www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
"farrell77" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <..> > > For those of you not used to receiving "pearl's" cross-posts, here's a > > little background: > > > > To save a bit of time, I'm taking the posts in the other thread which > > outline "pearl's" kooky beliefs. I'm using Kevin's response to Bob as > > the main outline. > > > > Thanks to Kevin (remarks prefaced with KDB below) and Jon (whose > > engagements in "debate" with her are signified by JB*) for addressing > > certain issues (my own comments and notes are marked with US). Should > > anyone need any further clarification or proof, simply ask or do your > > own search of Google's archives under the word and any of her pseudonyms > > (lilweed, Lotus, and pearl). Kevin and Jon are free to revise or extend > > any remarks. > > > > NOTE TO BOB BLACK: How do you like your crow? You're crowing! > Background: knowing that some items on the list were valid and > doubting that others were, I asked for evidence for all the items > on your list. Apparently you needed help from two others, so > let's see what you three came up with... > > > > ------------------ > > (1) "veganism" > > > > KDB -- That's actually far enough. That one stupid belief is all anyone > > needs to know. I doubt you're disputing her belief in this one. > > IIRC she has said in the past that she eats eggs, albeit free-range > ones, so technically she isn't a vegan, although eating free-range > eggs satisfies the spirit of the ethical vegan ideal. I rarely eat eggs these days, but the chickens are happy as ever. > > JB* > > > > ------------------ > > > > (2) "inner earth beings" > > (3) "hollow earth" > > > > KDB -- I'm one of many people who have argued against her insane belief > > in these two fantasies. Why would you defend someone who is so clearly > > not in command of all her mental faculties? > > No evidence given here. Just a rant from Kevin, > who is well known for going off on these irrational > rants. 'Guilty' of the above. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner1.htm > > JB* > > > > ------------------- > > > > (4) that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe > > > > KDB -- The stupid bitch thought you could receive a patent for a > > geographical discovery. My wife pointed out exactly what the patent > > category numbers meant, and "pearl' (or whatever silly name she was > > using at the time) continued to argue against all reason. I think this > > was about the time that other ignorant halfwit, Dreck, began to realize > > his sweetheart just ain't playing with a full deck. > > Just statements from Kevin again. No quotes from Pearl. > Kevin's say-so isn't evidence. A mountain made out of a molehill. They're desperate. > > JB* > > > > ------------------- > > > > (5) your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef > > > > KDB -- She and Dreck post that one often. In the last discussion I had > > on the issue, the numbers started out ridiculously high, and since > > neither of them is intelligent enough to know what they are doing, they > > kept adding to the numbers until they reached stratospheric proportions. > > At the exponential rate their "ratio" kept increasing, had they > > continued for a few more days, they'd have "shown" there's not enough > > vegetation on the planet to feed one friggin' cow! > > There's been lots of debate on these numbers, and hers may > be high. I don't know. They may not be. I haven't followed those > discussions closely enough. But your evidence here doesn't prove > anything. It's just credibility-challenged Kevin off on another rant. My figures are all present. See; http://tinyurl.com/vhop . The DM might seem high, but meat is 80% water. > Also, using hyperbole like "helium-inflated number(s)" hardly > contributes to the credibility of the list. There is a methane inflated number ;) - boil's 95% feedlot beef increase (which he hasn't even attempted to prove). > > JB* > > > > ------------------- > > > > (6) rain forest destruction > > (7) Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) > > > > KDB -- Jonathan has discussed these two at length. > > Jonathan? He's the TPA regular with the absolute lowest > credibility of anyone. He may be right; he may not be. > But simply saying that he's discussed these two is > completely inadequate. Ball, et al, heatedly contested a statement made by 'forlorn'. ""Now most of the slashing and burning in the rain forest is for the grazing of cattle or feed crops," 25 Oct 1999 http://tinyurl.com/wqmh Ball eventually conceded; 'The rainforest groupies will take vindication at knowing the consensus of the authors is that conversion to pasture is the primary cause of deforestation in the tropics of Latin America.' Jonathan Ball Date: 2001-03-20 19:07:29 PST > Also hasn't Pearl granted that her numbers were from > Argentina unintentionally? I seem to recall that she has. So > she made a mistake and admitted it? What would be your > problem with that? Any old thing they can drag up in order to try to discredit me. > > JB* > > > > -------------------- > > > > (8) Stolen French flying saucer > > > > KDB -- That's a new one to me, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the > > ignorant bitch believes in all sorts of things of this nature. Damn Bob, > > she believes the FUCKING EARTH is HOLLOW with an "inner sun" and is > > inhabited by a SUPERHUMAN RACE! Fuck, what would someone that mentally > > unstable NOT be likely to believe in? > > > > US -- From her site: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/disc.html > > > > She mentioned it on two threads. > > first thread: > > http://tinyurl.com/h0br > > > > second thread: > > http://tinyurl.com/h0bl > > > > ---------------------- > > Mentioned it? Did she say that she believed it. > > I very quickly scanned the two URLs and didn't see a > relevant claim. That's not saying there aren't any, but > I'm not going to wade through reams of material to find > something that you say is there and that's your job to > produce. > > Produce some specific quotes or admit you can't defend > this item. 'usual suspect' is dishonestly claiming that I said this craft was stolen. I did not. > > (9) Zapper > > > > KDB -- Are you disputing this one? > > I didn't know either way. 'zappers' are devices that emit electronic frequencies in order to selectively destroy pathogenic organisms. > > JB* > > > > US -- http://tinyurl.com/v5p8 > > > > [She readily defends the quack Hulda Clark.] > > Ah! Finally you supported one item on the list at > number 9. Why did I have to read this far to find > the first piece of valid evidence? Hulda Clark is NOT a quack. Ask suspect what his views are on tuna, and find out the real quack is. > > ------------------------ > > > > (10) Foot massage (as cure-all) > > > > KDB -- Ask Dreck. > > > > JB* > > > > US -- http://tinyurl.com/v5pf > > Is foot massage mentioned there? > > Regardless, take off the hyperbolic "as cure-all" and I > would accept this item on the list. http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm > > ------------------------ > > > > (11) Astrology > > (12) Numerology > > (13) Alien abduction > > > > KDB -- I don't recall seeing these actually mentioned, but the other > > stuff she believes practically requires that she also subscribes to > > these three. Hell, she probably thinks she is an alien abductee. > > > > US -- Per (11) http://tinyurl.com/v5jj > > I see what *might* be taken as support for astrology > there, but not the other two. Why are they on your list? I'm no expert on the subject, but I know people that are. > > Per (12), I found this little exchange between Lotus and Jon Ball: > > Jon: > > > She NEEDS to believe in magic, crystals, > > > amazing but bogus medical instruments, astrology, > > > numerology - anything at all that modern science says > > > is bullshit. > > > > Loony Lesley: > > There's a good little conspiracy lap-dog, boil. > > > > 'modern science' your new god, boil? > > All the things you mention have been around for > > aeons, but 'modern science' is terminal. > > http://tinyurl.com/v5kd > > > > She certainly didn't deny it. > > Lack of denial is not proof of agreement. > > Anyway, she has denied that some items on the list are > correct. So how do you know she wasn't referring > to this one, and, in effect, denying it? Depends what he means by 'numerology'. > > Per (13) http://tinyurl.com/v5l6 > > Two points: (1) she's obviously posting something written > by someone else - it doesn't say she believes it; and (2) > right at the top it says "...Aliens Could be Here". > > "Could be" isn't "are". > > Come up with something better or admit that this > doesn't belong on the list. I think it highly unlikely that we are alone in the universe, and I imagine that most people would agree with that. > > ------------------------- > > > > (14) Uses a "source" that sells books on how to get a good psychic. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/wn67 > > Please clarify. I found no hits in searching for "psychic" > on that page. My goodness. I must be perceived as a HUGE threat for the meatarian trolls to be this desperate. > > -------------------------- > > > > (15) Leprechauns > > > > KDB -- Hehe. > > > > US -- When asked if she believes in them, she doesn't say no. Instead > > she quotes Skakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, > > Horatio, than are dreamt in your philosophy." > > > > see: http://tinyurl.com/v5ft > > Not saying no isn't equivalent to saying yes. The Shakespeare > quote merely suggests that she has an open mind on it. Exactly. > Again, come up with something better or admit that you > can't support inclusion of this on the list. > > > > -------------------------- > > > > (16) Channeling > > (17) Polar fountains > > (18) Sun gazing > > (19) Chemtrails > > (20) AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory > > (21) Crop circles > > > > KDB -- Every single one of those is a natural belief for the way her > > mind works and ... > > That's not evidence. > > > > ...she has alluded to everyone of them in the past, ... > > Allusions aren't statements of beliefs. > > > > ... and has > > probably defended them outright. ... > > PROBABLY? Give me a break. The list is looking like > even more BS than I originally suspected. Silly to pump it up with lies and distortions. > What's wrong with you, Usual Suspect? > > > > ...The "hollow earth" nonsense involved > > both channeling and polar fountains. Tell me which ones you don't > > believe and I'll see what i can find. > > Supply quotes for both. > > > JB* for 17, 19, and 21 > > > > US -- > > > > Per (16): This reference goes hand-in-hand with her beliefs in the > > hollow earth. Adama of Telos, the priestess from the netherworld or > > underground or whatever, was channeled by one Aurelia Louise Jones. > > http://www.mslpublishing.com/heart-heart.html. What do usual suspect, ball, etc, know about it? Anything? > > Per (17): http://tinyurl.com/v5fj > > Supply an exact quote from there. I got only two hits on "polar" > and I'm not wasting more time looking for something that may > not even be there. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09dec97_3.htm We learned a lot about the ionosphere, magnetosphere, etc. Once the antis brought up the hollow earth subject while a discussion with misc.fitness.weights was in progress, ... a very interesting discussion about gravity ensued. :). > > Per (18): http://tinyurl.com/v5fp > > When it was shown to be a hoax, she kind of backed off it. Still, she > > posted it without any verification or hesitation. > > I got no hits when I searched there for "gazing" so please provide > the quote that supports this item. The subject of fasting was brought up, a relevant news story came out at that time, it appeared genuine, turns out it wasn't. EOS. > > Per (19): http://tinyurl.com/v5ft > > I went there and then tried to follow the link: > http://lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking, which could have > been definitive, but the page didn't come up. I'm open on this > one. Looks like the link has been tampered with, ho hum. See; http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html > > Per (20): http://tinyurl.com/v5ga > > This one looks valid, insofar as she accepts a controversial > explanation for the sources of AIDS and ebola. I don't see > your justification for referring to a "conspiracy" though. Support > your use of "conspiracy" please. > > > > Per (21): http://tinyurl.com/v5gc > > This one may be valid , but I'm not going to read through > all that to find out. Produce a specific quote or two, before > I'll accept it and before you can claim that (21) belongs on > the list. It does. I've seen a video of a crop circle being formed. They believe these were made with ropes and planks; http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2003/2003.html This is interesting; http://www.sciencenews.org/20030628/mathtrek.asp > > (There are more threads with crop circle info, should anyone want to > > review each individual thread and/or post.) > > How about some specific quotes? It's not my job to > read through volumes of verbiage to find them. Quit shirking. I've no problem with suspect posting the truth, as I've stated it. > > ------------------------- > > > > (22) sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts > > What does this mean? All violent ex-convicts? Some? > One? If one, was he violent at the time? Was the arousal > *due to* his being a violent ex-convict, as your wording > implies? How would you know? How do you know what > sexually arouses her? > > Your guesswork isn't going to cut it here, Suspect. Definitely not. > > (23) participation in skinhead subculture > > > > JB* > > > > US -- Conjecture based upon her marriage to a skinhead and his calling > > her a Chelsea (and even saying that she shaved). In his own words: > > Conjecture, especially from Jon, is worse than useless. In > fact, it's evidence against your claim. > > > > What's wrong, mate? Can't be worse than your wife turnin into a > > fuckin love everyone and the animals hippy. > > > > That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea that > > shaves only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows > > her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry > > creatures you want to take a bat to. > > > > See: http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 > > Statements from an 'ex' *after* a breakup aren't credible. Those statements were in fact face-saving lies. > You can't support (22) and (23), and you can't count them > as verified. Add an admission to this effect to your list > or produce some actual evidence. Once again, categorically; I have _never_ been a skinhead. > > -------------------------- > > > > (24) the validity of online IQ tests > > > > JB* > > > > US -- http://tinyurl.com/v5gk > > Too ambiguous. She was using it to disprove your "idiot" > charge. Are you saying they have zero ability to provide any > data on intelligence? What score would an idiot get on it? > > > > --------------------------- > > > > (25) crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories > > > > US -- She wrote: > > Where have you been, much more to the point. > > > > And pasted the following flawed article about WTC: > > > > Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC > > By Jerry Russell, Ph.D. > > > > see: http://tinyurl.com/v5h1 > > I see an article posted in there that supports it, so this may > be valid, though I don't see that she explicitly states her > belief in it. It is valid. > > ---------------------------- > > > > (26) Jeff Rense for "news" > > Since I saw at least one reference to Rense (the AIDS and > ebola article), this one may be valid. So what? Who is Jeff > Rense? Is he always wrong? Are you saying that he never > provides news? Oh, he provides news. News extremists like suspect much rather wasn't provided. > > KDB (per last entries) -- Those are all quite recent, I've read the posts. > > Run-on sentence notwithstanding, it was a poor effort, Kevin. Plain nasty. > > JB* > > > > US -- http://tinyurl.com/v5h9 > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > Note that "HOLOCAUST DENIAL" has been removed and something else added. > > That's sleazy and no good. Leave the original list in > place. That's what's under challenge. You don't get > to create a moving target. Leave the holocaust denial > there and note under it that you were wrong. And don't > add new items to cover up your dishonesty and errors. Here is the absolute proof that 'usual suspect' is a liar. > > The rest of the list is verified by the links and by her own admission. > > No it isn't. Many items remain unverified. Even more > than I originally suspected, Suspect. You're relying too > much on Kevin's rants, her ex's rants, and outright conjecture. > > It's dishonest to rely on those types of evidence and then > conclude down here at the end that the links and her admission > verify the list. I replied to his post while you were away. > So ... bottom line ... what do we have here? Three of you > clowns collaborated and still were only able to come up > with a stunningly feeble defense of many items on the list. > It was even worse than I expected. They are feeble. You may well reject this or that, farrell, and I'd certainly not hold that against you, nor judge you for your beliefs.. Cheers.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
