Re: pearl's list update

"farrell77" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "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


  Good enough, I missed that thread somehow. I'll cut-and-paste a few
of your comments to the end of this post and respond.
> 
> 
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >      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. 

  Every item on the list has been supported except the holocaust
denial.


 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.

  I never even claimed it was support, liar Bob. I was merely
providing some well-known historical background on lame-brain pearl's
psychotic beliefs. I even asked you specifically to list the ones you
don't believe and THEN I would attempt to locate the supporting
evidence. Your entire rant is illogically based on non-existent
claims.
> 
> What happened to the dispassionate mathematician, interested
> in rigorous accuracy?

  I'm dispassionate and rigorous about science, specifically
mathematics. I become negatively passionate when some nutcase such as
pearl misuses mathematics to further an illogical and insane agenda. I
can distinguish between science and fiction. She can't and your
statement makes it obvious you can't either.
> 
> 
> >   Kevin, you're so blinded by bias,
> >
> >   Not in the least.
> 
> I think you are,

     What you "think" isn't evidence.


 and it does pain me a little to say it about you.

  Then don't say it and you'll avoid both the "pain" and the lying.
> 
> 
> >  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.

  That number was "one", Dreck Jr. Only one item on the list was not
supported. It's not my list anyway, I wasn't trying to support it. I
was merely providing commentary.


  As it turns out, there were more than I was
> aware of (so far, at least).

   Yes, she does believe more loony nonsense than you admit to being
aware of.
> 
> 
> > ...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.

  That's a lie. Show a single item on that list which you still claim
she does not believe other than the "holocaust denial".


  And no,
> it doesn't make me happy that you guys ganged up on her
> like bullies

   Buy a clue, Bob. "Ganged up" is a juvenile claim and you know it.
Each of us has had numerous discussions with the psychotic bitch.
Therefore, we are each qualified to comment on the claims she has
made. You, on the other hand, know she makes these claims yet still
doggedly and foolishly defend the looniest member of the "side".
Remember, calling someone the "looniest" is quite a statement
considering your "side" is also home to Dreck Trash and Slick
Cerkowski.


 and then fabricated some beliefs attributed to
> her.

  Show where I have fabricated anything. You can't and you have no
intention of doing so. You're a lying asswipe and it doesn't pain me
to say it.



  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.


   That's not a problem. The problem is you've chosen to question the
ones she readily admits to believing in. She's been arguing in favor
of "inner-earth" beings", "hollow earth", the supposed patent for a
fictitious geological discovery, and the related nonsense for years.
Are you claiming you've never once seen a post where she states her
beliefs in this area?
> >
> >
> >   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

  Why the fuck are you responding to me with someone else's quotes? As
for your sleazy implication: I do address the issues. I simply throw
in a few well-deserved jabs as icing on the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> > ... falls for every scam to come down the pike and you lnow
> > it. ...
> 
> Then refute each point without the name-calling.


   You're getting mixed-up. I'm not the one trying to refute anything.
The responsibility for refuting anything is yours by your own choice.
You failed.



  And no I don't
> know what you say I know.


   Bullshit.


  That's more evidence of your bias.


   Nope, it's more evidence of my experience discussing whoreweed's
fantasies.
> 
> 
> > ...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 was a rhetorical statement, you fuckheaded sophist.




> That's scary.

     What's scary is the way you interpreted my statement. Do you
understand anything or does every rhetorical and sarcastic comment
need to be explained to you in detail? That would sort of defeat the
purposeof rhetoric and sarcasm, don't you think?


  Now for a few responses to your statements in the other post:

(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. 

   Bob, you ignorant fuckhead. She admitted in a reply to YOU that she
believeas in these and several other items on the list. Also, my post
was not intended as "evidence", merely historical commentary. I
specifically stated that if you had any questions concerning the items
I had knowledge of, let me know and then I would provide it. What the
hell is wrong with you?


(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.

  I never claimed to be providing evidence. I was merely commenting.
Why are you insisting I support someone else's list? As for this item,
including my wife's complete dismantling od shitweed's illogical
fantasy, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=brandi+AND+gardner+AND+patent+AND+globe&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dalt.animals.ethics.vegetarian

  As is obvious, no intelligent person would have ever believed this
nonsense. Even a semi-intelligent person would have admitted threir
error immediately after the first piece of contradictory evidence was
produced. Being far less than semi-intelligent, "pearl" continued to
claim she was correct even after Donna explained the U.S. Patent
Office's classification system to her. Only after Jonathan downloaded
the software necessary to view the Patent Office's pages did she make
any concession. It was a weak concession as she still firmly clings to
her belief the earth is a hollow sphere with an "inner sun" and
inhabited by super-intelligent beings. Crow must be your new favorite
dish.




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.

  Then you have no qualifications for making your fuckwitted
challenge.



  But your evidence here doesn't prove
anything.

  Again, I was not even attempting to provide evidence. I made an
offer to do so if you requested it.


  It's just credibility-challenged Kevin off on another rant.

  You dishonest shit. Support the above insinuation. This, of course,
is where you whiff-off for a few months and sleak back in like none of
these discussions ever took place. No Bob, I don't give a fuck about
your busy schedule. That's no excuse for your unfounded allegations,
especially from a jerk who dismisses someone's obvious commentary on
the grounds it's merely commentary and not evidence.

   Kevin