chelsea foot-masseuse wrote:

>>>>>>>> bestiality
>>>>>>>
>
> Thank you.

Leave the animals alone!

<...>
>> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) is repeatedly
>> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
>> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response.
>> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to coerce behavior
>> children and animals would normally not engage.
>
> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.

How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go
around seeking interspecies copulation? I mean, aside from a male animal
that tries dry humping some chick who's on the rag (and *that*'s
instinctive based on scent: they're not trying to lure you out of your
pants the way you let that violent skinhead for a piece of your skanky
tail).

<...>
> R:
>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
>> se_.
>
> u-s
> I don't think so, but you're the extremist here.
>
> (me: 1. Why not? 2. Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary
> to your implying that she defended it).

She never condemned it -- "or not condemn conditioning per se." She
still approves of bestiality! She was suggesting one's position on such
conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we
condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.). You
don't realize what a sick pervert that woman is, Lesley. You don't
realize how perverted AR is.

> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.

I posted a link a couple months ago to an article "about one of Karen's
friends," some drunk arrested in Florida in the act of having anal sex
with a dog. Do dogs instinctively want to give butt sex to drunk humans,
Lesley? Do you think cattle and horses enjoy being molested at night
while their owners sleep? Or in your neck of the woods, sheep?

Article mentioned above:
http://www1.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_new...788632,00.html

<..>
>>>>>>>> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah right.
>>>>>> She was married to a ****ing British skinhead, you idiot!
>
> Texan SHARP, you idiot.

I read through his posts. He's not terribly sharp. Neither are you.
People like him need to come up with another name for their group.

>>>>>> The guy was an ex-convict.
>
> He did a stint in prison.

Yes, Lesley, and that's why they're called convicts, because they've
been convicted of engaging in criminal activity.

>> He was a skinhead when she hooked up with him. That's *why* she got
>>>>>> together with him: she was aroused by it.
>
> False.

You were aroused or else you wouldn't have fallen for him and given him
nookie.

<..>
>> She went out of town, and he got into her computer and
>> started posting, right here in this newsgroup - a lot
>> of wild, violence-tinged stuff. He found and began
>> posting in some skinhead-oriented groups as well. Here
>> is his post: http://tinyurl.com/p6lp8. He was using
>> her computer and her pseudonym at that time, "lilweed".
>
> Following an inappropriate comment to a serious accident.
>
> I gave him free rein.
>
> I was never a skinhead. If I were, I would freely say so.

He said you were a chelsea -- a female skinhead -- and said you shaved
to lure him into your lair.

>> your closed-mindedness.
>
> 'There are those who believe that science is not just mistaken
> on some interesting theoretical possibilities, but IRREDEEMIBLY
> wrong on the most fundamental questions science can ask.

Some people still believe the earth is flat, or even that it's hollow
with little people living inside it because they fear of our
governments. When you get right down to it, though, Lemuria is a pretty
good metaphor for the dimwitted conspiracy theorists who believe
governments coordinate catastrophes, terrorist attacks, spray them with
"chemtrails," and even medical science (which by definition excludes
your pseudoscientific field of REFLEXOLOGY) otherwise try to control
them because they're the "enlightened" ones "hiding" from the bogeyman.

> But to whom should we listen in order to sort all of this out?

Alex Jones and Art Bell and Jeff Rense and Aurelia Louise Jones and
"Adama of Telos." And Lesley the Chelsea-(quasi-)Jewish Reflexologist
who dumped her skinhead husband but still believes in a place called
Lemuria.

> If the critics
> are correct, billions of tax dollars have been misdirected and/or
> completely wasted chasing chimeras.

Chimeras that cure cancer with myriad treatments that prolong life when
cancer used to kill so man? Chimeras that eradicate communicable
diseases with childhood immunizations?

Who needs to research cures when we can have a dopey foot massage, a
colonic, or whatever the herb du jour is.

> Your response might be,
> "OK but who the heck are you?" The answer is, I'm a layperson

Right, someone who deems him/herself an expert despite lack of formal
training or study in a given field. Hence, you rubbed your sister's feet
and pronounced her cured of brain damage! Why the hell didn't you go rub
Terri Schiavo's feet, you sick little charlatan?

> who has followed discovery with a particular interest in the work
> of independent researchers who are skeptical of the current scientific
> consensus. But the term "skeptic" has been so debased and misused
> over the years that some interpret the word to mean an opposition to
> anything unconventional (i.e. "skepticism" of the paranormal,

It's reasonable to be skeptical of the paranormal. James Randi and
others have done admirable work in challenging those who deceive and con
others with their claims of psychic abilities.

> UFO's,

Found one yet?

> conspiracies,

See above. Conspiracy theories exist because weak-minded and mentally
ill people are unable to cope with their daily realities and need
bogeymen and scapegoats to rationalize their failures. It's "projection"
in the proper sense, not the way you misuse the term.

> etc.). In reality, the word "skeptic," has the precise
> OPPOSITE meaning.

Chronic contrarianism is not a hallmark of sound mental health. As I
wrote above, YOU are the Lemurian living beneath Mount Shasta, hiding
your secret enlightened knowledge from critics and sharing it with those
who are equally as gullible as you are.

> As defined by the American Heritage
> Dictionary, it means "One who instinctively or habitually doubts,
> questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted
> conclusions."

It comes from a Greek word which means "to examine." So a skeptic is an
examiner. One needn't only examine generally-accepted principles or
conclusions, one can also examine superstitions. One isn't a skeptic
merely because one embraces UFOs, reflexology, haunted houses, or Lemuria.

> In science today, the "generally accepted conclusions" are
> routinely presented as inarguable "facts". From the Big Bang, to
> the evolution of planets, from the nature of comets, to highly
> speculative and hidden phenomena such as black holes, dark
> matter, and dark energy, the big cosmological picture is
> presented with such confidence that media in this country
> have almost never questioned it. But the picture may be much
> less clear than we have been led to believe.

The media? WTF do they have to do with science? Their job is to report
stuff. Alas, "reporting" today has become a matter of pretty faces
reading press releases in front of cameras. That's what happens when
people learn a trade (journalism) rather than a specific field of reporting.

> ...'
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/new_cosmology.htm

Did you check out their team? With all the self-identified
"mythologists" and "Internet contributors" (is that what you call
yourself for crossposting yourself into oblivion?) on board, it's no
wonder they have little use for convention, reason, or (ahem) science.