William wrote:

> Hello Usual Suspect.

Good morning, moron.

> I know who you are now.

And I'll bet you're SO proud of yourself, too.

>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about Lesley. I was talking about Pearl,
>>>>>>>> That's lesley, you dummy. "pearl" is her ****witted pseudonym.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry. I didn't know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She is anything but a pearl; more like a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jagged piece of broken glass from a cheap bottle of beer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yawn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and having an open mind about her beliefs.
>>>>>>>> You don't really mean to have an open mind about them, dumb-ass. What you
>>>>>>>> mean is to be predisposed to accept them because they're new-age kooky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from a few items on that list I'm open-minded the rest and
>>>>>>> believe some of them.
>>>>>> Exactly. You are predisposed to accepting at face value any new-age kooky
>>>>>> bullshit that appears to go against common sense, and that plays to your
>>>>>> perverse need to be "different". You misinterpret this as "open-mindedness".
>>>>>> It isn't
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree - it isn't "open-mindedness." Being open-minded is all about being
>>>>> receptive of others' ideas and beliefs.
>>>> No, that is *NOT* what being open-minded is
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>>
>>> [snip crap]
> That was the definition of open-mindedness you cut away, and
> it fits perfectly with mine. Is that why you cut it? ;-)
>
> o·pen-mind·ed
> adj.
> Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/open-minded
>
> "Being open-minded is all about being receptive of others' ideas and beliefs."
>
>> No, it isn't.
>>
> Yes it is.
>
>>> "Being open-minded is all about being receptive of others' ideas and beliefs."
>> Wrong. That dictionary definition is simply bullshit.
>
> It's the correct definition, and it's the definition I used.
>
>> Being *receptive* is not being open minded, you ****ing idiot; it's being
>> partisan.
>>
>>
>>>>> If born liars exist
>>>> lesley is one.
>>>
>>> No. Ispe Dixit knows her well and told me ages ago that she's a reliable
>>> expert on nutrition and alternative animal-friendly treatments.
>> Derek was incorrect about that
>>
> Incorrect about what? I'm telling you what Ipse Dixit told me. He wrote me an email.

Derek's no authority himself. Try quackwatch.com instead.

>>>>>>>> "zero point field" (GUFFAW!)
>>>>>>>> "veganism"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been vegan for over two years now and doing great by it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "inner earth beings"
>>>>>>>> "hollow earth"
>>>>>>>> that 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 saucer
>>>>>>>> Zapper
>>>>>>>> Foot massage (as cure-all)
>>>>>>>> Astrology
>>>>>>>> Numerology
>>>>>>>> Alien abduction
> cut
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I very much doubt that.
>>>>>> I thought you were open minded?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can doubt things while being open-minded about them.
>>>> You're not being honestly open-minded about it.
>>>>
>>> Yes I am,
>> No, you aren't.
>>
>> Her endorsement of it was correctly inferred from her failure to state her
>> opposition to it following her statement of support for someone (Karen Winter) who
>> openly endorses it. lesley was asked repeatedly if she wanted to distance herself
>> from Karen on at least that one issue, and she refused to do so. That is implicit
>> support for it.
>>
> No.

Yes. Karen never distanced herself from conditioning. Read it again, dimwit.

> Read Pearl's post. "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."

Then why did she hem and haw all over the place about it?

> What more do you want?

Straightforward answers would be nice.

> She strongly condemns it and thinks it's a perversion.

"*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires
conditioning *OR* abuse..." Why can't she just come right out and say,
"It's always wrong to molest animals"?

> That's one item I've taken off that list, Usual Suspect.

That one's staying.

> I wonder how many others are there that shouldn't be.

Read through the links, dumbass. They go straight to her posts on those
issues.

>>>>>>>> Leprechauns
>>>>>>>> Channeling
>>>>>>>> Polar fountains
>>>>>>>> Sun gazing
>>>>>>>> Chemtrails
>>>>>>>> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
>>>>>>>> Crop circles
>>>>>>>> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah right.
>>>>>> She was married to a ****ing British skinhead, you idiot! The guy was an
>>>>>> ex-convict. He was a skinhead when she hooked up with him. That's *why* she
>>>>>> got together with him: she was aroused by it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can't possibly know all that. Soryy, but I don't believe you.
>>>> I do know all of it.
>>>
>>> Then you should be quiet and stop all your nonsense.
>>>
>>> cut
>> Why did you cut, you chickenshit closed-minded ****wit?
>>
>> <restore>
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> </restore>
>>
>> Leave it in shitbag. Leave it in as a testament to your closed-mindedness.
>>
> I've no comment to make on her personal life because 1, I don't
> know all the facts. 2, I don't want to know them. 3, you sure as hell
> don't know them. 4, It's none of our business. 5, Her personal life
> has no bearing on her expertise in vegan nutrition and alternative
> medicine.

"Expertise" would lead her away from veganism, not to it. As for her
"expertise" in alternative medicine, she RUBS FEET! Some expertise that is.

>>>>>> As for all the rest, they're all weird beliefs that fly in the face of logic and
>>>>>> common sense and science, and that's *why* you believe in them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the emphasis you put on 'why', and I disagree with those
>>>>> reasons. I'm not a vegan just because it flies in the face of
>>>>> common sense.
>>>> You're a "vegan" (quotes of derision) because it feeds your need to be
>>>> "different".
>>>
>>> No, it's a consequence of the principles I hold regarding the treatment
>>> of animals.
>> No, it's based on your wish to try to be distinctive, to be "different".
>
> You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but always remember
> that you're not in a position to tell me what I believe.

You're doing a damn good job of it yourself, and your defensive attitude
about it towards Mr Erikson is pretty amusing, too.

>>>> You're an unaccomplished nobody loser,
>>>
>>> Enough of the insults.
>> No. You are asking for them.
>
> Well now I'm asking you to stop them, please.

Truth hurts?

>>>> and you're one among millions. Your ego
>>>> needs something to make you feel "special", so you went out and found something.
>> "veganism" is not a thought-out position. It's a choice people make
>> *SELF-CONSCIOUSLY* to try to create a persona.
>
> For me it's not a choice.

Yes, it is. It's an irrational one based on the mental defect that it's
good to stick out like a sore thumb, and that you must be special
because everyone else isn't like you at all.

> I cannot go against my principles any more than you can,

You have no principles.

> Usual Suspect.

You were responding to Mr Erikson, not to me.