pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>You agreed with nearly every point,
>>>
>>>False.
>>
>>Liar.
>
> Liar.

Liar.

>>>I elucidated at the time;
>>
>>Elucidated, lol? Lucid is about the last adjective I'd apply to you, Les.
>
> What can you see, blind, dense and in the dark as you are.

I see someone who believes or believed in the following:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucers
Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
she participates in the skinhead subculture
she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

>>>valid:
>>>hollow earth
>>>inner-earth beings
>>>chemtrails
>>>9/11 controlled demolition
>>>veganism
>>>Aids and Ebola man-made
>>>astrology
>>>'zappers'
>>>reflexology
>>>crop-circles
>>>telepathy (channelling)
>>>Rense
>>
>>There's substantial agreement on the entire list then.
>
> Obviously

Glad you finally admit it.

>>>lied about:
>>>feed:beef ratio
>>
>>Are you suggesting you NEVER got involved in calculating feed:beef
>>ratios and that you re-calculated your math (no wonder you flunked out
>>of engineering school!) multiple times so that you eventually got to an
>>inflated ratio? Come of Les, you know better than that.
>
> You call it "helium-inflated". It is not. You cannot show any error.

You yourself have demonstrated the errors involved merely by your
repeated attempts to "correct" your math. Too bad you only compounded
your errors rather than correct them.

>>>rainforest destruction
>>
>>Are you suggesting you NEVER got into a debate with this subject with Mr
>>Ball or anyone else and claimed that the rainforests were being depleted
>>because of cattle production?
>
> What is it doing on a list of things you like (need) to hold up for ridicule?

It's evidence of your tendency to fall for pseudoscience and alarmist
claims by political activists.

>>>holocaust denial
>>
>>I removed that from the list almost immediately.
>
> You posted it not knowing whether it was true or not.

Given the validity of everything else, it seemed only fitting. It's also
congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.

>>>sexually aroused by violent criminals
>>>being a skinhead
>>
>>You were married to a violent skinhead.
>
> I knew him as a (non-violent) person,

Who wanted to batter your mangy critters with a bat. Right?

> not your simplistic stereotype.

Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
a skinhead?

>>>leprechauns
>>
>>You suggested agnocticism when asked if you believed in them. Most
>>people are able to give a straightforward answer.
>
> You posted / post it as fact that I believe. I have never stated that.

Do you or do you not believe in leprechauns?

>>>sun gazing
>>
>>You bought into the article about a guy who got his energy by staring
>>into the sun, even suggesting that it sounded promising. You only backed
>>off when it was shown that NASA had never heard of the guy even though
>>the initial articles said NASA was studying him and his "energy collection."
>
> He claimed to have been studied by NASA. I "backed off" when he was
> shown by another poster to be a fraud. I initially thought it possible,

Precisely my point: you don't wait for evidence of the most kooky
notions, but demand even more of it of *well-established facts*.

> as I
> know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.

We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.

> You are posting it in a list of something you claim I support/believe,
> without qualification, that is, that I believe that story now. A lie.

The fact that you were gullible enough to accept it as a possibility
says a lot about you.

>>>stolen craft
>>
>>You have (or had) a link about it on your own website. When asked if you
>>believed that US/allied forces had taken the saucer, you implied that
>>you did.
>
> Date: 2003-07-16
> usual suspect
> US; >Yes, I read that. The presence of l'armée américaine is coincidental to
>>>>the craft's disappearance -- it could've simply been discarded or
>>>>scrapped in the three-year span that page mentions.
>
> pearl
>
>>>P; > It says that he left his business at the US army's disposal to assist the
>>>allied forces in March 1953; that he was unable to take his work to full
>>>term, and, exhausted from the accumulated difficulties, he disappeared in
>>>Dec' of 1956, but it doesn't mention what happened to the craft, or his work.
>>
>>Okay, I misread. Still, it's coincidental.
>
> That's still conjecture.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3jmv6
>
> If anything, the suggestion that the US army stole it is yours, suspect.

Perhaps tauntingly. It's on your website, not mine.

>>>alien abduction
>>
>>Do you or do you not believe that aliens visit earth and occasionally
>>take drunkards and hillbillies for rides where they're repeatedly
>>rectally probed?
>
> I don't know. ? I certainly haven't stated that I do believe it.

You're gullible enough to believe it.

>>>[add:
>>>drinking urine
>>
>>One of the alternative health sources you cited multiple times advocated
>>urine therapy.
>
> So? That's not me. The entry on your fraudulent list states that I do.

You never said you rejected such therapy.

>>You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
>>you said you were investigating it.
>
> No I didn't, liar.

Yes, you did.

>>>thinks bestiality is ok]
>>
>>This goes back to threads in which the paraphile Karen Winter and I were
>>discussing various paraphilia. You said you had no problem whatsoever
>>with bestiality as long as it was not forced on an animal.
>
> No I didn't.

Yes, you did.

> Date: 2004-02-28 05:13:33 PST
> .... I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
> http://tinyurl.com/5uoz4

Don't forget your other quotes:
I think it's a perversion. Yet if the criteria stipulated above
are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from
an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all
areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on
people's sexual preferences?
26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve

If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal.

Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
(a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev

>>>presumed:
>>>numerology
>>
>>Do you or do you not believe in numerology?
>
> Depends what you mean by 'numerology'.

What definition of it do you believe in?

>>>exaggerated errors:
>>>globe patent
>>>mistaking exports
>>>polar fountains
>>
>>Those errors were NOT exaggerated. You used each of those to support
>>your looniest notions.
>
> Yes they are exaggerated.

No, not at all. You used them to support your looniest beliefs.

> You're that desperate. It's sad really.

Sad that a grown woman would use a globe patent to support her claim
that the earth is hollow, or that she'd introduce an article which
claimed just the opposite of her beliefs about inner earth, or that
she'd use one country's export data to make a point about another
country altogether. Those weren't trivial mistakes, Lesley, they were
royal **** ups.

>>> http://tinyurl.com/59xw3
>>>
>>>
>>>>even posting links to pics that "prove" inner
>>>>earth beings live beneath Mt Shasta.
>>>
>>>Of course. Here it is again:
>>>http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Shasta.html
>>>
>>>What's your explanation?
>>
>>Such anomalies in photographs are not rare. What's rare is that a few
>>loons see those anomalies and suggest the presence of ghosts, secret
>>communities of enlightened beings, etc.
>
> Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
> you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.

I could show you plenty photos I've taken at family gatherings, sporting
events, etc., in which light anomalies appear. They're not ghosts,
they're not evidence of inner earth beings, they're not evidence of
secret military installations. They're distortions which occur because
of a nexus of flash technology, natural/unnatural lighting, developing
mistakes, impaired film, and a variety of other issues that have more to
do with imperfect technologies and nothing to do with the paranormal.
It's just like the Jesus tortilla: people see exactly what they want
even if it's just a tortilla.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attra...Ktortilla.html