Group: sci.med.diseases.lyme
Lyme Disease: patient support, research & information.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Spinning and distorting the truth
Spinning and distorting the truth
"We have been so lucky that AG Blumenthal made his statement about the
IDSA corruption"...
What?
Where?
I missed that one. can ANYONE show me where AG Blumenthal spoke of
"IDSA corruption"?
Huh?
See what I mean?
In my opinion, this is distorting, spinning, the specific language
used... to the point of outright prevarication.
Now...I ask...who is it, really, who is LYING to people?
=========================================================================
Please distribute:
Hi folks,
The protest outside of Congressman Frank Pallone's office in Long
Branch NJ on May 7th could mark an historic moment in Lyme rights.
We have been so lucky that AG Blumenthal made his statement about the
IDSA corruption just before this protest. This will give us media
coverage and validation as we protest for passage of HR 741 - the bill
that would get us some research money for a cure.
But, as some of you know, the IDSA PR machine has gone into action to
twist AG Blumenthal's decision. By the time this PR is finished
they'll make it sound as if Blumenthal has given them an award for
honesty.
Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons that
IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme
patients have wanted.
Remember that the reason that Pallone has refused to put HR 741, the
bill that includes research money for a cure, on the calendar for a
hearing is that the IDSA has lobbied him to stop our bill.
So we have to build on Blumenthal's statement before the IDSA PR
machine covers it over with so much b.s.
We have to get out there on May 7th and push Pallone to put HR 741 on
the calendar for a hearing. Now that Blumenthal has made us newsworthy
we have a chance of a lot of media coverage. So let's show them how
many people want a cure.
Go to w w w .lymerights.org and sign up for the rally. Sign up is
important partly to let media know how many people are coming.
Ellen
"We have been so lucky that AG Blumenthal made his statement about the
IDSA corruption"...
What?
Where?
I missed that one. can ANYONE show me where AG Blumenthal spoke of
"IDSA corruption"?
Huh?
See what I mean?
In my opinion, this is distorting, spinning, the specific language
used... to the point of outright prevarication.
Now...I ask...who is it, really, who is LYING to people?
=========================================================================
Please distribute:
Hi folks,
The protest outside of Congressman Frank Pallone's office in Long
Branch NJ on May 7th could mark an historic moment in Lyme rights.
We have been so lucky that AG Blumenthal made his statement about the
IDSA corruption just before this protest. This will give us media
coverage and validation as we protest for passage of HR 741 - the bill
that would get us some research money for a cure.
But, as some of you know, the IDSA PR machine has gone into action to
twist AG Blumenthal's decision. By the time this PR is finished
they'll make it sound as if Blumenthal has given them an award for
honesty.
Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons that
IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme
patients have wanted.
Remember that the reason that Pallone has refused to put HR 741, the
bill that includes research money for a cure, on the calendar for a
hearing is that the IDSA has lobbied him to stop our bill.
So we have to build on Blumenthal's statement before the IDSA PR
machine covers it over with so much b.s.
We have to get out there on May 7th and push Pallone to put HR 741 on
the calendar for a hearing. Now that Blumenthal has made us newsworthy
we have a chance of a lot of media coverage. So let's show them how
many people want a cure.
Go to w w w .lymerights.org and sign up for the rally. Sign up is
important partly to let media know how many people are coming.
Ellen
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 12:28 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
"Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons
that
IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme
patients have wanted".
IT DID WHAT?
WHERE does it say ANYTHING like that?
On May 5, 12:28 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
"Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons
that
IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme
patients have wanted".
IT DID WHAT?
WHERE does it say ANYTHING like that?
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 12:28 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> "Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons
> that
> IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme
> patients have wanted".
>
> IT DID WHAT?
>
> WHERE does it say ANYTHING like that?
Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it. I
don't know much about law, but you 3rd may shed some more light on
that issue? . If that's the case maybe we can just start to raise
money to cover for the legal expenses?
On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 12:28 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> "Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons
> that
> IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme
> patients have wanted".
>
> IT DID WHAT?
>
> WHERE does it say ANYTHING like that?
Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it. I
don't know much about law, but you 3rd may shed some more light on
that issue? . If that's the case maybe we can just start to raise
money to cover for the legal expenses?
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 1:03 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
> On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 12:28 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > "Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons
> > that
> > IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme=
> > patients have wanted".
>
> > IT DID WHAT?
>
> > WHERE does it say ANYTHING like that?
>
> Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
> sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it. I
> don't know much about law, but you 3rd may shed some more light on
> that issue? . If that's the case maybe we can just start to raise
> money to cover for the legal expenses?
Well, if I remember correctly, under the circumstances presented here,
it is theoretically possible that a defamation suit could be brought.
Even though an individual was not referred to by name...the names of
the members of the IDSA panel are known with enough specificity that
the charge of "corruption" could probably be attributed to all, and
one, alone could, therefore sue. (Nieman-Marcus case, I think, laid
out the underlying principle...)...
...anyway...yes, probably unlikely that something like that would
happen as you say.
But...in situations like this where there is a high profile
settlement...there is, customarily, a sort of understanding that the
settlement is somewhat politically-charged and fragile and that the
parties wish to preserve it. Usually a sort of gentleman's agreement
not to "diss" each other in public, but to keep the peace and make
nice in front of the cameras.
Damn...if I were in the shoes of the IDSA counsel right now...I would
really be horrendously pissed off at the fairly blatant attempts to
twist this thing around to smear my clients.
And I am getting reallly pised off, myself...I just have the strange
feeling that I don't deserve to be LIED to.
On May 5, 1:03 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
> On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 12:28 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > "Remember that Blumenthal's statement said that one of the reasons
> > that
> > IDSA had developed these guidelines was to stop legislation that Lyme=
> > patients have wanted".
>
> > IT DID WHAT?
>
> > WHERE does it say ANYTHING like that?
>
> Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
> sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it. I
> don't know much about law, but you 3rd may shed some more light on
> that issue? . If that's the case maybe we can just start to raise
> money to cover for the legal expenses?
Well, if I remember correctly, under the circumstances presented here,
it is theoretically possible that a defamation suit could be brought.
Even though an individual was not referred to by name...the names of
the members of the IDSA panel are known with enough specificity that
the charge of "corruption" could probably be attributed to all, and
one, alone could, therefore sue. (Nieman-Marcus case, I think, laid
out the underlying principle...)...
...anyway...yes, probably unlikely that something like that would
happen as you say.
But...in situations like this where there is a high profile
settlement...there is, customarily, a sort of understanding that the
settlement is somewhat politically-charged and fragile and that the
parties wish to preserve it. Usually a sort of gentleman's agreement
not to "diss" each other in public, but to keep the peace and make
nice in front of the cameras.
Damn...if I were in the shoes of the IDSA counsel right now...I would
really be horrendously pissed off at the fairly blatant attempts to
twist this thing around to smear my clients.
And I am getting reallly pised off, myself...I just have the strange
feeling that I don't deserve to be LIED to.
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 1:03 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
> On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
> sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it.
Defamation of a Group?
To be a defamatory statement, a statement must be reasonably
understood to refer to a particular plaintiff. A large group of people
cannot be legally defamed, because a false statement made about a
large group of people cannot be reasonably understood to refer to a
particular plaintiff. Simply put, if a false statement is made about a
large group (e.g., "all politicians are liars"), it cannot be
reasonably determined who in particular is being referred to. Almost
any statement can be true of some members of a large group. As a
result, a statement about a large group is viewed as an expression of
an opinion and not a statement of fact.
A small group of people can be legally defamed, because a false
statement made about a small group of people can be reasonably
understood to refer to each member of the group.
Neiman-Marcus v. Lait
A defamation lawsuit was decided in 1952 wherein the defendants wrote
a book that stated that most of the 25 salesmen at a particular store
were "fairies" and that most of the 382 saleswomen at the store were
"prostitutes." The court ruled that the 25 salesmen could sue for
defamation, because the statement that they were "fairies" could be
defamatory as to each salesman. The court ruled that the 382
saleswomen could not sue for defamation, because the statement that
they were "prostitutes" could not be defamatory as to each saleswoman.
What mattered was the size of each group, not what was said about
them.
On May 5, 1:03 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
> On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
> sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it.
Defamation of a Group?
To be a defamatory statement, a statement must be reasonably
understood to refer to a particular plaintiff. A large group of people
cannot be legally defamed, because a false statement made about a
large group of people cannot be reasonably understood to refer to a
particular plaintiff. Simply put, if a false statement is made about a
large group (e.g., "all politicians are liars"), it cannot be
reasonably determined who in particular is being referred to. Almost
any statement can be true of some members of a large group. As a
result, a statement about a large group is viewed as an expression of
an opinion and not a statement of fact.
A small group of people can be legally defamed, because a false
statement made about a small group of people can be reasonably
understood to refer to each member of the group.
Neiman-Marcus v. Lait
A defamation lawsuit was decided in 1952 wherein the defendants wrote
a book that stated that most of the 25 salesmen at a particular store
were "fairies" and that most of the 382 saleswomen at the store were
"prostitutes." The court ruled that the 25 salesmen could sue for
defamation, because the statement that they were "fairies" could be
defamatory as to each salesman. The court ruled that the 382
saleswomen could not sue for defamation, because the statement that
they were "prostitutes" could not be defamatory as to each saleswoman.
What mattered was the size of each group, not what was said about
them.
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 3:07 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 1:03 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
> > sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it.
>
> Defamation of a Group?
> To be a defamatory statement, a statement must be reasonably
> understood to refer to a particular plaintiff. A large group of people
> cannot be legally defamed, because a false statement made about a
> large group of people cannot be reasonably understood to refer to a
> particular plaintiff. Simply put, if a false statement is made about a
> large group (e.g., "all politicians are liars"), it cannot be
> reasonably determined who in particular is being referred to. Almost
> any statement can be true of some members of a large group. As a
> result, a statement about a large group is viewed as an expression of
> an opinion and not a statement of fact.
>
> A small group of people can be legally defamed, because a false
> statement made about a small group of people can be reasonably
> understood to refer to each member of the group.
>
> Neiman-Marcus v. Lait
> A defamation lawsuit was decided in 1952 wherein the defendants wrote
> a book that stated that most of the 25 salesmen at a particular store
> were "fairies" and that most of the 382 saleswomen at the store were
> "prostitutes." The court ruled that the 25 salesmen could sue for
> defamation, because the statement that they were "fairies" could be
> defamatory as to each salesman. The court ruled that the 382
> saleswomen could not sue for defamation, because the statement that
> they were "prostitutes" could not be defamatory as to each saleswoman.
> What mattered was the size of each group, not what was said about
> them.
Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. Something new I have learned
today. Like always, thanks for your comments in this site.
On May 5, 3:07 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 1:03 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 10:37 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > Funny now, is that in my opinion they are just giving the IDSA ammo to
> > sue for defamation, even though I highly doubt they would do it.
>
> Defamation of a Group?
> To be a defamatory statement, a statement must be reasonably
> understood to refer to a particular plaintiff. A large group of people
> cannot be legally defamed, because a false statement made about a
> large group of people cannot be reasonably understood to refer to a
> particular plaintiff. Simply put, if a false statement is made about a
> large group (e.g., "all politicians are liars"), it cannot be
> reasonably determined who in particular is being referred to. Almost
> any statement can be true of some members of a large group. As a
> result, a statement about a large group is viewed as an expression of
> an opinion and not a statement of fact.
>
> A small group of people can be legally defamed, because a false
> statement made about a small group of people can be reasonably
> understood to refer to each member of the group.
>
> Neiman-Marcus v. Lait
> A defamation lawsuit was decided in 1952 wherein the defendants wrote
> a book that stated that most of the 25 salesmen at a particular store
> were "fairies" and that most of the 382 saleswomen at the store were
> "prostitutes." The court ruled that the 25 salesmen could sue for
> defamation, because the statement that they were "fairies" could be
> defamatory as to each salesman. The court ruled that the 382
> saleswomen could not sue for defamation, because the statement that
> they were "prostitutes" could not be defamatory as to each saleswoman.
> What mattered was the size of each group, not what was said about
> them.
Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. Something new I have learned
today. Like always, thanks for your comments in this site.
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 5:24 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
> Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. Something new I have learned
> today. Like always, thanks for your comments in this site.-
Thanks very much!
And I certainly enjoyed your brief stint over at LymeNUT.
Did you get banned, yet?
They really don't have much of a sense of humor about themselves over
there...
On May 5, 5:24 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
> Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. Something new I have learned
> today. Like always, thanks for your comments in this site.-
Thanks very much!
And I certainly enjoyed your brief stint over at LymeNUT.
Did you get banned, yet?
They really don't have much of a sense of humor about themselves over
there...
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 5, 10:21 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 5:24 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. Something new I have learned
> > today. Like always, thanks for your comments in this site.-
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> And I certainly enjoyed your brief stint over at LymeNUT.
>
> Did you get banned, yet?
>
> They really don't have much of a sense of humor about themselves over
> there...
Yep, got banned within that day, apparently they were paging the
moderators out of desperation before the newbies could read it. Man if
the IDSA really has jobs for people to go into lymenet to "confuse"
people and conspire against them, I may apply for the job (I can work
from home). I'm not sure, but probably that post has to be on the top
10 most hated ever. Even BettyG posted another thread so that people
wouldn't even open it (I mean it was actually fear). I posted it
initially as a link in the lymenet europe (I respect a lot of people
in that site and it wasn't meant against them) but after a while
somebody reposted it and then I went and did an updating of the
guidelines (ok maybe too much), but I appreciate that some people
there were actually open to discuss my point of view and perhaps have
a more realistic picture of what we can expect from the settlement.
There is a response by minitails, if you read it, you'll see how
irrational she is (or maybe too emotional), that I feel is pointless
to answer it. I'll take it down soon, I don't really want to upset
people (some of them were actually able to see the humor in it).
On May 5, 10:21 pm, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 5:24 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Interesting stuff, thanks for the reply. Something new I have learned
> > today. Like always, thanks for your comments in this site.-
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> And I certainly enjoyed your brief stint over at LymeNUT.
>
> Did you get banned, yet?
>
> They really don't have much of a sense of humor about themselves over
> there...
Yep, got banned within that day, apparently they were paging the
moderators out of desperation before the newbies could read it. Man if
the IDSA really has jobs for people to go into lymenet to "confuse"
people and conspire against them, I may apply for the job (I can work
from home). I'm not sure, but probably that post has to be on the top
10 most hated ever. Even BettyG posted another thread so that people
wouldn't even open it (I mean it was actually fear). I posted it
initially as a link in the lymenet europe (I respect a lot of people
in that site and it wasn't meant against them) but after a while
somebody reposted it and then I went and did an updating of the
guidelines (ok maybe too much), but I appreciate that some people
there were actually open to discuss my point of view and perhaps have
a more realistic picture of what we can expect from the settlement.
There is a response by minitails, if you read it, you'll see how
irrational she is (or maybe too emotional), that I feel is pointless
to answer it. I'll take it down soon, I don't really want to upset
people (some of them were actually able to see the humor in it).
Re: Spinning and distorting the truth
On May 6, 2:17 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
> > Did you get banned, yet?
>
>
> Yep, got banned within that day, apparently they were paging the
> moderators out of desperation before the newbies could read it.
That might be a new record over there, in the non-spam, non-porn
categories.
Man if
> the IDSA really has jobs for people to go into lymenet to "confuse"
> people and conspire against them, I may apply for the job (I can work
> from home).
Why waste the money? They do such an outstanding job with no help from
anyone.
I'm not sure, but probably that post has to be on the top
> 10 most hated ever.
I have noticed that they tend to react negatively to ideas (intruders)
that the entire colony doesn't support. Like one big, e-ant farm.
Even BettyG posted another thread so that people
> wouldn't even open it (I mean it was actually fear).
I hope to hell she put enough spaces in there so neurolymies could
read it. She is awfully inensitive about that.
I posted it
> initially as a link in the lymenet europe (I respect a lot of people
> in that site and it wasn't meant against them) ...
Yeah. The top of the class is now over there, it seems...
On May 6, 2:17 pm, chronichel...@yahoo . com wrote:
> > Did you get banned, yet?
>
>
> Yep, got banned within that day, apparently they were paging the
> moderators out of desperation before the newbies could read it.
That might be a new record over there, in the non-spam, non-porn
categories.
Man if
> the IDSA really has jobs for people to go into lymenet to "confuse"
> people and conspire against them, I may apply for the job (I can work
> from home).
Why waste the money? They do such an outstanding job with no help from
anyone.
I'm not sure, but probably that post has to be on the top
> 10 most hated ever.
I have noticed that they tend to react negatively to ideas (intruders)
that the entire colony doesn't support. Like one big, e-ant farm.
Even BettyG posted another thread so that people
> wouldn't even open it (I mean it was actually fear).
I hope to hell she put enough spaces in there so neurolymies could
read it. She is awfully inensitive about that.
I posted it
> initially as a link in the lymenet europe (I respect a lot of people
> in that site and it wasn't meant against them) ...
Yeah. The top of the class is now over there, it seems...
