William wrote:

>>>> He was a lying criminal
>>> Then how can you believe him, and why repeat his lies as being the truth about
>>> Pearl?
>>> This hate campaign against Pearl is over before it starts if the ONLY evidence
>>> supporting it comes from someone you know to be a lying criminal. LOL
>>>
>>> cut
>> She willingly had plenty to do with him, and therefore is most likely
>> quite comfortable with dishonesty.
>
> No. You only have the word of a lying criminal to go on.

A criminal she willfully married. That should tell you something of her
character. Rather, lack of it.

> Also, Goo has a list of absurd things
>> that she believes, and she insists she doesn't believe in some of them
>> though amusingly she can't say which of them she thinks she doesn't
>> believe in...even when asked!
>
> I've seen her reject at least two items on that list today. Read her posts.

She didn't reject it outright, dummy. Go back and look. It was qualified
in every clause:
"*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires
conditioning *OR* abuse..."

Why can't she just come right out and categorically say, "It's always
wrong to molest animals"?

>> This is a very strange situation indeed,
>
> The only strange situation going on here is your hate campaign against her and your
> refusal to accept the fact that she rejects at least two of the things you're all
> accusing
> her of.

She didn't reject it outright, dummy. Go back and look. It was qualified
in every clause:
"*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires
conditioning *OR* abuse..."

Why can't she just come right out and categorically say, "It's always
wrong to molest animals"?