this link because I find it so
>> amusing.
>You would, that fits your personality profile

What personality profile, John?

You do understand a personality profile is built by a professional
psychologist in an attempt to describe the full attributes of a
person from some, but not all of his actions.

There is zero evidence of any science, beyond the psychological
projections of the profiler taken place.

Bob Officer
Posting the truth
From: t on
Yes , Mark , he who could not even make it as an attorney, I can post
correctly. But, then net-nanny's would not get their panties wet. If you had
been following my posts, you would find that I have, on occasion, posted
according to your standards. But it's not as much fun as irritating people
like you.
"Mark Probert" <mark.probert(a)> wrote in message
On Oct 12, 7:59 am, "t" <tool...(a)> wrote:
> Back, and still smarter than you.


You do not even know how to post a message without screwing up the

"Peter B." <i...(a)> wrote in message
> news:4ad27745(a)
> > Back already "t"?
> > "t" <tool...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:04ydnZ4dGPgW7k_XnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)
> >> "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...(a)> wrote in message
> >>news:7eb90998-8246-44d2-aa22-fcd2583382db(a)
> >> On Oct 11, 1:17 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 11:13 am, dr_jeff <u...(a)>
> >>> Ain't that just too cute.
> >>> Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz, is using yet another email address.
> >>> Unlike jeff.utz(a)gmail on the Quack list.
> >>> He is a not kidsdoc.
> >>> He has failed to provide proof by showinng his current M.D. license.
> >>> Thus, one cannot believe a word he posts.
> >> Jeff earned a Medical Doctor degree, thus making it entirely proper
> >> for him call himself doctor.
> >> You are not bright enough to understand this.>>> So.... we did not know
> >> thatr you were therte to see him earn a degree. Or that you know him
> >> personaly and have been to his office. Or that you have anything to
> >> support your idiotic statement. I think you might have done better to
> >> review the rules of evedince. AND............ So what if he has a
> >> "medical doctor degree"? "medical doctors" have been wrong far too long
> >> on far too many "diseases" while makeing money from people's problems.
> >> A
> >> few are dedicated but even they are poorly educated and programed to
> >> think in a wrong-headed way. And one more thing, I'M BACK!!!- Hide
> >> quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -