"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>You agreed with nearly every point,
> >>>
> >>>False.
> >>
> >>Liar.
> >
> > 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:
Still repeating your lies, stupid?
> "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
What a fool you are, suspect.
> >>>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.
Fraudulently editing my reply, - true to form.
> >>>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
BS.
> >>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.
BS. Show any error. You couldn't then, and you can't now.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calculations feed : beef.
Table 5. Corn grain, medium quality hay and corn silage.
Average
Daily Corn Protein Lime-
Weight Gain Intake Grain Hay Silage Supplement stone
800 2.5 30.3 7.5 5.3 14.2 3.1 0.19
1200 2.5 35.5 13.8 1.3 16.7 3.6 0.22
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ans...f/as1163-1.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily gain 2.5 pounds (liveweight).
Medium-high concentrate ration grain + corn silage + hay - average 32.5 lbs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live-weight 900 1040 1146 1258 1403 lb
'harvest' 1 ..... 2 .... 3 .... 4 ...... 5
Fat % 17.7 ........22.6 ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein % 14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6 ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water % 51.3 ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone % 16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3 .........14.3
carcass weight 450 550 650 750 850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefR...ht_and_mar.htm
Those ages are near enough to be used to calculate meat gain %.
protein + water = meat
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass, (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
= 296.1 = 407.25
- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
or 37.0% of feedlot carcass gain.
Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 1258-900 = 358lbs.
Meat gain- % of liveweight gain; 111.15/358 * 100 = 31% .
2.5 lbs liveweight gain x 31% = 0.77 pounds meat.
--------------------------------------------------------------
32.5 pounds intake / 0.77 = 42.2, or 42 :1, feed : meat gain,
on a medium-high grain ration + silage & hay. (not DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here we'll add 10% fat..,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Add 10% to 0.77lbs meat for fat content = 0.85 pounds beef.
32.5 pounds intake / 0.85 = 38.23, or 38 :1, feed : beef gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------
....
> >>>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.
Evidence of what you claim?
> >>>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,
Liar.
> it seemed only fitting.
It suited your stinking smear of an opponent who's trashed you.
> It's also
> congruent with your anti-semitism on the Jewish newsgroups.
Where? Provide quotes.
> >>>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
Evidence?
> critters with a bat. Right?
Even I feel like that at times. (But don't, of course).
> > not your simplistic stereotype.
>
> Why would he accuse you of being a fraudulent Chelsea were he not really
> a skinhead?
He lied. You believe the lying skinhead because it suits you.
> >>>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?
If you don't know, then why are you posting it as fact?
> >>>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*.
In English?
> > as I
> > know something about very lengthy fasting practiced by certain ascetics.
>
> We all know you're intimately familiar with extremes of pseudoscience.
Ipse dixit. Most informed people have heard of such practices.
> > 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.
See above. You're ignorant.
> >>>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.
Sure.
> It's on your website, not mine.
So? I think it's a cool looking object.
> >>>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.
Ipse dixit. You've stated that I do believe it. A lie.
> >>>[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.
I've never stated that I believe/support it. You're a proven liar.
> >>You were asked if you endorsed such practice, and, iirc,
> >>you said you were investigating it.
> >
> > No I didn't, liar.
>
> Yes, you did.
Quote?
> >>>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.
False..
> > 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
The entry on your list states that I think it okay without any
qualification, which is clearly false... another lie, suspect.
> >>>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?
Guess.
> >>>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.
Get over it.
> > 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.
BS.
> >>> 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.
Show us another such image then. As they're not rare,
you should have no real difficulty finding a similar photo.
...