answers to questions

Barbrae

Muse
B
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
644
I have been working on the ten questions and the other questions that HC posted but I gotta tell ya after the BS that Rolfe has pulled I really think I should just get the hell outta here ASAP.

You want a homeopath around to answer your questions get rid of that libelous sig line. By the way, just spoke with my lawyer sis in law and she said since "Snoopy" is well known by her nickname and her real name is also well known that indeed your sig does classify as liable. Also, since your intent is to hurt her (and I have saved all your posts regarding this BTW) and your intention can be proven that indded it is liable.

Get rid of the sig and you'll get your stupid questions answered - keep that lying sig and go cry that all the homeopaths won't answer your little questions - yeah, DID YA EVER THINK IT IS THE BS YOU PULL!!!!!
 
Barbrae said:
I have been working on the ten questions and the other questions that HC posted but I gotta tell ya after the BS that Rolfe has pulled I really think I should just get the hell outta here ASAP.

You want a homeopath around to answer your questions get rid of that libelous sig line. By the way, just spoke with my lawyer sis in law and she said since "Snoopy" is well known by her nickname and her real name is also well known that indeed your sig does classify as liable. Also, since your intent is to hurt her (and I have saved all your posts regarding this BTW) and your intention can be proven that indded it is liable.

Get rid of the sig and you'll get your stupid questions answered - keep that lying sig and go cry that all the homeopaths won't answer your little questions - yeah, DID YA EVER THINK IT IS THE BS YOU PULL!!!!!
Click to expand...


I think it's because homeopaths CAN'T answer the questions.

Those questions have been posted here for awhile now....long before Rolfe's thread was posted by NH on the homeopath board. Nobody's answered them yet.

Don't use someone's sig line as a lame excuse to avoid proving your point.

Please just simply answer the questions.............Thank you--Ralph
 
Barbrae said:
I have been working on the ten questions and the other questions that HC posted but I gotta tell ya after the BS that Rolfe has pulled I really think I should just get the hell outta here ASAP. ...!
Click to expand...

Clarafication: The ten questions were not mine. Here they are:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40064

My questions were how was homoepathy BETTER for a series of medical conditions.

Don't weasel out just because you all got caught in a trap with NaturalHealth's help.
 
Hey pal - I didn't get caught in ANY trap. I knew the post was BS so didn't give an answer. You may or may not recall that I don't tolerate the mudslinging and uncivil garbage treatment you guys routinely give us. That's why I left the first time. The only reason I came back here was to call BSM to the carpet for implying something about me that was totally untrue. I didn't come here to debate or discuss anything but since prester and you specifically asked me I was being rather generous to waste my time in answering them - and I still will IF ROLFE removes her sig line. That is not an excuse to not post the answers, I don't tolerate abusive treatment, go look in my past posts and you will see that. You want answers from a homeopath - go remove the LIE that has been posted, it's your choice. Oh, and that means remove and DON"T repost it or anything else slanderous about Snoopy.
 
Truthfully, I understand my only "crime" on H'pathy was answering a question you asked. For this I can no longer log back on. I also have saved the pages since Janzy is about to use Stanlin's airbrush.

I am still curious: Where in the United States are there homeopathic hospitals still operating?

Oh, well.... no big loss. I'm just going to ask around on how legal it is for Americans to be diagnosing and prescribing online.

It seems the FDA only reluctantly grandfathered homeopathy... and now only allows if for "self-limiting" conditions. Which means NOT for diabetes, metabolic disorders, nor seizure conditions.
 
Barbrae said:
Hey pal - I didn't get caught in ANY trap. I knew the post was BS so didn't give an answer. You may or may not recall that I don't tolerate the mudslinging and uncivil garbage treatment you guys routinely give us. That's why I left the first time. The only reason I came back here was to call BSM to the carpet for implying something about me that was totally untrue. I didn't come here to debate or discuss anything but since prester and you specifically asked me I was being rather generous to waste my time in answering them - and I still will IF ROLFE removes her sig line. That is not an excuse to not post the answers, I don't tolerate abusive treatment, go look in my past posts and you will see that. You want answers from a homeopath - go remove the LIE that has been posted, it's your choice. Oh, and that means remove and DON"T repost it or anything else slanderous about Snoopy.
Click to expand...
You're quite angry, aren't you! Why? Is it an issue with you to have anything you say actually questioned for once?

And why does Rolfe have to do anything at all before you will answer any questions here? You could blow Rolfe right out of the water by simply proving her wrong by successfully answering those pesky questions straight up, you know...

Perhaps you might also consider NOT banning and deleting skeptic posters on the homeopathy forums simply because they post truthful answers and comments there that you don't like. First Ammendment and all that, y'know!
 
And still no sign of any actual answers to the 10 questions. Y'know if I weren't so naiive I would think that Barbrae was seeking to distract us from his/her inability to answer those 10 questions.
 
By the way, just spoke with my lawyer sis in law and she said since "Snoopy" is well known by her nickname and her real name is also well known that indeed your sig does classify as liable.
Click to expand...

Slander and liable (sic) both involve the use of a mistruth. In this case you are claiming Rolfe is attributing a statement to Snoopy which is not correct.

I've seen where it came from, it is a direct quote, not even hearsay. Unless you are claiming someone masquarading as Snoopy posted the statement, then I really can't see how a claim would be remotely valid.

Slander & libel (note spelling) are both forms of defamation. Slander is the spoken version and libel the written one*. I'd hazard you're not that familiar with the details, maybe you should have a longer conversation with your relative.

Given at least three people (independent of Rolfe and Snoopy) seem to have saved records of that thread, there is little question that Snoopy will not be able to make a post hoc denial once stalin has removed it from h'pathy.

Read this

* although broadly, it tends to mean published rather than spread around informally.
 
Actually why aren't you giving Natural Health a hard time, after all it was Her who posted what was obviously a leading question on the hpathy boards. Anyone reading the actual thread from the JREF site could not have missed that point. So why did Natural Health post it without warning the hpathy board ?

The whole was a hypothetical, and the two homeopaths who responded would have had a dead hypothetical patient. It all speaks for itself.

This thread is wrongly named, it should be "Boy am i peeved". Perhaps you can stop diverting and answer the questions please?
 
Besides, it was myself who asked you about the 10 questions, not Rolfe. Now whilst i have the greatest respect for Rolfe, we are indeed different people. I can confirm that i had no part in the thread in question. Since we are all individuals here, and as you said your replies will represent your views not that of anyone else, please extend the same respect to the posters on this board who asked you questions that you said you would reply to.

If you have a problem with Rolfe take it up with her.
 
Barb

I think you need to be careful whan starting to get heavy-handed on the subject of liability for activities on internet forums. Numerous regulars at Hpathy contributed to the thread on "ocular haemorrhage" being presented as a real world case by Astra in which deteriorations were accepted as homeopathic "aggravations". I pointed out the liability issue this created. The moderator JanZy admitted that there was a liability problem, but only in the closed Admin forum (to which at the time, but some quirk of their forum software I had access). Her action was to remove my posts alerting posters to the problem and allowing them the opportunity to modify their approach and limit the degree to which they were directly responsible for any adverse outcome. Legally, I think that would be called an aggravation of the offence because the board owners having been notified of a problem took action to conceal it. Since Stalin's airbrush became so busy, I have also been merrily saving threads for future reference so still have copies of that admission of liability because it illustrates a point about the dangers of taking advice on the internet, but also the duplicitous nature of the homeopathic side. For what it's worth I think many homeopaths mean well, but I think that blinds them to certain obvious weaknesses in their system- the same ones we tiresomely point out in post after post.

Can I just remind you of one of Snoopy's contributions to that thread;

"Astra,



did you say she took the remedy and had an aggravation?_ Then she should definitely stop and wait, there's a good chance an improvement will follow._ Keep us posted.



Snoopy"

This is direct advice to a. accept responsibility for the deterioration in the patient's condition and b. do nothing, which includes seeking no further medical advice about that deterioration.

Bearing in mind that there is no objective evidence to support the notion of a homeopathic "aggravation" it is point b. that is the more serious, giving advice that dissuades a patient from taking competent medical advice.

Now, the context of the current fracas makes it very obvious that the case was a hypothetical rather bizarrely dropped in Hpathy by NHCoraHS for her own rather peculiar reasons, but the ocular haemorrhage case is as far as one can tell a real person suffering real harm.

The questions for homeopaths have been up for months now, long before you ascended your high horse on the issue of Rolfe's sig line, presumably you have the answers prepared and ready should Rolfe acquiesce to your request: indeed I shall PM her to suggest that this obstacle is removed to your full answering of these points.
 
Zep said:
You're quite angry, aren't you! Why? Is it an issue with you to have anything you say actually questioned for once?


Perhaps you might also consider NOT banning and deleting skeptic posters on the homeopathy forums simply because they post truthful answers and comments there that you don't like. First Ammendment and all that, y'know!
Click to expand...

Nope - not quite angry - I am fuming! And by the way - I ALWAYS answered the questioned that had been asked of me in the past while I was here - something no one here did for me. I asked and asked and asked a question of you folks and no reply ever, hmmmm.

Secondly, Uh, I could consider NOT banning skeptics but since I have absolutely no control over that it seems a pretty futile excercise.
 
The Don said:
And still no sign of any actual answers to the 10 questions. Y'know if I weren't so naiive I would think that Barbrae was seeking to distract us from his/her inability to answer those 10 questions.
Click to expand...

Guess what DOn - I have always been truthful and honest with you folks - and it has never gotten me anywhere. AS a matter of fact for a few of the questions the answers are "I have no clue" but I have no problem saying so or giving that as an answer.
 
Would you consider answering any of the 10 questions any time soon or would you prefer to continue in your process of misdirection ?
 
Prester John said:
Actually why aren't you giving Natural Health a hard time, after all it was Her who posted what was obviously a leading question on the hpathy boards. Anyone reading the actual thread from the JREF site could not have missed that point. So why did Natural Health post it without warning the hpathy board ?

The whole was a hypothetical, and the two homeopaths who responded would have had a dead hypothetical patient. It all speaks for itself.

Click to expand...

Because I am not mad about the case, itself. I am not mad about your little "tricks", well actually I am but that's not the issue. I am mad about a blatant LIE told by ROLFE that Snoopy killed someone. Not a "hypothetical person" but a "young mother".
 
Barbrae said:
AS a matter of fact for a few of the questions the answers are "I have no clue" but I have no problem saying so or giving that as an answer.
Click to expand...

Even that would be progress. There's plenty none of us know. What matters is whether you can construct a coherent picture with what you do know.

Which questions are they?
 
Prester John said:
Besides, it was myself who asked you about the 10 questions, not Rolfe. Now whilst i have the greatest respect for Rolfe, we are indeed different people. I can confirm that i had no part in the thread in question. Since we are all individuals here, and as you said your replies will represent your views not that of anyone else, please extend the same respect to the posters on this board who asked you questions that you said you would reply to.

If you have a problem with Rolfe take it up with her.
Click to expand...

Ah, Prester my love, I understand your frusteration and annoyance - I do. I would be annoyed too. However, it wasn't JUST you that wants the questions answered ya know but rather the whole lot of you it seems so if my only playing card to deal with is withholding the answers until Madame Rolfe takes of the Sig about Snoopy. It is real simply, if she complies I'll give my answers, if she doesn't then hey you have nothign to complain about.

Why don't I take it up with Rolfe myself? Ha, I know Rolfe is a liar and won't deal with her directly - remember my old threads? SHe lied about me. Sorry, it still pisses me off. Perhaps it is why I am so angry at this new LIE.
 
The Don said:
Would you consider answering any of the 10 questions any time soon or would you prefer to continue in your process of misdirection ?
Click to expand...

Give it up DOn - I am not some pitbull you are trying to bait ya know. talk to rolfe - then come and complain if I still haven't answered.

Oh, BTW - today is the 6th, I said I would get back to you sometime after the 5th so technically I am still right on schedule, my are you an impatient lot.
 
Barbrae said:


Because I am not mad about the case, itself. I am not mad about your little "tricks", well actually I am but that's not the issue. I am mad about a blatant LIE told by ROLFE that Snoopy killed someone. Not a "hypothetical person" but a "young mother".
Click to expand...

As pointed out above, i am not Rolfe, Nor is the Don, BSM, Benguin, Zep, Ralph or Hypdrogen Cyanide. You always demand to be treated like an individual, we treat you as such, i am now asking you do the same to the posters on this board.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:


Even that would be progress. There's plenty none of us know. What matters is whether you can construct a coherent picture with what you do know.

Which questions are they?
Click to expand...

HI BSM - tut tut, I am not telling;) Sheesh, I have NO PROBLEM saying when I don't know something and that happens a lot. What's that old saying? The wisest man is the one who admits he doesn't know? Ah, something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom