To all groups cross-posted
The putative Mr. Ueland is spamming all of these news groups from a
domain based in Oslo called Janco Multi. In line with his gross
crossposting, and his support of known false materiel, I would be fairly
certain that "Multi" stands for "Multi level Marketing".
If he were for real, he would not be filling the bandwidth, just posting
to one newsgroup at a time.
This post is across all, so be sure to remove all of the crosspostings
if you feel it is necessary to answer me (or just discuss my post on
your group) If you just hit <reply>, or <reply all> on your newsreader,
you may create unwanted cross posts. Unless I find out something
extremely interesting, I will only post replies to individuals, or on
single NG's which I follow.
Fight SPAM and fraud !!!
> "Haakon Rian Ueland" <tunesmith.NO at SPAM.email.com>
> sci.med, sci.med.pharmacy, misc.health.alternative, misc.health.diabetes, sci.med.diseases.cancer, rec.running,
> rec.food.cooking, rec.sport.triathlon, soc.support.depression, rec.sport.swimming, bionet.neuroscience,
> sci.med.diseases-lyme, sci.med.transcription, sci-bi
> <36D4B4FF.EA6B3D2 at earthlink.net> <36D58B5E.4446877C at mr.picker.com>
> <7b4gi5$cdd$1 at nw003t.infi.net> <36D5EB2D.66CC at usa.net> <7b4ptu$abc$1 at news-2.news.gte.net>
> Re: Brief summary of aspartame toxicity studies 2.24.99
> Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:48:19 +0100
> Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
> Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
> <36d731c1.0 at news.jancomulti.com>
> 27 Feb 1999 00:44:01 +0100, 184.108.40.206
> news-read1.qis.net sci.med:240273 sci.med.pharmacy:62775 misc.health.alternative:149486
> misc.health.diabetes:113981 sci.med.diseases.cancer:31594 rec.running:127996 rec.food.cooking:505766
> rec.sport.triathlon:95247 rec.sport.swimming:46643 bionet.neuroscience:25267 sci.med.transcription:72271
>>>>> Let me tell you, Dave: there has never been performed a double-blind study
> which has confirmed that falling from the roof on a skyscraper onto the
> pavement will kill you. Never. Therefore, this belief that falling a few
> hundred meters without a parachute is purely anecdotal, and there is no
> for you to regard it at all.
>> Seriously, this scientific view which seems to be that things aren't so
> until it has been thoroughly tested seems silly and immature. When I
> experience something on my own body, I believe it. When I read of research
> saying this and that, I usually find quite a few flaws in their reasoning
> and deductions, consider that fully _10%_ of norwegian scientists have
> admitted to cheating during scientific tests - and stay sceptical.
> Dave Bugg wrote in message <7b4ptu$abc$1 at news-2.news.gte.net>...
> >Melinda Meahan wrote in message <36D5EB2D.66CC at usa.net>...
> >>Well, it affects me, and I have stopped using it. I know of three or
> >>four other people off the top of my head that it has also affected. In
> >>my book, that makes it no longer anecdotal.
> >It doesn't matter whether or not it's in your book, in your mind or in
> >opinion; anecdotal is anecdotal. The definition doesn't change to fit