Re: PEARL ADMITS IT THE LIST IS CORRECT!!!

farrell77 wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, 26 for 26 is pretty fucking solid, if I say so myself.
> > >
> > > Not if it's grossly inaccurate.
> >
> > It isn't grossly inaccurate. ...
>
> That's yet for you to show.  I just posted my analysis of
> your defense for the list.

Jonathan has kindly responded. Those "rants" you deride are based on 
some very longstanding admissions. See also Lesley's own replies about 
each matter. Do you honestly think I'd make up crap about inner earth 
beings? When asked about it, she offered "proof" (haha!):

pearl> http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
pearl> A freak effect of sunlight on the lens, of course.  <s>

> [...]
> > > > Yes, as usual. He did say he was leaving or something. ...
> > >
> > > Not "or something".
> >
> > You only said you'd be gone, putz. You didn't say where you were going,
> > how long you'd be gone, etc. ...
>
> I said I wouldn't be back until late last week.

Oh, okay then (lol).

> > ...I didn't ask. I did note that the list
> > would be documented that weekend regardless. I kept my word.
> >
> >
> > > I travel frequently on business.
> >
> > That's awfully special.
> >
> >
> > > When I'm on
> > > the road, I seldom have many opportunities to follow newsgroups.
> >
> > So?
> >
> >
> > > When I return, there's usually a huge stack of action items to catch up
> > > on at work and home.  So my posting is necessarily somewhat
> > > irregular.  If you have a problem with that, too bad for you.
> >
> > *I* didn't have a problem with it until you decided to post this big
> > rant about it. ...
>
> It wasn't a rant.  I just supplied some info in response to
> Jon's claim that I had whiffed off.  If you don't care about
> it, fine.  No need to go off the deep end.
>
> You're weird.

Oh yeah? Who's defending someone who believes in inner earth beings and 
is agnostic on the subject of leprechauns? I may be weird, but that only 
makes you weirdER.

> [...]
> > ...I lived up to my end of the bargain. I showed that all
> > but a couple of those points are accurate. While you were gone, she
> > treated us to her own apologia for her weird beliefs. Please read her
> > posts and see where -- and how little -- she actually objects to any of
> > the valid points.
> >
> >
> > > > ...I'll be here to
> > > > rub his face in it when he returns.
> > >
> > > In what?
> >
> > In the truth, which you questioned.
>
> In the list I asked you to defend.

It's done, Bob.

> > > I ask for you to defend *your* list and you can't
> > > handle that simple request.  Tough.
> >
> > I did. Look at her response: she documented her crummy beliefs with
> > other links; she only took exception to a couple points. How do you like
> > your crow, Bob?
>
> Okay she took exception to two points?  Are those the same two
> that Jon called fanciful?  If so, then by your count, you're at 23 of
> 26?

One is corrected. I also don't believe her about the part involving her 
marriage; should that ever need correction, I stand ready to replace it 
with other silly beliefs (like her use the other day of a source which 
sells books like "How to Find a Psychic"). As difficult as it is for me 
to take the word of a skinhead (her ex), it's easier than taking the 
word of someone so naive and gullible that she posts crap about inner 
earth beings and the Zapper. Keep on defending her, Bob. It's very amusing.