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]
> > > "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.

Not since I asked for that support.  Many items remain
unsupported.


>  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.

We agree that your words didn't constitute support.
Yet Usual Suspect used your non-supporting words
as *evidence of support*, so your problem is with
him, not me.  You're just reiterating what I've already
pointed out.



> > What happened to the dispassionate mathematician, interested
> > in rigorous accuracy?
>
>   I'm dispassionate and rigorous about science, specifically
> mathematics. ...

That approach is effective in other areas too.  You should
consider it.


> ...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.

My "statement", which was actually a question, was aimed at
learning why you feel the need to metamorphose from dispassionate
logical mathematician to irrational emotional kook.


> > >   Kevin, you're so blinded by bias,
> > >
> > >   Not in the least.
> >
> > I think you are,
>
>      What you "think" isn't evidence.

I didn't say it was.


>  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.

There was no 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.

Many more than one haven't been supported.  Your words,
whether you like it or not, were used to support the list.  We
both agree that they don't.


>   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".

See the list she posted.  Some of the ones she accepts
hadn't been demonstrated by you guys, but since she accepts
them, then demonstration of those by you (collectively) becomes
unnecessary.


>   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.

Your (collective) behavior has been juvenile, so a juvenile term is apt.


> 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.

This weird obsession with the side is your thing, not mine.
I merely asked for support for a list of items and was a
little stunned at the poor quality of responses.  Especially
after the list had been posted a number of times.


>  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.

Some items on the list have to be seen as fabricated,
because no one has provided credible support.  If you
still claim that those belong on the list and can't supply
evidence, then they're fabricated.


>   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. ...

I chose to ask for support for them at a time when I hadn't
seen which ones she accepted.  That's all.


> ...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?

On those two, I had seen some discussion a while back,
but still wasn't sure what her stance was.  Isn't the inner-earth
beings a metaphysical belief?


> > >   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? ...

Because it's good advice.  What's your problem with my
quoting someone else?


> ... As
> for your sleazy implication: I do address the issues. I simply throw
> in a few well-deserved jabs as icing on the cake.

The overwhelming response that I saw from you on
this topic was name-calling and personal attack, not
substance.


> > > ... 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.

You said that she "falls for every scam to come down the pike".
I'm suggesting that you refute them when she does, and do
it without name-calling.


> The responsibility for refuting anything is yours by your own choice.

???

I'm not the one who posted a list and tried to defend
it.  I'm the one trying to keep you guys honest.


> You failed.

I've shown very effectively so far that many items on the list haven't
been adequately supported.


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

Truth.


>   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.

It didn't come across that way.  How does one know which of your
bizarre rants are rhetorical and which are meant to be taken at face
value?


> > 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?

An alternate approach would be to learn how to use the technique
better and less ambiguously.


>   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?

Like it or not, your words were used as evidence.  I pointed out
that they weren't evidence.  We agree on this.  The problem is
with Usual Suspect who thought they were.


> (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.

Why not?  What is it about not following zillions of past
discussions on this that would disqualify me from asking
for evidence to support a questionable claim made by
anyone?


>   But your evidence here doesn't prove
> anything.
>
>   Again, I was not even attempting to provide evidence. ...

And again, Usual Suspect used your words as evidence
and I was pointing out that they're not.  Your argument on
this isn't with me, but with him.  Go direct one of your
emotional rants at him.


> ... I made an
> offer to do so if you requested it.

Which I did, to Usual Suspect.  You chose voluntarily to
become involved.


>   It's just credibility-challenged Kevin off on another rant.
>
>   You dishonest shit. Support the above insinuation. ...

In supporting the list, your words had little credibility because
they didn't support many items on the list.  You could have tried,
but chose to go off on one of your irrational hate-rants.


> ...This, of course,
> is where you whiff-off for a few months and sleak back in like none of
> these discussions ever took place. ...

My understanding is that in the discussions that you and I
have had, it's been you who stopped answering.  Either way
though, if there's a discussion that you would like me to revisit,
then bring it up now and as time permits I'll try to address it.


> ...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.

Take that up with Usual Suspect.  He's the one who used your
words as more than mere commentary.  He's the one who used
them in his response to a request for evidence.