From: pautrey on
On Aug 6, 7:27 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:11:33 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, "Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> B." <.@.> wrote:
> >"carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:coO6o.2685$FH2.1508(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>
> >> "Peter B." <.@.> wrote in messagenews:4c5bab51(a)news.x-privat.org...
> >>> Yes, Google censors others in the U.S.A and prevents readers or poster
> >>> from access to MHA because it does not meet Google's terms. Google does
> >>> not control the Usenet. Who dies and left them ruler of the Usenet?
>
> >> Google isn't usenet ...mha isn't banned, just google version.
> >> I suppose we'll never know the real truth behind what actually broke the
> >> TOS rules --the spammer, Jan Drew with her naming and shaming, or others
> >> who bagged pharmaceuticals etc., other?
> >> Wait and see what happens with sci.med which is being heavily bombarded by
> >> the spammer at the moment.
>
> >> carole
>
> >Google has Google groups and then they carry the Usenet. They do make a
> >distinction but in this case they are attempting to treat it a one of their
> >groups, which it isn't. They try very hard to control a free enterprise and
> >there is your money connection. If they keep on acting as they do then
> >anything you read on Usenet, especially via their reader they have just
> >assumed authority and responsibility for it. Never before could you sue a
> >server service and win, free speech and all that, but now it seems that
> >Google wants to pay you for your suffering.
>
> >While Janet did not have a whole lot of money, Google does. Janet listed
> >"the gang", now "the gang" can start talks with Google? Who knows, but that
> >is the direction they are headed. They could have simply dropped the group
> >like any Usenet server for no reason, but they did not. ;)
>
> Jan was so nice she when to another group and posted her list. What
> she did was give the complainant even more evidence against google
> and their abuser.
>
> Weeks ago when Ed Falk made his appearance, it was an announcement
> the big guns were watching.
>
> See what has happened is Google removed the group but the abuser went
> some where else and started posting the same abuse.
>
> "Grep" is our friend is seem.
>
> Unix users can use grep to search the entire whole of usenet for a
> single phrase.
>
> Kibo lives!
>
> --
> Bob Officer
> Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au

That group, like most/all Google groups, sucked anyway.

Good riddance.

Now you and the rest of your kind can crawl back in your holes.
From: Jan Drew on
On Aug 6, 8:27 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:11:33 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, "Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> B." <.@.> wrote:
> >"carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:coO6o.2685$FH2.1508(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>
> >> "Peter B." <.@.> wrote in messagenews:4c5bab51(a)news.x-privat.org...
> >>> Yes, Google censors others in the U.S.A and prevents readers or poster
> >>> from access to MHA because it does not meet Google's terms. Google does
> >>> not control the Usenet. Who dies and left them ruler of the Usenet?
>
> >> Google isn't usenet ...mha isn't banned, just google version.
> >> I suppose we'll never know the real truth behind what actually broke the
> >> TOS rules --the spammer, Jan Drew with her naming and shaming, or others
> >> who bagged pharmaceuticals etc., other?
> >> Wait and see what happens with sci.med which is being heavily bombarded by
> >> the spammer at the moment.
>
> >> carole
>
> >Google has Google groups and then they carry the Usenet. They do make a
> >distinction but in this case they are attempting to treat it a one of their
> >groups, which it isn't. They try very hard to control a free enterprise and
> >there is your money connection. If they keep on acting as they do then
> >anything you read on Usenet, especially via their reader they have just
> >assumed authority and responsibility for it. Never before could you sue a
> >server service and win, free speech and all that, but now it seems that
> >Google wants to pay you for your suffering.
>
> >While Janet did not have a whole lot of money, Google does. Janet listed
> >"the gang", now "the gang" can start talks with Google? Who knows, but that
> >is the direction they are headed. They could have simply dropped the group
> >like any Usenet server for no reason, but they did not. ;)
>
> Jan was so nice she when to another group and posted her list. What
> she did was give the complainant even more evidence against google
> and their abuser.

Google Censors Usenet Group 8/05/2010 It banned
misc.health.alternative from all its users.

Thanks for showing your dishonest.
From: pautrey on
On Aug 6, 11:17 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:08:31 -0700 (PDT), in misc.kids.health, pautrey
>
>
>
>
>
> <rpa20...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 6, 7:27 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:11:33 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, "Peter
>
> >> B." <.@.> wrote:
> >> >"carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >> >news:coO6o.2685$FH2.1508(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>
> >> >> "Peter B." <.@.> wrote in messagenews:4c5bab51(a)news.x-privat.org...
> >> >>> Yes, Google censors others in the U.S.A and prevents readers or poster
> >> >>> from access to MHA because it does not meet Google's terms. Google does
> >> >>> not control the Usenet. Who dies and left them ruler of the Usenet?
>
> >> >> Google isn't usenet ...mha isn't banned, just google version.
> >> >> I suppose we'll never know the real truth behind what actually broke the
> >> >> TOS rules --the spammer, Jan Drew with her naming and shaming, or others
> >> >> who bagged pharmaceuticals etc., other?
> >> >> Wait and see what happens with sci.med which is being heavily bombarded by
> >> >> the spammer at the moment.
>
> >> >> carole
>
> >> >Google has Google groups and then they carry the Usenet. They do make a
> >> >distinction but in this case they are attempting to treat it a one of their
> >> >groups, which it isn't. They try very hard to control a free enterprise and
> >> >there is your money connection. If they keep on acting as they do then
> >> >anything you read on Usenet, especially via their reader they have just
> >> >assumed authority and responsibility for it. Never before could you sue a
> >> >server service and win, free speech and all that, but now it seems that
> >> >Google wants to pay you for your suffering.
>
> >> >While Janet did not have a whole lot of money, Google does. Janet listed
> >> >"the gang", now "the gang" can start talks with Google? Who knows, but that
> >> >is the direction they are headed. They could have simply dropped the group
> >> >like any Usenet server for no reason, but they did not. ;)
>
> >> Jan was so nice she when to another group and posted her list. What
> >> she did was give the complainant even more evidence against google
> >> and their abuser.
>
> >> Weeks ago when Ed Falk made his appearance, it was an announcement
> >> the big guns were watching.
>
> >> See what has happened is Google removed the group but the abuser went
> >> some where else and started posting the same abuse.
>
> >> "Grep" is our friend is seem.
>
> >> Unix users can use grep to search the entire whole of usenet for a
> >> single phrase.
>
> >> Kibo lives!
> >That group, like most/all Google groups, sucked anyway.
>
> Lamebrain, it wasn't a google group it was never a google group it
> belongs to usenet.
>
> If it suck it was becuase of abusers like you and Jan Drew.
>
> >Good riddance.
>
> Nah. Since Jan Posted about me here, I'll be here as long as I wish.
>
> >Now you and the rest of your kind can crawl back in your holes.
>
> I don't think so. By the way Lame brain, I see you haven't stopped
> stealing copyright works. Abusers like you never stop, do they.
>
> --
> Ak'toh'di

-----------------------

FU!
From: Mark Probert on
On Aug 6, 11:49 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:27 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:11:33 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, "Peter
>
> > B." <.@.> wrote:
> > >"carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > >news:coO6o.2685$FH2.1508(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>
> > >> "Peter B." <.@.> wrote in messagenews:4c5bab51(a)news.x-privat.org...
> > >>> Yes, Google censors others in the U.S.A and prevents readers or poster
> > >>> from access to MHA because it does not meet Google's terms. Google does
> > >>> not control the Usenet. Who dies and left them ruler of the Usenet?
>
> > >> Google isn't usenet ...mha isn't banned, just google version.
> > >> I suppose we'll never know the real truth behind what actually broke the
> > >> TOS rules --the spammer, Jan Drew with her naming and shaming, or others
> > >> who bagged pharmaceuticals etc., other?
> > >> Wait and see what happens with sci.med which is being heavily bombarded by
> > >> the spammer at the moment.
>
> > >> carole
>
> > >Google has Google groups and then they carry the Usenet. They do make a
> > >distinction but in this case they are attempting to treat it a one of their
> > >groups, which it isn't. They try very hard to control a free enterprise and
> > >there is your money connection. If they keep on acting as they do then
> > >anything you read on Usenet, especially via their reader they have just
> > >assumed authority and responsibility for it. Never before could you sue a
> > >server service and win, free speech and all that, but now it seems that
> > >Google wants to pay you for your suffering.
>
> > >While Janet did not have a whole lot of money, Google does. Janet listed
> > >"the gang", now "the gang" can start talks with Google? Who knows, but that
> > >is the direction they are headed. They could have simply dropped the group
> > >like any Usenet server for no reason, but they did not. ;)
>
> > Jan was so nice she when to another group and posted her list. What
> > she did was give the complainant even more evidence against google
> > and their abuser.
>
> Google Censors Usenet Group 8/05/2010 It banned
> misc.health.alternative from all its users.
>
> Thanks for showing your dishonest.-

If you were literate, you would know that the word is *dishonesty*.
Sadly, you are a dys-functional illiterate.

From: pautrey on
On Aug 7, 12:40 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:25:31 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, David
>
>
>
>
>
> <m...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Bob Officer wrote:
> >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 07:45:11 -0500, in misc.kids.health, David
> >> <m...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> carole wrote:
> >>>> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote in message
> >>>>news:vjnp56df6uqaf1rh15dbjje62nhk293eg4(a)4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 20:49:03 -0700 (PDT), in misc.kids.health, Jan
> >>>>> Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Aug 6, 8:27 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:11:33 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, "Peter
>
> >>>>>>> B." <.@.> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "carole" <hubbca2...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:coO6o.2685$FH2.1508(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> >>>>>>>>> "Peter B." <.@.> wrote in messagenews:4c5bab51(a)news.x-privat.org...
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, Google censors others in the U.S.A and prevents readers or
> >>>>>>>>>> poster
> >>>>>>>>>> from access to MHA because it does not meet Google's terms. Google
> >>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>> not control the Usenet. Who dies and left them ruler of the Usenet?
> >>>>>>>>> Google isn't usenet ...mha isn't banned, just google version.
> >>>>>>>>> I suppose we'll never know the real truth behind what actually broke
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> TOS rules --the spammer, Jan Drew with her naming and shaming, or
> >>>>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>>>> who bagged pharmaceuticals etc., other?
> >>>>>>>>> Wait and see what happens with sci.med which is being heavily
> >>>>>>>>> bombarded by
> >>>>>>>>> the spammer at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>> carole
> >>>>>>>> Google has Google groups and then they carry the Usenet. They do make a
> >>>>>>>> distinction but in this case they are attempting to treat it a one of
> >>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>> groups, which it isn't. They try very hard to control a free enterprise
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> there is your money connection. If they keep on acting as they do then
> >>>>>>>> anything you read on Usenet, especially via their reader they have just
> >>>>>>>> assumed authority and responsibility for it. Never before could you sue
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> server service and win, free speech and all that, but now it seems that
> >>>>>>>> Google wants to pay you for your suffering.
> >>>>>>>> While Janet did not have a whole lot of money, Gt_gle does. Janet
> >>>>>>>> listed
> >>>>>>>> "the gang", now "the gan j can start talks with Google? Who knows, but
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> is the direction they are headed. They con\d have simply dropped the
> >>>>>>>> group
> >>>>>>>> like any Usenet server for no reason, but they did not. ;)
> >>>>>>> Jan was so nice she when to another group and posted her ïØst.. What  >>>>> she did was 0Qve the complainant even more evidence against google
> >>>>>>> and their abuser.
> >>>>>> Google Censors Usenet Group 8/05/2010 It banned
> >>>>>> misc.health.alternative from all its users.
>
> >>>>>> Thanks for showing your dishonest.
> >>>>> The only people censored were abusers like you, rpautrey and Andy
> >>>>> Chung, Jan. No one else is not posting.
> >>>> Yes, its so wonderful over here ...weather's beautiful.
>
> >>>>> Sucks big time to be you.
> >>>> Be nice.
> >>>> You know, I don't think that Jan's really gone at all ...not when we have
> >>>> the benefit of cross-posting.
> >>>> Hi Jan!
>
> >>>> carole
> >>>>www.conspiracee.com
>
> >>>>> BTW Google was notified of your abuse in this group as well.
>
> >>>>> IT won't be here long and it too will be gone.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ak'toh'di
>
> >>>  So... It looks like the injun knows a lot about this. Hmmm..... Whiny
> >>> tattletales are commonly beat up in school.
>
> >> David, you show you bigotry and your cowardice all in one little
> >> line.
>
> >  You are the one who posted some Indian stuff.
>
> Some "indian stuff", you mean my name?
>
> >As a way to garner respect?
>
> So using my name is a way to gain respect, in your book?
>
> >Seems that is a creative use of bigotry. I don't respect people
> >for their ancestry, and I hope for a day when people can get over their
> >   immature clinging to their race, wealth, number of kills as a
> >worthiness gauge. And believing that they have the answers to everything..
>
> I don't have the answer to everything. I happen to be proud of my
> heritages, both the white and the red.
>
> Do not mistake pride for bigotry.
>
> The Name  is a translated to one that sees. I see you, coward and
> bigot.
>
> --
> Bob Officer
> Posting the truthhttp://www.skeptics.com.au

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crybaby,

You're a Heinz 57 just as I am (Cherokee 1/16, Choctaw 1/16, French,
Irish, Scotch).
I would bet I am far more sympathetic towards native american causes
and know far
more about native culture than you do. Put that in your spoon and sip
it.