Re: pearl's list update

"K D B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "farrell77" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "K D B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Not with that inane list, which she's on record as
> > > > disputing, you haven't.
> > >
> > >   Here's the list again, Bob. Let's have a look at some of them a
> > > little closer. [...]
> >
> > Okay, by all means, let's.  But I'll do it in a separate response
> > to Usual Suspect.
>
>    Could you provide a link to that response? I can't find it.

Here's the big link instead of a tiny URL:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=bq41hu%243ru%241%40kermit.esat.net&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dtalk.politics.animals%26start%3D25


> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >      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?
> >
> > Defend?
>
>    That's what I said. Your post was clearly an attempt to "defend"
> the most dimwitted member of 'the side'.

"Defend" in the sense that you collectively were unfairly accusing her of
believing things that you couldn't support.  You didn't even try to support
some of the items on the list.  You just said they must be true.  That's
not support.

What happened to the dispassionate mathematician, interested
in rigorous accuracy?


>   Kevin, you're so blinded by bias,
>
>   Not in the least.

I think you are, and it does pain me a little to say it about you.


>  you can't even read
> > straight.
>
>   I read perfectly well.
>
>
>   I said that I doubted she believed everything on the list and
> > asked for evidence.
>
>
>   With all the loony things you know for a fact she does believe, you
> were going out on a limb by making your challenge. ...

Not really.  I was certain that you couldn't support a number
of items on the list.  As it turns out, there were more than I was
aware of (so far, at least).


> ...Congratulations
> Bob, she believes all but one of the items on that list. Does that
> make you happy?

There are more than one that she doesn't believe.  And no,
it doesn't make me happy that you guys ganged up on her
like bullies and then fabricated some beliefs attributed to
her.  That doesn't make me happy at all.  Why would it?


>   I've seen no discussion of many items on the
> > list, so asking for supporting evidence was reasonable.
>
>
>   No, it was not reasonable considering who we are talking about. The
> psycho bitch ...

"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of [her].
..
.. the issue at hand isn't [her]. ..  Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03

"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03

"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03



> ... falls for every scam to come down the pike and you lnow
> it. ...

Then refute each point without the name-calling.  And no I don't
know what you say I know.  That's more evidence of your bias.


> ...Pay attention: she actually believes the earth is hollow and
> inhabited by a race of super-intelligent beings. What else do you need
> to convince you she should not be allowed to roam free?

So you favor locking up someone for what they think?
That's scary.