Kelly Lied, Talena Lied, Connie Lied, Atlas Lied, Stevie Lie, Jan Lied 
Author Message
 Kelly Lied, Talena Lied, Connie Lied, Atlas Lied, Stevie Lie, Jan Lied


Probably the best way to debunk these claims is to demonstrate that the
person making the claim is lying.

===========

And Richard H Jacobson badgered and {*filter*}stalked everyone of them, and
Rich nuked his posts. This will explain why.

(Rich is foaming at the mouth because I found all these posts in others
posts.)

*I accused Kelly of lying about having {*filter*} cancer and
being cured by chelation and pycnogenol. This is a quite remarkable
claim and her response were vague, evasive, and contradictory.*

*It is frustrating isn't it Talena to not have others believe in YOUR
reality.*


Quote:
>Unsubstantiated opinion???? How do you figure

(Undocumented.  Everything else is hearsay.  Even what is written in
the NGis
hearsay until the facts back it up.   People can form *opinions* based
on these
comments, but we don't know if the information is accurate until we see
the
documents.  My *opinion* is that Kelly is telling the truth.  I believe
her.
Your *opinion* is that she is not.  But that's all theseare--opinions.)

Quote:
>*These are *facts* that are not disputed.*

( These are not *facts*.  They are hearsay unless you see her file.)

Quote:
>*I don't need to look at her file to know that.*

*she refuses to come clean to the newsgroup, I have decided not to
waste
my time >meeting her.OIC.*

*I already decided she was not to be believed based on her posting
OIC.*

*There is NO question that she lied. She admitted that she lied.*

*FACT?? It is your perception and not a fact although I realize that
you think
that if you believe something then it makes it true for everyone else
too.*

*The best that Kelly could say is that she "thought" that she had
{*filter*} cancer
but the doctor never told her so.*

****I certainly don't try to cram my paradigm down others' throats by
slyly
belittling or devaluing their beliefs and statements, the way you seem
to be
doing to mine.****

*The scientific method is ONE way. Why don't you give us another way to

determine is someone's observation IS universally valid. Perhaps you
believe
that if YOU observe it then it is universally valid.  This is called
universality by pathologic narcissism.*

***She's a liar she's a liar.*** She makes up stuff about pycnogenol
curing
cancer she didn't have."  **

*She read research, ***but doesn't mail it to me*** so she didn't do
the
research either.*

*I heard Kelly say a lot of things. And IMO she, and I
am being VERY kind, is not being

 **completely honest**

about it. Or did not YOU read THOSE things??? Seems like you have
selective
reading.*

***It does more to indicate what kind of person you are than
anything.**

***It is true that I accused Kelly of lying about having {*filter*} cancer
and
being cured by chelation and pycnogenol.*****

*This is a quite remarkable claim and her response were vague, evasive,
and
contradictory. If it is difficult for you to believe that someone died
as a
result of rejecting conventional care since it seems like such

***an outrageous claim***

(I mean NO ONE dies from doing this do they)then I don'tknow what to
tell you.I
mean... you don't believe Kelly had {*filter*} cancer, or I am married,

No I believe you are married. I also believe that your husband has
hypertension.

***And I also think I have some insigh tinto why he has hypertension.
High
stress can cause high {*filter*} pressure. Somehow I have af eeling that
your
husband has stress in his life. I don't know from where because

****it is clear that it is not coming from you since you have
demonstrated such
empathy, compassion and caring for your fellow human being. His stress
must be
from elsewhere.***

It does seem as if you are coming apart at the seams:-)))

*Did she ALSO tell you that she
qualified showing t to me depending on what she thought of me when he
met me.
Based on her numerous contradictions and evasiveness as manifested on
this
newsgroup I determined that her

***credibility approaches zero***

*** I don't trust Kelly AT ALL and I offered MUCH evidence for this
perception.***
==
  *I have decided it is a waste of time trying to discuss things with
Connie.
Several times I have confronted her with information that contradicts
what she
says and she just ignores it. It is very difficult for Connie to be
direct when
she realizes that she is wrong. When she realizes she is wrong she goes
into
her sarcastic, avoidant or play mode. We have seen her behavior over
and over
again. But what fascinates me the most is how no one calls Connie to
task over
this stuff except me. For the first time Karuna is encouraging>Connie
to answer
me but Karuna fails to tell Connie that it is WRONG to claim someone
had skin
cancer without biopsy and WRONG to avoid saying it is wrong even when
confronted with the facts.

But Connie is Connie. What can I say.

I simpy asked the question of what makes you think that you have
problem with
digestive enzymes (and instead of answering you just launched an ad
hominem).

You consider THAT interrogation??? Perhaps your psychologic problems
are
deeper than I thought.

Or are we just supposed to accept every anecdote that you present here
at face
value and not ask ANY questions that might help to evaluate the
anecdote for
its reliability and validity??

With all due respect Connie, you seem VERY defensive.

You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that
these
alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then
your
anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming
as to
be intolerable.

Quote:
> So what was your point Connie?? I asked a question and you state that

you are

not used to interrogation and then add a smiley. So perhaps you could
seriously
 explain why you chose not to answer simple question which was very
reasonable
and instead give an ad hominem.

Quote:
>  Perhaps you can answer it seriously without the smiley. Or are you

really

NOT interested in a discussion about alternative health and just into
posting
anecdotes and then dancing around attempts to further explore the
anecdote
through questions that could clarify points that were not clear.

Quote:
>> But do you notice that there always seems to be enough information

for YOU

to come to conclusions such as:

Quote:
>> !) Your son being successfully treated with pancreatic glandulars

for a

life threatening pancreatic disorder

Quote:
>> 2) The you were successfully treated with "adrenal support" for

adrenal

insufficiency.>>

In both of the above anecdotal experiences that you personally had, you
did NOT
have enough information to really assert either of those statements.
And yet
you did. But when I attempt through questions to> get more information
about
the situations I am met with resistance, defensiveness and sarcasm or
outright
lies. You say that you would like to discuss but your behavior is not
consistent with this statement.

It does not have to lead to liar chants. Of course when it is obvious
that you
are lying then it is difficult to resist.

Quote:
> You see Connie I realize that  you clearly are anxious about your

health and

want to believe that these alternative treatments are going to help
prevent
serious illnesses in the future.

Quote:
> In order to convince yourself that your hope is true you seem to add

bits of

information that will support your contention. However your bits of
information
often indicate that you are not telling the truth.

No. You just made up the part about the {*filter*} test to make your
anecdote more
credible. But it backfired since the whole story is preposterous.

Quote:
> And this is why you are reluctant to NOW give details when I ask. I

have

already exposed your lies. Perhaps now you realize that it is>better to
just
attack conventional medicine and make ad hominem arguements instead of
answering simple questions that would help to understand what we are
dealing
with. You probably realize that if you give honest answers to my
questions that
I will be able to> successfully debunk your claims. And because it is
so
important for you to have hope that these treatments work in order to
reduce
your anxiety about your future health, you must at all costs stop me
from
debunking you successfully.

Quote:
> That is where the lying, ad hominems or unreasonable attacks on

conventional

medicine come in.

Quote:
> Just as  you made up the story about your 14 year old nephew who was

asymptomatic and was diagnosed as having an ulcer which was then
confirmed by
an MD. Another example of how you want to convince others that these
alternative therapies are on the up and up by adding confirmatory
claims.

If you don't want to be called a liar then I suggest that you stop
lying.

Quote:
> And what is that point. If you present an anecdote and I ask if you>

have

confirmatory information for the diagnosis such as a {*filter*} test> or
xray or
biopsy then simply answer yes or no. Don't try to make up stuff to make
your
story more credible. It does not work because you are clearly no
sophisticated
enough to make up a good story. This is>quite clear from the many
stories that
you have already told.

Quote:
> But I really do understand your anxiety about your future health and

your

need to really believe all these alternative remedies that you take are
going
to protect you. And I understand your need to convince yourself it is
true even
if it means making up stories that will confirm your beliefs.  And now
that I
am thinking about it, it may be true that you are not really lying. You
may be
so well defended and so anxious that you may not even be aware that you
are
making up these stories in order to convince YOURSELF that these
alternative
treatments really work.

Quote:
> You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that

these

alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then
your
anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming
as to
be intolerable.

Quote:
> I am not sure which you have: a

...

read more »



Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:08:34 GMT
 Kelly Lied, Talena Lied, Connie Lied, Atlas Lied, Stevie Lie, Jan Lied
Alright, Have her give the name of her doctor and then everything can be
solved..If a person is being Honest about such an important thing IM sure
they would be Happy to give their doctors name and phone just to so very
easily prove they are not lying about having had such an important thing as
{*filter*} cancer..God Forbid...MC

Quote:

> Probably the best way to debunk these claims is to demonstrate that the
> person making the claim is lying.

> ===========

> And Richard H Jacobson badgered and {*filter*}stalked everyone of them, and
> Rich nuked his posts. This will explain why.

> (Rich is foaming at the mouth because I found all these posts in others
> posts.)

> *I accused Kelly of lying about having {*filter*} cancer and
> being cured by chelation and pycnogenol. This is a quite remarkable
> claim and her response were vague, evasive, and contradictory.*

> *It is frustrating isn't it Talena to not have others believe in YOUR
> reality.*


> >Unsubstantiated opinion???? How do you figure

> (Undocumented.  Everything else is hearsay.  Even what is written in
> the NGis
> hearsay until the facts back it up.   People can form *opinions* based
> on these
> comments, but we don't know if the information is accurate until we see
> the
> documents.  My *opinion* is that Kelly is telling the truth.  I believe
> her.
> Your *opinion* is that she is not.  But that's all theseare--opinions.)

> >*These are *facts* that are not disputed.*

> ( These are not *facts*.  They are hearsay unless you see her file.)

> >*I don't need to look at her file to know that.*

> *she refuses to come clean to the newsgroup, I have decided not to
> waste
> my time >meeting her.OIC.*

> *I already decided she was not to be believed based on her posting
> OIC.*

> *There is NO question that she lied. She admitted that she lied.*

> *FACT?? It is your perception and not a fact although I realize that
> you think
> that if you believe something then it makes it true for everyone else
> too.*

> *The best that Kelly could say is that she "thought" that she had
> {*filter*} cancer
> but the doctor never told her so.*

> ****I certainly don't try to cram my paradigm down others' throats by
> slyly
> belittling or devaluing their beliefs and statements, the way you seem
> to be
> doing to mine.****

> *The scientific method is ONE way. Why don't you give us another way to

> determine is someone's observation IS universally valid. Perhaps you
> believe
> that if YOU observe it then it is universally valid.  This is called
> universality by pathologic narcissism.*

> ***She's a liar she's a liar.*** She makes up stuff about pycnogenol
> curing
> cancer she didn't have."  **

> *She read research, ***but doesn't mail it to me*** so she didn't do
> the
> research either.*

> *I heard Kelly say a lot of things. And IMO she, and I
> am being VERY kind, is not being

>  **completely honest**

> about it. Or did not YOU read THOSE things??? Seems like you have
> selective
> reading.*

> ***It does more to indicate what kind of person you are than
> anything.**

> ***It is true that I accused Kelly of lying about having {*filter*} cancer
> and
> being cured by chelation and pycnogenol.*****

> *This is a quite remarkable claim and her response were vague, evasive,
> and
> contradictory. If it is difficult for you to believe that someone died
> as a
> result of rejecting conventional care since it seems like such

> ***an outrageous claim***

> (I mean NO ONE dies from doing this do they)then I don'tknow what to
> tell you.I
> mean... you don't believe Kelly had {*filter*} cancer, or I am married,

> No I believe you are married. I also believe that your husband has
> hypertension.

> ***And I also think I have some insigh tinto why he has hypertension.
> High
> stress can cause high {*filter*} pressure. Somehow I have af eeling that
> your
> husband has stress in his life. I don't know from where because

> ****it is clear that it is not coming from you since you have
> demonstrated such
> empathy, compassion and caring for your fellow human being. His stress
> must be
> from elsewhere.***

> It does seem as if you are coming apart at the seams:-)))

> *Did she ALSO tell you that she
> qualified showing t to me depending on what she thought of me when he
> met me.
> Based on her numerous contradictions and evasiveness as manifested on
> this
> newsgroup I determined that her

> ***credibility approaches zero***

> *** I don't trust Kelly AT ALL and I offered MUCH evidence for this
> perception.***
> ==
>   *I have decided it is a waste of time trying to discuss things with
> Connie.
> Several times I have confronted her with information that contradicts
> what she
> says and she just ignores it. It is very difficult for Connie to be
> direct when
> she realizes that she is wrong. When she realizes she is wrong she goes
> into
> her sarcastic, avoidant or play mode. We have seen her behavior over
> and over
> again. But what fascinates me the most is how no one calls Connie to
> task over
> this stuff except me. For the first time Karuna is encouraging>Connie
> to answer
> me but Karuna fails to tell Connie that it is WRONG to claim someone
> had skin
> cancer without biopsy and WRONG to avoid saying it is wrong even when
> confronted with the facts.

> But Connie is Connie. What can I say.

> I simpy asked the question of what makes you think that you have
> problem with
> digestive enzymes (and instead of answering you just launched an ad
> hominem).

> You consider THAT interrogation??? Perhaps your psychologic problems
> are
> deeper than I thought.

> Or are we just supposed to accept every anecdote that you present here
> at face
> value and not ask ANY questions that might help to evaluate the
> anecdote for
> its reliability and validity??

> With all due respect Connie, you seem VERY defensive.

> You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that
> these
> alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them then
> your
> anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so overwhelming
> as to
> be intolerable.

> > So what was your point Connie?? I asked a question and you state that
> you are

> not used to interrogation and then add a smiley. So perhaps you could
> seriously
>  explain why you chose not to answer simple question which was very
> reasonable
> and instead give an ad hominem.

> >  Perhaps you can answer it seriously without the smiley. Or are you
> really

> NOT interested in a discussion about alternative health and just into
> posting
> anecdotes and then dancing around attempts to further explore the
> anecdote
> through questions that could clarify points that were not clear.

> >> But do you notice that there always seems to be enough information
> for YOU

> to come to conclusions such as:

> >> !) Your son being successfully treated with pancreatic glandulars
> for a

> life threatening pancreatic disorder

> >> 2) The you were successfully treated with "adrenal support" for
> adrenal

> insufficiency.>>

> In both of the above anecdotal experiences that you personally had, you
> did NOT
> have enough information to really assert either of those statements.
> And yet
> you did. But when I attempt through questions to> get more information
> about
> the situations I am met with resistance, defensiveness and sarcasm or
> outright
> lies. You say that you would like to discuss but your behavior is not
> consistent with this statement.

> It does not have to lead to liar chants. Of course when it is obvious
> that you
> are lying then it is difficult to resist.

> > You see Connie I realize that  you clearly are anxious about your
> health and

> want to believe that these alternative treatments are going to help
> prevent
> serious illnesses in the future.

> > In order to convince yourself that your hope is true you seem to add
> bits of

> information that will support your contention. However your bits of
> information
> often indicate that you are not telling the truth.

> No. You just made up the part about the {*filter*} test to make your
> anecdote more
> credible. But it backfired since the whole story is preposterous.

> > And this is why you are reluctant to NOW give details when I ask. I
> have

> already exposed your lies. Perhaps now you realize that it is>better to
> just
> attack conventional medicine and make ad hominem arguements instead of
> answering simple questions that would help to understand what we are
> dealing
> with. You probably realize that if you give honest answers to my
> questions that
> I will be able to> successfully debunk your claims. And because it is
> so
> important for you to have hope that these treatments work in order to
> reduce
> your anxiety about your future health, you must at all costs stop me
> from
> debunking you successfully.

> > That is where the lying, ad hominems or unreasonable attacks on
> conventional

> medicine come in.

> > Just as  you made up the story about your 14 year old nephew who was

> asymptomatic and was diagnosed as having an ulcer which was then
> confirmed by
> an MD. Another example of how you want to convince others that these
> alternative therapies are on the up and up by adding confirmatory
> claims.

> If you don't want to be called a liar then I suggest that you stop
> lying.

> > And what is that point. If you present an anecdote and I ask if you>
> have

> confirmatory information for the diagnosis such as a {*filter*} test> or
> xray or
> biopsy then simply answer yes or no. Don't try to make up stuff to make
> your
> story more credible. It does not

...

read more »



Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:21:36 GMT
 Kelly Lied, Talena Lied, Connie Lied, Atlas Lied, Stevie Lie, Jan Lied

Quote:


> Probably the best way to debunk these claims is to demonstrate that
the
> person making the claim is lying.

> ===========

> And Richard H Jacobson badgered and {*filter*}stalked everyone of them,
and
> Rich nuked his posts. This will explain why.

> (Rich is foaming at the mouth because I found all these posts in
others
> posts.)

> *I accused Kelly of lying about having {*filter*} cancer and
> being cured by chelation and pycnogenol. This is a quite remarkable
> claim and her response were vague, evasive, and contradictory.*

> *It is frustrating isn't it Talena to not have others believe in YOUR
> reality.*


> >Unsubstantiated opinion???? How do you figure

> (Undocumented.  Everything else is hearsay.  Even what is written in
> the NGis
> hearsay until the facts back it up.   People can form *opinions*
based
> on these
> comments, but we don't know if the information is accurate until we
see
> the
> documents.  My *opinion* is that Kelly is telling the truth.  I
believe
> her.
> Your *opinion* is that she is not.  But that's all

theseare--opinions.)

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >*These are *facts* that are not disputed.*

> ( These are not *facts*.  They are hearsay unless you see her file.)

> >*I don't need to look at her file to know that.*

> *she refuses to come clean to the newsgroup, I have decided not to
> waste
> my time >meeting her.OIC.*

> *I already decided she was not to be believed based on her posting
> OIC.*

> *There is NO question that she lied. She admitted that she lied.*

> *FACT?? It is your perception and not a fact although I realize that
> you think
> that if you believe something then it makes it true for everyone else
> too.*

> *The best that Kelly could say is that she "thought" that she had
> {*filter*} cancer
> but the doctor never told her so.*

> ****I certainly don't try to cram my paradigm down others' throats by
> slyly
> belittling or devaluing their beliefs and statements, the way you
seem
> to be
> doing to mine.****

> *The scientific method is ONE way. Why don't you give us another way
to

> determine is someone's observation IS universally valid. Perhaps you
> believe
> that if YOU observe it then it is universally valid.  This is called
> universality by pathologic narcissism.*

> ***She's a liar she's a liar.*** She makes up stuff about pycnogenol
> curing
> cancer she didn't have."  **

> *She read research, ***but doesn't mail it to me*** so she didn't do
> the
> research either.*

> *I heard Kelly say a lot of things. And IMO she, and I
> am being VERY kind, is not being

>  **completely honest**

> about it. Or did not YOU read THOSE things??? Seems like you have
> selective
> reading.*

> ***It does more to indicate what kind of person you are than
> anything.**

> ***It is true that I accused Kelly of lying about having {*filter*}
cancer
> and
> being cured by chelation and pycnogenol.*****

> *This is a quite remarkable claim and her response were vague,
evasive,
> and
> contradictory. If it is difficult for you to believe that someone
died
> as a
> result of rejecting conventional care since it seems like such

> ***an outrageous claim***

> (I mean NO ONE dies from doing this do they)then I don'tknow what to
> tell you.I
> mean... you don't believe Kelly had {*filter*} cancer, or I am married,

> No I believe you are married. I also believe that your husband has
> hypertension.

> ***And I also think I have some insigh tinto why he has hypertension.
> High
> stress can cause high {*filter*} pressure. Somehow I have af eeling that
> your
> husband has stress in his life. I don't know from where because

> ****it is clear that it is not coming from you since you have
> demonstrated such
> empathy, compassion and caring for your fellow human being. His
stress
> must be
> from elsewhere.***

> It does seem as if you are coming apart at the seams:-)))

> *Did she ALSO tell you that she
> qualified showing t to me depending on what she thought of me when he
> met me.
> Based on her numerous contradictions and evasiveness as manifested on
> this
> newsgroup I determined that her

> ***credibility approaches zero***

> *** I don't trust Kelly AT ALL and I offered MUCH evidence for this
> perception.***
> ==
>   *I have decided it is a waste of time trying to discuss things with
> Connie.
> Several times I have confronted her with information that contradicts
> what she
> says and she just ignores it. It is very difficult for Connie to be
> direct when
> she realizes that she is wrong. When she realizes she is wrong she
goes
> into
> her sarcastic, avoidant or play mode. We have seen her behavior over
> and over
> again. But what fascinates me the most is how no one calls Connie to
> task over
> this stuff except me. For the first time Karuna is encouraging>Connie
> to answer
> me but Karuna fails to tell Connie that it is WRONG to claim someone
> had skin
> cancer without biopsy and WRONG to avoid saying it is wrong even when
> confronted with the facts.

> But Connie is Connie. What can I say.

> I simpy asked the question of what makes you think that you have
> problem with
> digestive enzymes (and instead of answering you just launched an ad
> hominem).

> You consider THAT interrogation??? Perhaps your psychologic problems
> are
> deeper than I thought.

> Or are we just supposed to accept every anecdote that you present
here
> at face
> value and not ask ANY questions that might help to evaluate the
> anecdote for
> its reliability and validity??

> With all due respect Connie, you seem VERY defensive.

> You see Connie it is YOU who you are really trying to convince that
> these
> alternative treatments are working. If you stopped believing them
then
> your
> anxiety about getting ill in the future would likely be so
overwhelming
> as to
> be intolerable.

> > So what was your point Connie?? I asked a question and you state
that
> you are

> not used to interrogation and then add a smiley. So perhaps you could
> seriously
>  explain why you chose not to answer simple question which was very
> reasonable
> and instead give an ad hominem.

> >  Perhaps you can answer it seriously without the smiley. Or are you
> really

> NOT interested in a discussion about alternative health and just into
> posting
> anecdotes and then dancing around attempts to further explore the
> anecdote
> through questions that could clarify points that were not clear.

> >> But do you notice that there always seems to be enough information
> for YOU

> to come to conclusions such as:

> >> !) Your son being successfully treated with pancreatic glandulars
> for a

> life threatening pancreatic disorder

> >> 2) The you were successfully treated with "adrenal support" for
> adrenal

> insufficiency.>>

> In both of the above anecdotal experiences that you personally had,
you
> did NOT
> have enough information to really assert either of those statements.
> And yet
> you did. But when I attempt through questions to> get more
information
> about
> the situations I am met with resistance, defensiveness and sarcasm or
> outright
> lies. You say that you would like to discuss but your behavior is not
> consistent with this statement.

> It does not have to lead to liar chants. Of course when it is obvious
> that you
> are lying then it is difficult to resist.

> > You see Connie I realize that  you clearly are anxious about your
> health and

> want to believe that these alternative treatments are going to help
> prevent
> serious illnesses in the future.

> > In order to convince yourself that your hope is true you seem to
add
> bits of

> information that will support your contention. However your bits of
> information
> often indicate that you are not telling the truth.

> No. You just made up the part about the {*filter*} test to make your
> anecdote more
> credible. But it backfired since the whole story is preposterous.

> > And this is why you are reluctant to NOW give details when I ask. I
> have

> already exposed your lies. Perhaps now you realize that it is>better
to
> just
> attack conventional medicine and make ad hominem arguements instead
of
> answering simple questions that would help to understand what we are
> dealing
> with. You probably realize that if you give honest answers to my
> questions that
> I will be able to> successfully debunk your claims. And because it is
> so
> important for you to have hope that these treatments work in order to
> reduce
> your anxiety about your future health, you must at all costs stop me
> from
> debunking you successfully.

> > That is where the lying, ad hominems or unreasonable attacks on
> conventional

> medicine come in.

> > Just as  you made up the story about your 14 year old nephew who
was

> asymptomatic and was diagnosed as having an ulcer which was then
> confirmed by
> an MD. Another example of how you want to convince others that these
> alternative therapies are on the up and up by adding confirmatory
> claims.

> If you don't want to be called a liar then I suggest that you stop
> lying.

> > And what is that point. If you present an anecdote and I ask if
you>
> have

> confirmatory information for the diagnosis such as a {*filter*} test> or
> xray or
> biopsy then simply answer yes or no. Don't try to make up stuff to
make
> your
> story more credible. It does not work because you are clearly no
> sophisticated
> enough to make up a good story. This is>quite clear from the many
> stories that
> you have already told.

> > But I really do understand your anxiety about your future health
and
> your

> need to really believe all these alternative remedies that you take
are
> going
> to protect you. And I understand your need to convince yourself it is

...

read more »



Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:11:26 GMT
 
 [ 3 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Martian lying in my face again: www.drugawareness.org and lying (SS)RI addicts

2. live doctors do lie and dead doctors don't lie

3. Lies, Damned Lies and CDC Autism Statistics

4. Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

5. Joel Eichen REPEATED lies, W_B repeats the lie

6. Lying Lyme Liar Lies More

7. Olbermann in Lying- Video (Joel and Ed, pay attention to the *cowardly* aspect of LYING)

8. Lying, incompetent CDC creeps blame the states (because CDC lied to them about everything)

9. LYING ISRAELI FAIRY ALERT--- Kristol's more delicate lies in NYT


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software