William wrote:
> Hello Usual Suspect. I know who you are now.

No, you're a moron. I'm not Usual Suspect.


>
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>William wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>William wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>William wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>William wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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

That was *a* definition, and it was wrong.


>
>>No, it isn't.
>>
>
> Yes it is.

No, it isn't.


>>>"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,

It's wrong. Open-mindedness is, in fact, a negative
state of mind, not a positive one. Being open-minded
means one is *not* automatically rejecting of others'
ideas and beliefs; it does *NOT* mean one is receptive
to them. Being receptive to them means one would not
question them, and that is *NOT* being open-minded,
that's being uncritical.

This is all immaterial. YOU are not merely receptive
to these kooky, wacky, crackpot anti-intellectual
ideas; you actively and gullibly embrace them, the same
as lesley does, *PRECISELY* because they are new-age-y,
counter-culturish and bizarre. Suppose that you had
never heard of me before, and you suddenly see a whole
list of my beliefs, such as:

- astrology is bunk
- "crystals" have no magical or spiritual power
- there is no such thing as "chemtrails"; those are
simply aircraft exhaust, called contrails; harmless
- no spacecraft from another planet have come to earth
- "reflexology", "touch therapy" and other forms of laying-
on-of-hands are medically worthless
- "crop circles" are hoaxes perpetrated by humans, not
evidence of visits from space aliens

and so on. You are not going to be receptive to those
statements of belief and fact. Those statements all go
against things in which you *want* to believe, and
you're going to reject the statements out of hand.
Don't bother lying about it, billy - we all know you will.


>> 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.

Ask him what he thinks about her now.


>>>>>>>> "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. 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." What more do
> you want?
> She strongly condemns it and thinks it's a perversion.

ONLY if it requires conditioning in order to get the
animal to participate, you ****wit. She does not
*categorically* reject it, because she doesn't want to
condemn people who are whack-jobs like her.


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

Put it back. It belongs.


> Usual Suspect.

I'm not Usual Suspect.


>>>>>>>> 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.

THAT certainly isn't being open-minded!


> 3, you sure as hell
> don't know them.

I know enough to know that she was married to a violent
skinhead convict.


> 4, It's none of our business.

Her violent skinhead convict of an ex-husband made it
our business. Too bad for lesley.


> 5, Her personal life
> has no bearing on her expertise in vegan nutrition and alternative
> medicine.

Her tendency to embrace anti-social beliefs and values
very much does bear on her "expertise" <scoff> in
nutrition and medicine of any kind. There is no such
thing as "vegan" nutrition, and "alternative" medicine
is bullshit.

lesley has training as a foot masseuse: NO training in
nutrition, NO training in medicine. Foot massage isn't
medicine.


>>>>>>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.

I know what you believe, and I know why you believe it.


>>>>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.

Too bad. I don't wish to stop.


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

"veganism" is not based on *any* valid ethical
principles. It is based purely on a wish to flatter
one's ego.


> Usual Suspect.

I'm not Usual Suspect.