www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > Sophist Boob wrote: > > > "usual suspect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >><snip bullshit> > >> > >>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? > > > > > > 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. > > Bullshit. The "vegan" ideal, which we all know has > nothing whatever to do with ethics, is "eat no animal > products". ... Unsupported assertion and invalid use of "we." You get to speak for yourself jonnie, not anyone else. > ...She fails. Fails in what? To be a vegan? Then why is it on the list? > The stupid lying whore also has never even *attempted* > to defend "veganism" on ethical grounds, preferring to > focus on the easy-to-find bullshit about health effects > and prehistorical humans. Non sequitur. > >>JB* > >> > >>------------------ > >> > >>(2) "inner earth beings" > > The stupid whore believes in this. Your say-so isn't good enough. > >>(3) "hollow earth" > > And this. Your say-so isn't good enough. > >> > >>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. > > Bullshit. ... You're incorrect. There is no evidence given in that inane statement from Kevin. If there were, you would cite it. You can't. I'm right. > ...She has posted extensive on these two: > > http://tinyurl.com/wpqf > http://tinyurl.com/wpqo > > You aren't just eating crow, motherfucker, you're > eating shit. How do you like your shit, Boob? I didn't say that she didn't believe in those, but that the incompetent defense of the list put forth by you and your buddies failed to show that she did. Can't you read, jonnie? > >>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. > > You stupid brain-dead fuck: > > http://tinyurl.com/wprx Where was that mentioned in Kevin's statements? > "Searched Groups for patent 1096102 "hollow earth" > author:lotus" > > > > > > > > >>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. > > They're completely spurious. She changes definition > half a dozen times per post, and has no methodology; > none whatever. Unsupported assertions. As for no methodology, that's you, jonnie, much of the time. > > Also, using hyperbole like "helium-inflated number(s)" hardly > > contributes to the credibility of the list. > > When she manages to get the generally accepted number > of 6 to 8 pounds of feed per pound of beef up to well > over 100 pounds of beef per pound of...of...well, it > isn't exactly clear, ... Thanks for admitting that you didn't know what she was talking about. Then why are you defending what you don't understand as being appropriate on the list? Hatred and bias? I thought so. > ...given her imprecise, > flexi-definitions and utter lack of methodology...then, > I think helium-inflated is being far too kind. > > >>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. > > False. True. > > He may be right; he may not be. > > But simply saying that he's discussed these two is > > completely inadequate. > > It's fully adequate, fat fuck: No it isn't, Twerp jonnie. A statement that someone (you, in this case) *discussed* something is not adequate evidence to show that she believes it. She may or may not believe it; a reference to your alleged 'discussing' of it doesn't and can't show either way. > >> Later, as an offshoot of the same debate, ~~Illweed~~ > >> attempted to "prove" that the U.S. had increased its > >> imports of beef from Brazil. How did she do > this? By > >> offering "statistics" about the export of *all* > >> commodities (not just beef)...from Argentina!!! When > >> this was pointed out to her, she predictably lied and > >> huffed and puffed and refused to admit the error. > > > > No. I admitted my mistake immediately. > > No, you did not. It took a long time. > > http://tinyurl.com/wpt1 > > > > > > Also hasn't Pearl granted that her numbers were from > > Argentina unintentionally? > > Grudgingly, and only after first denying she had made > any error at all. Because she didn't agree with it did initially? Again what's so bad about that? You make lots of mistakes, jonnie, and seldom, if ever, admit them. > >>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. > > Implied. ... Nope. Inferred by you, an individual without credibility. > ...She believes it. She believes everything > like that. Unsupported assertion. The item doesn't belong on the list, until or unless you can provide something better. > >>(9) Zapper > >> > >>KDB -- Are you disputing this one? > > > > > > I didn't know either way. > > She USES the fucking worthless piece of quack gadgetry > in her fraudulent, UNLICENSED medical MALpractice. > > > > > > > > >>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? > > You didn't, scumbag. You're playing games, as you > always play games. Nope, Twerp jonnie. It's just like I said. Nothing was adequately supported until #9. You're desperately trying to come up with additional evidence to support some of the points now, after the fact. If they had been adequately supported originally, you wouldn't be doing this. > Face it, Boob. You have no credibility. Then, using nothing but what was in the post to which I responded, show how #1 through #8 were supported. Cite actual words posted for each one. You can't. You have to add more to them, because the original words were completely inadequate. If one of your opponents posted crap like that, you'd be all over them, jonnie, hypocritical, double-standard jonnie. > >>------------------------ > >> > >>(10) Foot massage (as cure-all) > >> > >>KDB -- Ask Dreck. > >> > >>JB* > >> > >>US -- http://tinyurl.com/v5pf > > > > > > Is foot massage mentioned there? > > Yes. > > > > > > > > >>------------------------ > >> > >>(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? > > > > > > > >>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 > > That's belief, pure and simple. You lose, Boob - again. Nope, that doesn't support her belief in all three. She may or may not support each one - that's the best you can say from this particular exchange. Learn to read and OBSERVE, jonnie. > >>She certainly didn't deny it. > > > > > > Lack of denial is not proof of agreement. > > She agrees with them. Your say-so isn't good enough. > >>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. > > > > > > > >>------------------------- > >> > >>(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. > > > > > > > >>-------------------------- > >> > >>(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. > > With her, it is. She believes in leprechauns. Your say-so isn't good enough. > >>-------------------------- > >> > >>(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. > > With her, they are. Your say-so isn't good enough. > [snip remaining putrid sophistry] I'm just the messenger, jonnie. You and your buddies can't support many items on the list. With each failure, including your inept response here, this becomes more obvious. Why are you so dishonest?
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
