From: Mark Probert on
brightwinger wrote:
> On Aug 28, 11:38 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com>
> wrote:
>> brightwinger wrote:
>>> [snipped for space]
>>>>> It's a distinction without a difference. Well, that's not quite true.
>>>>> The big difference is that you have a record of being a money grubber,
>>>>> which got you disbarred. Just because your record is shameful, it
>>>>> doesn't mean everyone else is like you.
>>>> Like I told you back in February, I do not respond the claptrap of
>>>> people who stalk and harass me. I have a UDP in place and will not
>>>> violate it.
>>> What is a UDP? Usenet Death Penalty?
>>> No one is stalking you...
>> Are you really that stupid? Personal information, including a
>> residential address, phone number, etc., that people believe pertains to
>> me, is being posted. If that is not stalking, then you are Einstein.
>> Note that you are not Einstein.
>>
>> but you wish to stalk Dr. Kramer. I won't
>>
>>> help you in that endeavor.
>> I have no intent of stalking anyone.our paranoid delusion notwithstanding.
>>
>>>> Take your cheap shots, I can handle it. Obviously you cannot.
>>> It's not a cheapshot to point out how it's your past behavior that
>>> colors your reckless accusations.
>> It is a cheap shot when I tell you that I will not respond to that cheap
>> shot, as I have responded more times than necessary.
>
> A cheap shot is "do you still beat your wife?"

No, asswipe, a cheap shot is when you take it against someone who has
told you that they will not respond.

As for your buddy, let's see what the OPMC has to say.
From: The One True Zhen Jue on
Kelly,

Why are you STILL talking about Revici? Dr Moran has already proven
that his "evidence" is worthless and that you're a dolt for holding on
to this delusion. Instead of wasting the rest of your life on this
fixation, get out of the house and live, son! Go learn something
useful, like how to use a scanner or how science works.

Don't spend the rest of your life as a usenet kook, unless that is the
very best you can do with your life.

From: brightwinger on
On Aug 30, 7:18 am, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> brightwinger wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 11:38 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com>
> > wrote:
> >> brightwinger wrote:
> >>> [snipped for space]
> >>>>> It's a distinction without a difference. Well, that's not quite true.
> >>>>> The big difference is that you have a record of being a money grubber,
> >>>>> which got you disbarred. Just because your record is shameful, it
> >>>>> doesn't mean everyone else is like you.
> >>>> Like I told you back in February, I do not respond the claptrap of
> >>>> people who stalk and harass me. I have a UDP in place and will not
> >>>> violate it.
> >>> What is a UDP? Usenet Death Penalty?
> >>> No one is stalking you...
> >> Are you really that stupid? Personal information, including a
> >> residential address, phone number, etc., that people believe pertains to
> >> me, is being posted. If that is not stalking, then you are Einstein.
> >> Note that you are not Einstein.
>
> >> but you wish to stalk Dr. Kramer. I won't
>
> >>> help you in that endeavor.
> >> I have no intent of stalking anyone.our paranoid delusion notwithstanding.
>
> >>>> Take your cheap shots, I can handle it. Obviously you cannot.
> >>> It's not a cheapshot to point out how it's your past behavior that
> >>> colors your reckless accusations.
> >> It is a cheap shot when I tell you that I will not respond to that cheap
> >> shot, as I have responded more times than necessary.
>
> >A cheap shot is "do you still beat your wife?"
>
>No, asswipe, a cheap shot is when you take it against someone who has
>told you that they will not respond.

That's the definition of a true shot. I mean, what can you say other
than it's true. There's nothing cheap about being a disbarred lawyer.
Add to that a disbarred lawyer whose mission in life is to delicense
physicians, well the psychosis is rich.

> As for your buddy, let's see what the OPMC has to say.

Ah yes, the Star Chamber proceeding where John Shae, the prosecuting
attorney, said out loud, no less:

"After all is said and done for the 33 patients, even if it is shown
that the Journal [JAMA] articles are false, so what? We believe by
it's publication in the Journal, it is true, the conclusions are
true."


From: brightwinger on
On Aug 30, 7:36 am, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> Why are you STILL talking about Revici?

To let the viewer decide. You and your ilk no longer have the power to
decide for others. They can see for themselves:
http://snipurl.com/cancerbeforeandafter

Dr Moran has already proven
> that his "evidence" is worthless and that you're a dolt for holding on
> to this delusion.

Among those who have examined Revici's records, Dr. Moran is in the
minority, just like Holocaust deniers are in the minority. Actually
Moran has not examined the records, so he's less than being in the
minority.

>Instead of wasting the rest of your life on this
> fixation, get out of the house and live, son! Go learn something
> useful, like how to use a scanner or how science works.

I am doing something supremely useful. Thousands of people have had
the opportunity to see the photos on my website, yet this is only the
beginning. In the coming months, the numbers will continue to grow due
to the new programs I have put in place.

I may be putting in another one in the next few days which could
increase the viewership by 20X.

> Don't spend the rest of your life as a usenet kook, unless that is the
> very best you can do with your life

As you can see, I do more than visit here. I'm actively creating a
body of viewers that could well exceed a million in the next six moths
and ten million in a year. There is no end to how many website
visitors there could be.

http://snipurl.com/cancerbeforeandafter

From: Mark Probert on
brightwinger wrote:
> On Aug 30, 7:18 am, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> brightwinger wrote:
>>> On Aug 28, 11:38 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> brightwinger wrote:
>>>>> [snipped for space]
>>>>>>> It's a distinction without a difference. Well, that's not quite true.
>>>>>>> The big difference is that you have a record of being a money grubber,
>>>>>>> which got you disbarred. Just because your record is shameful, it
>>>>>>> doesn't mean everyone else is like you.
>>>>>> Like I told you back in February, I do not respond the claptrap of
>>>>>> people who stalk and harass me. I have a UDP in place and will not
>>>>>> violate it.
>>>>> What is a UDP? Usenet Death Penalty?
>>>>> No one is stalking you...
>>>> Are you really that stupid? Personal information, including a
>>>> residential address, phone number, etc., that people believe pertains to
>>>> me, is being posted. If that is not stalking, then you are Einstein.
>>>> Note that you are not Einstein.
>>>> but you wish to stalk Dr. Kramer. I won't
>>>>> help you in that endeavor.
>>>> I have no intent of stalking anyone.our paranoid delusion notwithstanding.
>>>>>> Take your cheap shots, I can handle it. Obviously you cannot.
>>>>> It's not a cheapshot to point out how it's your past behavior that
>>>>> colors your reckless accusations.
>>>> It is a cheap shot when I tell you that I will not respond to that cheap
>>>> shot, as I have responded more times than necessary.
>>> A cheap shot is "do you still beat your wife?"
>> No, asswipe, a cheap shot is when you take it against someone who has
>> told you that they will not respond.
>
> That's the definition of a true shot. I mean, what can you say other
> than it's true. There's nothing cheap about being a disbarred lawyer.
> Add to that a disbarred lawyer whose mission in life is to delicense
> physicians, well the psychosis is rich.

You introduced this ad hominem attack to divert from the fact that YOU
FAILED TO PROVE Revici saves lives.

Where are the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cure patients?
Why are they not marching on the FDA, Congress, etc. to demand that the
treatment be recognized?

Where are they?

>> As for your buddy, let's see what the OPMC has to say.
>
> Ah yes, the Star Chamber proceeding where John Shae, the prosecuting
> attorney, said out loud, no less:

There is no star chamber. HYour hyperbole is absurd.

> "After all is said and done for the 33 patients, even if it is shown
> that the Journal [JAMA] articles are false, so what? We believe by
> it's publication in the Journal, it is true, the conclusions are
> true."

Where are the case studies of those 33 patients? Where are they?