usual suspect wrote:

> Larry Fruity, usenet transvestite posing as "Laurie," wrote:
>
>>> ... you pig-****ing hillbilly.
>>
>>
>> usual, rising to the heights of his "intellect".
>
>
> Which on my worst day surpasses yours on your best day.

That is a simple personal insult based on no facts. Please take into
account Unusual Suspects attacks people without any facts with a mean
attitude. Don't let him drive you away with his few intelligent posts.
This was an example of his personality. Would you consult with someone
that insults people right and left.

Would you go into a Church and insult their beliefs? And then listen to
his few intelligent comments. His strange agenda is beyond belief.

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Larry Fruity, usenet transvestite posing as "Laurie," wrote:
>>
>>>> ... you pig-****ing hillbilly.
>>>
>>>
>>> usual, rising to the heights of his "intellect".
>>
>>
>> Which on my worst day surpasses yours on your best day.
>
> That is a simple personal insult based on no facts. Please
> take into account Unusual Suspects attacks people without any
> facts with a mean attitude. Don't let him drive you away with
> his few intelligent posts.
> This was an example of his personality. Would you consult with
> someone that insults people right and left.
>
> Would you go into a Church and insult their beliefs? And then
> listen to his few intelligent comments. His strange agenda is
> beyond belief.
===============
Your lys are even more beyond belief, killer.

wrote:

It's tempting to respond as Takver.

> Meadowlark wrote:
<snip>

>>Is there any scientific evidence to support Sapontzis's claim
>>that some animals are moral agents?

> Well excuse my ignorance about Sapontzis, but if we can't agree on what
> a set of morals is, then we aren't going to agree on the scientific
> evidence for or against. And people have been arguing about that
> forever.

For the most part, people have been arguing about how moral
principles are to be applied, or carried out in specific
situations. Basic moral principles are much the same throughout
human cultures. For example, there is no human culture that I
know of which considers cowardice or cruelty a virtue, but
different cultures, and individuals within cultures, differ on
how cruelty is defined, as we see here on TPA.

People in the Kantian tradition tend to say that actions are only
moral if they are supported by moral reasoning -- that is, if the
person acting can say why his action is moral, or why it follows
some moral principle ("acting for the right reason"). Regan is in
this tradition. What Sapontzis says is that if a being acts by
intent, and acts in a way generally considered moral, he is acting
morally. So Regan does not consider children or non-human animals
moral agents. He calls them moral patients, that is, beings toward
whom we have moral obligations, but who have no moral obligations in
return toward us.

Sapontzis:

"Furthermore, not all moral actions of animals can be plausibly
accounted for as products of instinct and conditioning. ...
there is at least no more reason to think that a pet dog
pulling a drowning child from a swimming pool is acting
instinctively or reflexively than to think that a human being
doing the same thing is acting instinctively or reflexively.
...even if animals are incapable of demonstrating the morality
of their actions, their intentional and straightforward kind,
corageous, and otherwise virtuous acts can be moral actions,
for they accord with accepted moral norms and, consequently, do
not require justification to be moral."

> If you agree that a human is a "moral agent", whatever that may mean,
> and that a human is an animal (no arguments here I hope), then no
> scientific evidence is necessary as only fundamental logic is needed.

True. However, that does not apply to non-human animals.

>>What exactly does he mean by that claim?

See above.

>>Does this, in fact, undercut Regan's argument, and is it
>>fatal to Regan's basic thesis?

> How would it? I just read some decent pieces by Regan, though I don't
> always agree with his language, I don't see the conflict.

I don't think it is fatal to Regan's argument, but I think if we
accept Sapontzis's view above, we might need to reconsider
Regan's definition of non-humans as moral patients. Not difficult,
if we say Regan defines as moral agents only those who can defend their
actions by abstract reason. This would be related to his 18th-century
approach to the definition of rights, IMO.

>>You would think that last would matter to the anti-AR crowd,
>>since they want to attack Regan.

>>Those are real questions, but they require real knowledge
>>of AR, and real ability to wrestle with theory. None of those
>>on either side appears to have any ability to address them.

> Either side of what? Beware the false dichotomy.

Well, I think one either accepts that (some) non-humans have rights,
or one doesn't. How rights are defined and applied is definitely
open to varied interpretation.

<snip>

> Because the other is sacred of course. Without faith in your listener,
> your reader - you are completely lost.

Ah, very true. My faith has been severely shaken by the internet.

Meadowlark wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Yes, you're Karen.
>
>
> No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. Stop lying. You are Karen Winter.


>
>> So, tell us: what is the issue to which you made vague reference ("I
>> have just learned of a very serious issue in my life, and need your
>> prayers.")? Just tell us what it is. You certainly haven't had any
>> qualms in the past about sharing a lot of details of your life. Come
>> on, just tell us.
>
>
>
> That wasn't me

Yes, it was. Karen, you don't seem to understand about
the computer signature on posted messages to usenet.
The signatures on your "Meadowlark" and "Cynomis" posts
are *identical*. You post to the same groups, you
write the same way, you have the same viewpoints. Your
continuing to lie and say you're not Karen is ludicrous.

> -- but why would anyone tell you anything?
> You and Usual wouldn't only try to use it to hurt that person.

I think you meant to say we *would* only try to use it
in that way, but that's completely false. Neither of
us ever tried to hurt you. We were trying to help you
by getting you to realize how wrong your sentiments
are, and trying to get you to stop thinking that way.
It is wrong of you, for example, to want your grandson
to grow up homosexual only to spite your son. It was
wrong of you to abandon your son, and it still is wrong
of you to try to paint it as something other than
abandonment.

So, just tell us what the serious issue in your life is
or was for which you needed the prayers of the
participants in a.r.c.e. What harm could it possibly do?

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Meadowlark wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, you're Karen.
> >
> >
> > No, I'm not.
>
> Yes, you are. Stop lying. You are Karen Winter.
>
>
> >
> >> So, tell us: what is the issue to which you made vague reference ("I
> >> have just learned of a very serious issue in my life, and need your
> >> prayers.")? Just tell us what it is. You certainly haven't had any
> >> qualms in the past about sharing a lot of details of your life. Come
> >> on, just tell us.
> >
> >
> >
> > That wasn't me
>
> Yes, it was. Karen, you don't seem to understand about
> the computer signature on posted messages to usenet.
> The signatures on your "Meadowlark" and "Cynomis" posts
> are *identical*. You post to the same groups, you
> write the same way, you have the same viewpoints. Your
> continuing to lie and say you're not Karen is ludicrous.
>
> > -- but why would anyone tell you anything?
> > You and Usual wouldn't only try to use it to hurt that person.
>
> I think you meant to say we *would* only try to use it
> in that way, but that's completely false. Neither of
> us ever tried to hurt you. We were trying to help you
> by getting you to realize how wrong your sentiments
> are, and trying to get you to stop thinking that way.
> It is wrong of you, for example, to want your grandson
> to grow up homosexual only to spite your son. It was
> wrong of you to abandon your son, and it still is wrong
> of you to try to paint it as something other than
> abandonment.
>
> So, just tell us what the serious issue in your life is
> or was for which you needed the prayers of the
> participants in a.r.c.e. What harm could it possibly do?



Still stalking women eh, Goobernicus?........and now doing it in the
church groups....tsk, tsk.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

<snip>


> Yes, it was. Karen,

I'm not Karen

<snip>

> Neither of us ever tried to hurt you.

<snip>
No, but you have definitely tried to -- and suceeded in --
hurting this Winter person. I've Googled your entire sordid history
on that. You are dangerous and utterly unscrupulous.

Once anyone knows about you, he would never give you any infomation
whatever. You use it only for evil.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karen Winter, aka "Meadowlark," wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not this person
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named Sylvia
>>>>>> in a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm not,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you are. On 29 July, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a
>>>> forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same
>>>> situation myself.
>>>>
>>>> On 31 July, you also wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving
>>>> them opportunity, if possible.
>>>>
>>>> If you're not Karen Winter, aka "Rat," then why this strange sudden
>>>> grudge against people against whom you should have no grudge?
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, everything you've posted lines up with your volunteered
>>>> life story when you posted under the pseudonyms of Rat and Cynomis.
>>>> Consider your statements to David Wrong about fandom; your prattle
>>>> about Regan, et al; and your admission that you "spent six years and
>>>> a bunch of money researching to write a completely non-saleable fan
>>>> novel" on 30 July.
>>>>
>>>> You ARE Karen Winter, or the person who's been known by that name in
>>>> the recent past both in these groups and in real life at your
>>>> church. Maybe you and Sylvia got a sham wedding and you're going by
>>>> Karen Stevens or something else you two bitter old hags made up and
>>>> you're being legalistic about that, or maybe Mr Canoza is on to
>>>> something about you two coots going separate ways. No matter, you're
>>>> not fooling anyone, Karen.
>>>
>>> I would wonder if it wasn't perhaps Sylvia herself, but the style is
>>> too stodgy and self-consciously serious.
>>
>> Sylvia was using Outlook at alt.tasteless in July. I'm not sure if we
>> can make anything of that, but I'm 100% sure Meadowlark is Karen.
>
> Yep - same build of Thunderbird that she was using as "Cynomis"; full of
> "ar" references; paranoid about being "stalked" by you and me; has
> posted to alt.religion.christian.episcopal as "Meadowlark", in
> predictable Karen Winter fashion; cybermesa.com ISP; excruciatingly
> turgid style; big sci-fi fan.
>
> It's Karen.

Undoubtedly. I'm amused that she's squirming and trying to separate
herself from her past 'nyms.

>>> The fact that she already referred to me as "Jon", and the plaintive
>>> crapola about "stalking", help to give her away.
>>
>> My tip off last week was her splitting AR hairs with talk about
>> Sapontzis, Regan, etc. She confirmed it with her prattle about the LA
>> SciFi Society and how she spent so much money *researching* to write a
>> non-saleable novel. All while her son was bouncing from home to home,
>> of course.
>>
>>> It's Karen. It's very weird that she's denying it.
>>
>> What about Karen isn't weird? She wears her weirdness as a badge of
>> courage -- at least until someone says something about how her son
>> should know about it.
>
> I'm sure you saw some of my astute comments about self-marginalization
> in the past. Karen was the research subject for that.

I did, and I figured as much. She's the epitome of self-marginalization.

> In case you missed it, it goes like this:
>
> Many people feel alienated at some time in their lives. Alienation in
> most people is unpleasant, and they seek to reduce it. In some
> pathological individuals, however, it somehow comes to feel good to
> them. They do things to augment it, because it's what they know, and in
> some perverse way it's comfortable. Self-marginalization is a way of
> increasing their sense of alienation. Karen has been self-marginalizing
> for literally decades. It is mental illness, without doubt.

I concur vehemently. As the Groene story in Idaho unfolded and I learned
that Joseph Duncan, who murdered nearly an entire family to procure two
small children, Dylan (later molested and murdered) and Shasta, to feed
his perversions, ran a website and blog. Duncan had a chip on his
shoulder because society would even dare label him as sick, much less
engage in what he called "discrimination" by requiring him and others
like him to register as sex offenders. I was immediately reminded of
Karen's disgusting defense of pedophiles. Like Duncan, Karen has
suggested that the problem isn't with the pedophile (or the person
engaged in bestiality or some other paraphilia) but with the rest of the
biased society.

I hope her son and his wife learn of her disturbed belief system so they
can make an informed decision about what kind of contact, if any, their
child has with her.

Meadowlark wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> <snip>

You even note your snips, when you note them, exactly
as you did when posting as "Rat" or "Cynomis".


>
>
>> Yes, it was. Karen,
>
>
> I'm not Karen

Yes, you are. Stop lying.


>
> <snip>
>
>> Neither of us ever tried to hurt you.
>
>
> <snip>
> No, but you have definitely tried to -- and suceeded in --
> hurting this Winter person.

Stop the charade, Karen. It's silly.

Neither Mr. Suspect nor I ever attempted to hurt you.

Just tell us what the issue is, Karen. What is the
serious issue in your life over which you asked people
to pray for you? You know better than to think that
Mr. Suspect or I would sneer at genuine misfortune. If
it's something genuinely bad that happened to you out
of your control, you'd get sympathy. If it's something
you've done that's gotten you in trouble, you'd get
encouragement to put it right while acknowledging your
responsibility. Just tell us; there really is no
reason not to.

usual suspect wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Karen Winter, aka "Meadowlark," wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not this person
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named
>>>>>>> Sylvia in a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm not,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you are. On 29 July, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a
>>>>> forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same
>>>>> situation myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31 July, you also wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving
>>>>> them opportunity, if possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're not Karen Winter, aka "Rat," then why this strange sudden
>>>>> grudge against people against whom you should have no grudge?
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, everything you've posted lines up with your
>>>>> volunteered life story when you posted under the pseudonyms of Rat
>>>>> and Cynomis. Consider your statements to David Wrong about fandom;
>>>>> your prattle about Regan, et al; and your admission that you "spent
>>>>> six years and a bunch of money researching to write a completely
>>>>> non-saleable fan novel" on 30 July.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ARE Karen Winter, or the person who's been known by that name
>>>>> in the recent past both in these groups and in real life at your
>>>>> church. Maybe you and Sylvia got a sham wedding and you're going by
>>>>> Karen Stevens or something else you two bitter old hags made up and
>>>>> you're being legalistic about that, or maybe Mr Canoza is on to
>>>>> something about you two coots going separate ways. No matter,
>>>>> you're not fooling anyone, Karen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would wonder if it wasn't perhaps Sylvia herself, but the style is
>>>> too stodgy and self-consciously serious.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sylvia was using Outlook at alt.tasteless in July. I'm not sure if we
>>> can make anything of that, but I'm 100% sure Meadowlark is Karen.
>>
>>
>> Yep - same build of Thunderbird that she was using as "Cynomis"; full
>> of "ar" references; paranoid about being "stalked" by you and me; has
>> posted to alt.religion.christian.episcopal as "Meadowlark", in
>> predictable Karen Winter fashion; cybermesa.com ISP; excruciatingly
>> turgid style; big sci-fi fan.
>>
>> It's Karen.
>
>
> Undoubtedly. I'm amused that she's squirming and trying to separate
> herself from her past 'nyms.

It's plainly weird.


>>>> The fact that she already referred to me as "Jon", and the plaintive
>>>> crapola about "stalking", help to give her away.
>>>
>>>
>>> My tip off last week was her splitting AR hairs with talk about
>>> Sapontzis, Regan, etc. She confirmed it with her prattle about the LA
>>> SciFi Society and how she spent so much money *researching* to write
>>> a non-saleable novel. All while her son was bouncing from home to
>>> home, of course.
>>>
>>>> It's Karen. It's very weird that she's denying it.
>>>
>>>
>>> What about Karen isn't weird? She wears her weirdness as a badge of
>>> courage -- at least until someone says something about how her son
>>> should know about it.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure you saw some of my astute comments about self-marginalization
>> in the past. Karen was the research subject for that.
>
>
> I did, and I figured as much. She's the epitome of self-marginalization.
>
>> In case you missed it, it goes like this:
>>
>> Many people feel alienated at some time in their lives. Alienation in
>> most people is unpleasant, and they seek to reduce it. In some
>> pathological individuals, however, it somehow comes to feel good to
>> them. They do things to augment it, because it's what they know, and
>> in some perverse way it's comfortable. Self-marginalization is a way
>> of increasing their sense of alienation. Karen has been
>> self-marginalizing for literally decades. It is mental illness,
>> without doubt.
>
>
> I concur vehemently. As the Groene story in Idaho unfolded and I learned
> that Joseph Duncan, who murdered nearly an entire family to procure two
> small children, Dylan (later molested and murdered) and Shasta, to feed
> his perversions, ran a website and blog. Duncan had a chip on his
> shoulder because society would even dare label him as sick, much less
> engage in what he called "discrimination" by requiring him and others
> like him to register as sex offenders. I was immediately reminded of
> Karen's disgusting defense of pedophiles. Like Duncan, Karen has
> suggested that the problem isn't with the pedophile (or the person
> engaged in bestiality or some other paraphilia) but with the rest of the
> biased society.
>
> I hope her son and his wife learn of her disturbed belief system so they
> can make an informed decision about what kind of contact, if any, their
> child has with her.

Oops - hit the 'send' button prematurely before. See
below.


usual suspect wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Karen Winter, aka "Meadowlark," wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not this person
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named
>>>>>>> Sylvia in a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm not,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you are. On 29 July, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a
>>>>> forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same
>>>>> situation myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31 July, you also wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving
>>>>> them opportunity, if possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're not Karen Winter, aka "Rat," then why this strange sudden
>>>>> grudge against people against whom you should have no grudge?
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, everything you've posted lines up with your
>>>>> volunteered life story when you posted under the pseudonyms of Rat
>>>>> and Cynomis. Consider your statements to David Wrong about fandom;
>>>>> your prattle about Regan, et al; and your admission that you "spent
>>>>> six years and a bunch of money researching to write a completely
>>>>> non-saleable fan novel" on 30 July.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ARE Karen Winter, or the person who's been known by that name
>>>>> in the recent past both in these groups and in real life at your
>>>>> church. Maybe you and Sylvia got a sham wedding and you're going by
>>>>> Karen Stevens or something else you two bitter old hags made up and
>>>>> you're being legalistic about that, or maybe Mr Canoza is on to
>>>>> something about you two coots going separate ways. No matter,
>>>>> you're not fooling anyone, Karen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would wonder if it wasn't perhaps Sylvia herself, but the style is
>>>> too stodgy and self-consciously serious.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sylvia was using Outlook at alt.tasteless in July. I'm not sure if we
>>> can make anything of that, but I'm 100% sure Meadowlark is Karen.
>>
>>
>> Yep - same build of Thunderbird that she was using as "Cynomis"; full
>> of "ar" references; paranoid about being "stalked" by you and me; has
>> posted to alt.religion.christian.episcopal as "Meadowlark", in
>> predictable Karen Winter fashion; cybermesa.com ISP; excruciatingly
>> turgid style; big sci-fi fan.
>>
>> It's Karen.
>
>
> Undoubtedly. I'm amused that she's squirming and trying to separate
> herself from her past 'nyms.
>
>>>> The fact that she already referred to me as "Jon", and the plaintive
>>>> crapola about "stalking", help to give her away.
>>>
>>>
>>> My tip off last week was her splitting AR hairs with talk about
>>> Sapontzis, Regan, etc. She confirmed it with her prattle about the LA
>>> SciFi Society and how she spent so much money *researching* to write
>>> a non-saleable novel. All while her son was bouncing from home to
>>> home, of course.
>>>
>>>> It's Karen. It's very weird that she's denying it.
>>>
>>>
>>> What about Karen isn't weird? She wears her weirdness as a badge of
>>> courage -- at least until someone says something about how her son
>>> should know about it.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure you saw some of my astute comments about self-marginalization
>> in the past. Karen was the research subject for that.
>
>
> I did, and I figured as much. She's the epitome of self-marginalization.
>
>> In case you missed it, it goes like this:
>>
>> Many people feel alienated at some time in their lives. Alienation in
>> most people is unpleasant, and they seek to reduce it. In some
>> pathological individuals, however, it somehow comes to feel good to
>> them. They do things to augment it, because it's what they know, and
>> in some perverse way it's comfortable. Self-marginalization is a way
>> of increasing their sense of alienation. Karen has been
>> self-marginalizing for literally decades. It is mental illness,
>> without doubt.
>
>
> I concur vehemently. As the Groene story in Idaho unfolded and I learned
> that Joseph Duncan, who murdered nearly an entire family to procure two
> small children, Dylan (later molested and murdered) and Shasta, to feed
> his perversions, ran a website and blog. Duncan had a chip on his
> shoulder because society would even dare label him as sick, much less
> engage in what he called "discrimination" by requiring him and others
> like him to register as sex offenders. I was immediately reminded of
> Karen's disgusting defense of pedophiles. Like Duncan, Karen has
> suggested that the problem isn't with the pedophile (or the person
> engaged in bestiality or some other paraphilia) but with the rest of the
> biased society.

This guy Duncan is now suspected of a similar
abduction/molestation/murder here in Southern
California about 10 years ago. Apparently there is DNA
evidence tying him to it, and when asked by the FBI
about involvement in any other such cases in the past,
Duncan volunteered knowledge of the Riverside County
case, but then refused to talk with the local
investigators. In that one, he smashed a 10 or 12 year
old boy's head in with a watermelon-sized rock.

I guess he's what you'd call an irresponsible
pedophile, as opposed to the responsible kind.


>
> I hope her son and his wife learn of her disturbed belief system so they
> can make an informed decision about what kind of contact, if any, their
> child has with her.

Meadowlark wrote:
>> Yes, you're Karen.
>
> No, I'm not.

Yes, you are.

>> So, tell us: what is the issue to which you made vague reference ("I
>> have just learned of a very serious issue in my life, and need your
>> prayers.")? Just tell us what it is. You certainly haven't had any
>> qualms in the past about sharing a lot of details of your life. Come
>> on, just tell us.
>
> That wasn't me --

Yes, it was.

> but why would anyone tell you anything?

Catharsis. Confession is good for the soul.

> You and Usual wouldn't only try to use it to hurt that person.

I know you didn't intend the contraction, but you're quite wrong (as
usual). Karen, I've tried to engage you in substantive discussions in
these groups and at ARCE. You're the one who's incessantly whiffed and
run off with your tail between your legs. Finally, and contrary to your
intended claim, I've NEVER tried to hurt you. I've tried to help your
son. I realize you see those two as being mutually exclusive because
deep down inside you know there would be consequences.

Keep living your lies. Someday your son will find out what kind of
person you really are. Not that it's a total secret to him -- after all,
he did have to grow up being shuffled around while you were doing
everything (dressing up in your strange commune, fiddling around with
*******ism, spending your money on a book you knew would never be
published, shampooing stray cats, and taking in street urchins like JR)
except being a good mother to him.

"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
.. .
> Laurie,
>
> Thanks again for your thick hide and writing the truth.

"truth" - n. bullshit that I agree with


>
>
> Laurie wrote:
>
>> "David Wright Sr." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>... 'usual suspect' and Rudy apparently have the same
>>>mindset, ignore anything which has been presented to you which
>>>contradicts
>>>your claims.
>>
>> "usual" actually respects Rudy noBalls and tries to imitate his
>> unique style of viciousness, willful ignorance, psychopathy and
>> self-denigration, but falls rather short of the mark.
>> NoBalls is the King of Krap.
>> http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
>>
>> Laurie
>>
>>

"Beach Runner" > wrote
>
> Would you go into a Church and insult their beliefs?

Get over yourself Bob, these are discussion forums,
not a church.

Beach Runner wrote:
> Laurie,

His name is Larry. Don't confirm him in his usenet transvestitism.

> Thanks again for your thick hide

He has a matching skull.

> and writing the truth.

He's opposed to the truth.

<...>

Beach Runner wrote:
>> Larry Fruity, usenet transvestite posing as "Laurie," wrote:
>>
>>>> ... you pig-****ing hillbilly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> usual, rising to the heights of his "intellect".
>>
>> Which on my worst day surpasses yours on your best day.
>
> That is a simple personal insult based on no facts.

Which part would that be, numb nuts?

> Please take into
> account Unusual Suspects attacks people without any facts

Correct, Larry has no facts. Neither do you. You both whine when facts
are presented.

Meadowlark wrote:
>> Yes, it was. Karen,
>
> I'm not Karen

Yes, you are.

>> Neither of us ever tried to hurt you.
>
> No, but you have definitely tried to -- and suceeded in --
> hurting this Winter person.

Succeeded how? And how do you know if you're not she?

> I've Googled your entire sordid history
> on that.

Have you stopped taking your medications, Karen?

> You are dangerous and utterly unscrupulous.

Guess you missed the part where "she" (meaning "you") and Sylvia
intimated something would happen to him and his family when some of
"her" (meaning "your") ****ed-off anarchist friends would take care of
them. Still, I think "her" (meaning "your") son would find her (meaning
"your") desires for "her" (meaning "your") grandson quite unscrupulous
and so objectionable that there would be a deeper wedge in the family.

> Once anyone knows about you, he would never give you any infomation
> whatever. You use it only for evil.

Are you still subscribed to the NAMBLA newsletters, Karen?

NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for children and
genuinely respects them. They are as "un-predatory" as any
adult can be.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 22 July 1999

I'm not a spokesperson for NAMBLA, but from reading their
publications for many years...
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 25 July 1999

I've been receiving their [NAMBLA's] newsletter since 1984...
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 24 November 2001

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Oops - hit the 'send' button prematurely before. See below.
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Karen Winter, aka "Meadowlark," wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not this person
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named
>>>>>>>> Sylvia in a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm not,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you are. On 29 July, you wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a
>>>>>> forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same
>>>>>> situation myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 July, you also wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving
>>>>>> them opportunity, if possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're not Karen Winter, aka "Rat," then why this strange
>>>>>> sudden grudge against people against whom you should have no grudge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, everything you've posted lines up with your
>>>>>> volunteered life story when you posted under the pseudonyms of Rat
>>>>>> and Cynomis. Consider your statements to David Wrong about fandom;
>>>>>> your prattle about Regan, et al; and your admission that you
>>>>>> "spent six years and a bunch of money researching to write a
>>>>>> completely non-saleable fan novel" on 30 July.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You ARE Karen Winter, or the person who's been known by that name
>>>>>> in the recent past both in these groups and in real life at your
>>>>>> church. Maybe you and Sylvia got a sham wedding and you're going
>>>>>> by Karen Stevens or something else you two bitter old hags made up
>>>>>> and you're being legalistic about that, or maybe Mr Canoza is on
>>>>>> to something about you two coots going separate ways. No matter,
>>>>>> you're not fooling anyone, Karen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would wonder if it wasn't perhaps Sylvia herself, but the style
>>>>> is too stodgy and self-consciously serious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia was using Outlook at alt.tasteless in July. I'm not sure if
>>>> we can make anything of that, but I'm 100% sure Meadowlark is Karen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep - same build of Thunderbird that she was using as "Cynomis"; full
>>> of "ar" references; paranoid about being "stalked" by you and me; has
>>> posted to alt.religion.christian.episcopal as "Meadowlark", in
>>> predictable Karen Winter fashion; cybermesa.com ISP; excruciatingly
>>> turgid style; big sci-fi fan.
>>>
>>> It's Karen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Undoubtedly. I'm amused that she's squirming and trying to separate
>> herself from her past 'nyms.
>>
>>>>> The fact that she already referred to me as "Jon", and the
>>>>> plaintive crapola about "stalking", help to give her away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My tip off last week was her splitting AR hairs with talk about
>>>> Sapontzis, Regan, etc. She confirmed it with her prattle about the
>>>> LA SciFi Society and how she spent so much money *researching* to
>>>> write a non-saleable novel. All while her son was bouncing from home
>>>> to home, of course.
>>>>
>>>>> It's Karen. It's very weird that she's denying it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about Karen isn't weird? She wears her weirdness as a badge of
>>>> courage -- at least until someone says something about how her son
>>>> should know about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you saw some of my astute comments about
>>> self-marginalization in the past. Karen was the research subject for
>>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I did, and I figured as much. She's the epitome of self-marginalization.
>>
>>> In case you missed it, it goes like this:
>>>
>>> Many people feel alienated at some time in their lives. Alienation
>>> in most people is unpleasant, and they seek to reduce it. In some
>>> pathological individuals, however, it somehow comes to feel good to
>>> them. They do things to augment it, because it's what they know, and
>>> in some perverse way it's comfortable. Self-marginalization is a way
>>> of increasing their sense of alienation. Karen has been
>>> self-marginalizing for literally decades. It is mental illness,
>>> without doubt.
>>
>>
>>
>> I concur vehemently. As the Groene story in Idaho unfolded and I
>> learned that Joseph Duncan, who murdered nearly an entire family to
>> procure two small children, Dylan (later molested and murdered) and
>> Shasta, to feed his perversions, ran a website and blog. Duncan had a
>> chip on his shoulder because society would even dare label him as
>> sick, much less engage in what he called "discrimination" by requiring
>> him and others like him to register as sex offenders. I was
>> immediately reminded of Karen's disgusting defense of pedophiles. Like
>> Duncan, Karen has suggested that the problem isn't with the pedophile
>> (or the person engaged in bestiality or some other paraphilia) but
>> with the rest of the biased society.
>
> This guy Duncan is now suspected of a similar
> abduction/molestation/murder here in Southern California about 10 years
> ago. Apparently there is DNA evidence tying him to it, and when asked
> by the FBI about involvement in any other such cases in the past, Duncan
> volunteered knowledge of the Riverside County case, but then refused to
> talk with the local investigators. In that one, he smashed a 10 or 12
> year old boy's head in with a watermelon-sized rock.

I know you've expressed opposition to the death penalty, but I think
this guy is the poster child for it just on the basis of what he did in
Idaho. I've read that it's a fingerprint that ties him to the case in
SoCal. I'm also sure investigators across the nation will investigate
Duncan's whereabouts in every cold case involving a dead/sexually abused
child; I know that he's being investigated in two cases in the Seattle
area already. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all the tip of the iceberg.

> I guess he's what you'd call an irresponsible pedophile, as opposed to
> the responsible kind.

I wonder how Karen knows so much that she can tell the difference.

>> I hope her son and his wife learn of her disturbed belief system so
>> they can make an informed decision about what kind of contact, if any,
>> their child has with her.

usual suspect wrote:
> Meadowlark wrote:

>> I'm not Karen

And I am not. That's the last I intend to say on the subject.

Meadowlark wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Meadowlark wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm not Karen
>
>
> And I am not.

Yes, you are. Stop lying.


> That's the last I intend to say on the subject.

We'll see about that. You've also said you intended to
stop posting here altogether, yet you've always returned.

usual suspect wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Oops - hit the 'send' button prematurely before. See below.
>>
>>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karen Winter, aka "Meadowlark," wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not this person
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia in a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I'm not,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you are. On 29 July, you wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a
>>>>>>> forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same
>>>>>>> situation myself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 July, you also wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving
>>>>>>> them opportunity, if possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're not Karen Winter, aka "Rat," then why this strange
>>>>>>> sudden grudge against people against whom you should have no grudge?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, everything you've posted lines up with your
>>>>>>> volunteered life story when you posted under the pseudonyms of
>>>>>>> Rat and Cynomis. Consider your statements to David Wrong about
>>>>>>> fandom; your prattle about Regan, et al; and your admission that
>>>>>>> you "spent six years and a bunch of money researching to write a
>>>>>>> completely non-saleable fan novel" on 30 July.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You ARE Karen Winter, or the person who's been known by that name
>>>>>>> in the recent past both in these groups and in real life at your
>>>>>>> church. Maybe you and Sylvia got a sham wedding and you're going
>>>>>>> by Karen Stevens or something else you two bitter old hags made
>>>>>>> up and you're being legalistic about that, or maybe Mr Canoza is
>>>>>>> on to something about you two coots going separate ways. No
>>>>>>> matter, you're not fooling anyone, Karen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would wonder if it wasn't perhaps Sylvia herself, but the style
>>>>>> is too stodgy and self-consciously serious.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia was using Outlook at alt.tasteless in July. I'm not sure if
>>>>> we can make anything of that, but I'm 100% sure Meadowlark is Karen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep - same build of Thunderbird that she was using as "Cynomis";
>>>> full of "ar" references; paranoid about being "stalked" by you and
>>>> me; has posted to alt.religion.christian.episcopal as "Meadowlark",
>>>> in predictable Karen Winter fashion; cybermesa.com ISP;
>>>> excruciatingly turgid style; big sci-fi fan.
>>>>
>>>> It's Karen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Undoubtedly. I'm amused that she's squirming and trying to separate
>>> herself from her past 'nyms.
>>>
>>>>>> The fact that she already referred to me as "Jon", and the
>>>>>> plaintive crapola about "stalking", help to give her away.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My tip off last week was her splitting AR hairs with talk about
>>>>> Sapontzis, Regan, etc. She confirmed it with her prattle about the
>>>>> LA SciFi Society and how she spent so much money *researching* to
>>>>> write a non-saleable novel. All while her son was bouncing from
>>>>> home to home, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's Karen. It's very weird that she's denying it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about Karen isn't weird? She wears her weirdness as a badge of
>>>>> courage -- at least until someone says something about how her son
>>>>> should know about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you saw some of my astute comments about
>>>> self-marginalization in the past. Karen was the research subject
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I did, and I figured as much. She's the epitome of self-marginalization.
>>>
>>>> In case you missed it, it goes like this:
>>>>
>>>> Many people feel alienated at some time in their lives. Alienation
>>>> in most people is unpleasant, and they seek to reduce it. In some
>>>> pathological individuals, however, it somehow comes to feel good to
>>>> them. They do things to augment it, because it's what they know,
>>>> and in some perverse way it's comfortable. Self-marginalization is a
>>>> way of increasing their sense of alienation. Karen has been
>>>> self-marginalizing for literally decades. It is mental illness,
>>>> without doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur vehemently. As the Groene story in Idaho unfolded and I
>>> learned that Joseph Duncan, who murdered nearly an entire family to
>>> procure two small children, Dylan (later molested and murdered) and
>>> Shasta, to feed his perversions, ran a website and blog. Duncan had a
>>> chip on his shoulder because society would even dare label him as
>>> sick, much less engage in what he called "discrimination" by
>>> requiring him and others like him to register as sex offenders. I was
>>> immediately reminded of Karen's disgusting defense of pedophiles.
>>> Like Duncan, Karen has suggested that the problem isn't with the
>>> pedophile (or the person engaged in bestiality or some other
>>> paraphilia) but with the rest of the biased society.
>>
>>
>> This guy Duncan is now suspected of a similar
>> abduction/molestation/murder here in Southern California about 10
>> years ago. Apparently there is DNA evidence tying him to it, and when
>> asked by the FBI about involvement in any other such cases in the
>> past, Duncan volunteered knowledge of the Riverside County case, but
>> then refused to talk with the local investigators. In that one, he
>> smashed a 10 or 12 year old boy's head in with a watermelon-sized rock.
>
>
> I know you've expressed opposition to the death penalty, but I think
> this guy is the poster child for it just on the basis of what he did in
> Idaho.

I hope I can always maintain my opposition to it, but
guys like this test it almost to the breaking point.
My opposition to it has nothing to do with any of the
"inherent worth of all humans" crapola, and when the
penalty is carried out, I never have even a speck of
good feeling for those put to death (unless, as appears
to be the case in Missouri, an innocent man is executed).


> I've read that it's a fingerprint that ties him to the case in
> SoCal. I'm also sure investigators across the nation will investigate
> Duncan's whereabouts in every cold case involving a dead/sexually abused
> child; I know that he's being investigated in two cases in the Seattle
> area already. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all the tip of the
> iceberg.

Probably.


>> I guess he's what you'd call an irresponsible pedophile, as opposed to
>> the responsible kind.
>
>
> I wonder how Karen knows so much that she can tell the difference.

I wonder what kind of misplaced compassion and other
warped values makes her think there is a difference in
the first place. I actually think that her defense of
pedophiles is just another part of her
self-marginalization. She knows that defending
pedophiles is going to enrage people, and in her mental
illness, provoking people to a state of rage against
her feels good to her. She is deeply sick and disturbed.


>>> I hope her son and his wife learn of her disturbed belief system so
>>> they can make an informed decision about what kind of contact, if
>>> any, their child has with her.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Meadowlark wrote:
>
> > usual suspect wrote:
> >
> >> Meadowlark wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I'm not Karen
> >
> >
> > And I am not.
>
> Yes, you are. Stop lying.
>
>
> > That's the last I intend to say on the subject.
>
> We'll see about that. You've also said you intended to
> stop posting here altogether, yet you've always returned.

Settle it this way. Ask the new
Meadowlark if she approves of
adults seducing children into sex
acts. This should make it a
certainty. If she is an approver
of nambla, then it is Karen and
she should be smacked silly as
necessary.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Meadowlark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Meadowlark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'm not Karen
>>>
>>>
>>>And I am not.
>>
>>Yes, you are. Stop lying.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That's the last I intend to say on the subject.
>>
>>We'll see about that. You've also said you intended to
>>stop posting here altogether, yet you've always returned.
>
>
> Settle it this way.

It's already settled. "Meadowlark" is Karen Winter's
latest pseudonym.

Dutch wrote:

> "Beach Runner" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Beach Runner" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>you must be aware that animals can
>>>>>>>experience the emotion of fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Though it's commonly said that animals experience
>>>>>>fear, I disagree and content that they behave in a
>>>>>>way devoid of that human emotion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would you adopt such a counter-intuitive
>>>>>idea? What evidence do you have to make you
>>>>>believe that what appear to be emotive states,
>>>>>accompanied by familiar physiological and
>>>>>behavioural changes, are in fact actually... nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are all kinds of stuides of animal emotions, from a behavioral
>>>>objective, a biochecmical standpoint,
>>>>and mri views. IF you chose to ignore them because you don't want to is
>>>>ignoring objective evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>The only real debate is related to *complex* emotions,
>>>such as jealousy, which are arguably anthropomorphic,
>>>not basic emotions per se.
>>
>>With all due respect, I don't want to get into any argument,
>
>
> That's fine.
>
>
>>Jealousy is one of the most obvious emotions. Try having two animals and
>>give affection or food to one.
>
>
> That's not necessarily jealousy. The animal sees, hears
> or smells something that triggers a positive reaction, that
> doesn't mean they are thinking anything like, "I am jealous
> of Skippy", they are more likely being attracted to the
> positive stimulus than thinking about their feelings towards
> the other animal.
>
> Yes, I agree it's debatable, that was my point. What is NOT
> debatable is that animals experience basic emotions, like fear.
> This Derek person seems to adopt positions randomly then
> attempts to defend them.
>
>
Emotions come from the oldest part of the brain.

David Wright Sr. wrote:

> [junk]

You can't ignore me. I'm insistent, persistent and
compelling.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>> Larry Fruity, usenet transvestite posing as "Laurie," wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ... you pig-****ing hillbilly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> usual, rising to the heights of his "intellect".
>>>
>>>
>>> Which on my worst day surpasses yours on your best day.
>>
>>
>> That is a simple personal insult based on no facts.
>
>
> Which part would that be, numb nuts?
>
>> Please take into account Unusual Suspects attacks people without any
>> facts
>
>
> Correct, Larry has no facts. Neither do you. You both whine when facts
> are presented.

The fact is in the posting you quoted, read it again. "Pig ****inging
hill billy" is clearly an insult. Why defend his insults when he makes
a few good points.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> Settle it this way. Ask the new
> Meadowlark if she approves of
> adults seducing children into sex
> acts.

No

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>
> > [junk]
>
> You can't ignore me. I'm insistent, persistent and
> compelling.


.......also smelly and unusually stupid.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Meadowlark wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>usual suspect wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Meadowlark wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I'm not Karen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And I am not.
> >>
> >>Yes, you are. Stop lying.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's the last I intend to say on the subject.
> >>
> >>We'll see about that. You've also said you intended to
> >>stop posting here altogether, yet you've always returned.
> >
> >
> > Settle it this way.
>
> It's already settled. "Meadowlark" is Karen Winter's
> latest pseudonym.


It's already settled. YOU are Goobernicus Gonad, Jonathon Noballs, the
dwarf, the Goo, etc.

"Meadowlark" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > Settle it this way. Ask the new
> > Meadowlark if she approves of
> > adults seducing children into sex
> > acts.
>
> No

Well, I wasn't here during all
the Karen postings, but this
part anyways does not sound
like her. The trolls here say that
the problem with Karen is that
she is a nambla supporter and
abandoned her own child. I
would actually agree with the
trolls if you are indeed Karen,
that you are despicable. But
above you say you're against
nambla's main obsession.
This contradicts the posting
styles, headers, and groups
that the trolls have linked to
you so I don't know what to
think. I sincerely hope that you
are not the Karen they're talking
about.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Meadowlark wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> Settle it this way. Ask the new
>> Meadowlark if she approves of
>> adults seducing children into sex
>> acts.

Wrong question, to which Karen gave the easy and
evasive answer.


>
>
> No

No, the correct question is to ask "Meadowlark" if she
believes that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation
for children and genuinely respects them.

Another is to ask her if she would have any hesitation
in letting her son associate with the responsible
pedophiles she's met.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Meadowlark" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
>>>Meadowlark if she approves of
>>>adults seducing children into sex
>>>acts.
>>
>>No
>
>
> Well, I wasn't here during all
> the Karen postings, but this
> part anyways does not sound
> like her. The trolls here say that
> the problem with Karen is that
> she is a nambla supporter and
> abandoned her own child. I
> would actually agree with the
> trolls if you are indeed Karen,
> that you are despicable. But
> above you say you're against
> nambla's main obsession.

No, you ****ing moron. You asked the wrong question.
It was a puffball. Ask "Meadowlark" if she believes
that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for
children and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she
would have any hesitation in letting her son associate
with the responsible pedophiles she's met.


> This contradicts the posting
> styles, headers,

No. They're the same.


> and groups

They're the same, too.


> that the trolls

There are no trolls.


> have linked to
> you so I don't know what to
> think.

You should start thinking at all.


> I sincerely hope that you
> are not the Karen they're talking
> about.

She is, Skanky. It's exactly the same.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Meadowlark wrote:
>
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> >> Settle it this way. Ask the new
> >> Meadowlark if she approves of
> >> adults seducing children into sex
> >> acts.
>
> Wrong question, to which Karen gave the easy and
> evasive answer.
>
>
> >
> >
> > No
>
> No, the correct question is to ask "Meadowlark" if she
> believes that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation
> for children and genuinely respects them.
>
> Another is to ask her if she would have any hesitation
> in letting her son associate with the responsible
> pedophiles she's met.

Ok, let's ask those. Personally,
the only pedofreak I would
consider safe around kids
would have to have ALL
appendages removed and
his mouth sown shut. Nambla
is an organization that wants
people to see the 'seduction'
of boys by adult men to be
seen as child liberation? It's
just a cover for pedophiles
who are looking to pretend it's
ok.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Meadowlark" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
> >>>Meadowlark if she approves of
> >>>adults seducing children into sex
> >>>acts.
> >>
> >>No
> >
> >
> > Well, I wasn't here during all
> > the Karen postings, but this
> > part anyways does not sound
> > like her. The trolls here say that
> > the problem with Karen is that
> > she is a nambla supporter and
> > abandoned her own child. I
> > would actually agree with the
> > trolls if you are indeed Karen,
> > that you are despicable. But
> > above you say you're against
> > nambla's main obsession.
>
> No, you ****ing moron. You asked the wrong question.
> It was a puffball. Ask "Meadowlark" if she believes
> that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for
> children and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she
> would have any hesitation in letting her son associate
> with the responsible pedophiles she's met.

What's with the insults again?
****ing moron? Back at you.

> > This contradicts the posting
> > styles, headers,
>
> No. They're the same.
>
>
> > and groups
>
> They're the same, too.
>
>
> > that the trolls
>
> There are no trolls.

You are the main troll. Don't you
feel all warm and fuzzy knowing
that?

> > have linked to
> > you so I don't know what to
> > think.
>
> You should start thinking at all.

You should start thinking before
you type. People look down on
you here. Why are you here?

> > I sincerely hope that you
> > are not the Karen they're talking
> > about.
>
> She is, Skanky. It's exactly the same.

If true, maybe you two actually
have something in common,
given your frequent use of the
topic-change to child rape
when the topic was completely
unrelated.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Karen Winter, NAMBLA supporter, wrote:
>>> I'm not Karen
>
> And I am not.

Yes, you are. Why were you asking for prayers at ARCE?

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Meadowlark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
>>>>Meadowlark if she approves of
>>>>adults seducing children into sex
>>>>acts.
>>
>>Wrong question, to which Karen gave the easy and
>>evasive answer.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>No
>>
>>No, the correct question is to ask "Meadowlark" if she
>>believes that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation
>>for children and genuinely respects them.
>>
>>Another is to ask her if she would have any hesitation
>>in letting her son associate with the responsible
>>pedophiles she's met.
>
>
> Ok, let's ask those. Personally,
> the only pedofreak I would
> consider safe around kids
> would have to have ALL
> appendages removed and
> his mouth sown shut. Nambla
> is an organization that wants
> people to see the 'seduction'
> of boys by adult men to be
> seen as child liberation? It's
> just a cover for pedophiles
> who are looking to pretend it's
> ok.

You have to understand about Karen that, in her
deliberate self-marginalization, she has adopted the
belief that pedophilia is not morally wrong. She's a
real hair-splitter, and to her, pedophilia is only the
attraction; when it is acted upon, it's pederasty. She
feels the attraction is fine.

But furthermore, she has adopted the belief that as
long as adults are not penetrating the orifices of
children, a lot of adult-child sexual contact is just
fine. "Meadowlark"/Karen, for example, would have no
problem with an adult engaging in manual stimulation of
a child's genitals, or with the child performing oral
sex on an adult. She gets into a lot of bullshit about
"consent", believing wrongly that very young children
can give informed consent to sex with adults.

You're going about your questioning in entirely the
wrong way. Your questions are too specific, and too
easy for her to give an evasive and false answer to on
some kind of technical grounds. The one you asked,
about "seducing" children, for example, is all wrong.
"Meadowlark"/Karen can easily get around it by saying
that "seduction" means the child, *in that case*, isn't
giving informed consent.

The way to get the truth out of her is just to get her
to say what her thoughts are. You have to ask more
general questions for that.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Meadowlark" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
>>>>>Meadowlark if she approves of
>>>>>adults seducing children into sex
>>>>>acts.
>>>>
>>>>No
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I wasn't here during all
>>>the Karen postings, but this
>>>part anyways does not sound
>>>like her. The trolls here say that
>>>the problem with Karen is that
>>>she is a nambla supporter and
>>>abandoned her own child. I
>>>would actually agree with the
>>>trolls if you are indeed Karen,
>>>that you are despicable. But
>>>above you say you're against
>>>nambla's main obsession.
>>
>>No, you ****ing moron. You asked the wrong question.
>>It was a puffball. Ask "Meadowlark" if she believes
>>that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for
>>children and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she
>>would have any hesitation in letting her son associate
>>with the responsible pedophiles she's met.
>
>
> What's with the insults again?

What insults?


>>>This contradicts the posting
>>>styles, headers,
>>
>>No. They're the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and groups
>>
>>They're the same, too.
>>
>>
>>
>>>that the trolls
>>
>>There are no trolls.
>
>
> You are the main troll.

I am not a troll, and you know it. I ask hard
questions that you can't answer.


>>>have linked to
>>>you so I don't know what to
>>>think.
>>
>>You should start thinking at all.
>
>
> You should start thinking before
> you type. People look down on
> you here.

Most don't. The ones that do aren't qualified, and I
take no notice of their opinions.


> Why are you here?

I like it here. I make a valuable contribution here.


>>>I sincerely hope that you
>>>are not the Karen they're talking
>>>about.
>>
>>She is, Skanky. It's exactly the same.
>
>
> If true, maybe you two actually
> have something in common,
> given your frequent use of the
> topic-change to child rape
> when the topic was completely
> unrelated.

I never have changed the topic to child rape. I have
usefully introduced child rape as an extreme concept to
get you to see that there *are* moral absolutes,
whether you like to admit it or not. Also, to
illustrate the principle that doing less of an
absolutely bad thing does not make you more virtuous,
if you're still doing some of it.

If you rape a child three times a week, and your filthy
sister rapes a similar child a dozen times a week, you
are not less evil than your sister.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Meadowlark" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
> >>>>>Meadowlark if she approves of
> >>>>>adults seducing children into sex
> >>>>>acts.
> >>>>
> >>>>No
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, I wasn't here during all
> >>>the Karen postings, but this
> >>>part anyways does not sound
> >>>like her. The trolls here say that
> >>>the problem with Karen is that
> >>>she is a nambla supporter and
> >>>abandoned her own child. I
> >>>would actually agree with the
> >>>trolls if you are indeed Karen,
> >>>that you are despicable. But
> >>>above you say you're against
> >>>nambla's main obsession.
> >>
> >>No, you ****ing moron. You asked the wrong question.
> >>It was a puffball. Ask "Meadowlark" if she believes
> >>that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for
> >>children and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she
> >>would have any hesitation in letting her son associate
> >>with the responsible pedophiles she's met.
> >
> >
> > What's with the insults again?
>
> What insults?

"you ****ing moron", you ****ing
moron.

> >>>This contradicts the posting
> >>>styles, headers,
> >>
> >>No. They're the same.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>and groups
> >>
> >>They're the same, too.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>that the trolls
> >>
> >>There are no trolls.
> >
> >
> > You are the main troll.
>
> I am not a troll, and you know it. I ask hard
> questions that you can't answer.

You are a troll to the max. I know
that very well.

> >>>have linked to
> >>>you so I don't know what to
> >>>think.
> >>
> >>You should start thinking at all.
> >
> >
> > You should start thinking before
> > you type. People look down on
> > you here.
>
> Most don't. The ones that do aren't qualified, and I
> take no notice of their opinions.

Then why are those the ones you
respond to?

> > Why are you here?
>
> I like it here. I make a valuable contribution here.

Insults, lies, forgeries, uh huh...
valuable.

> >>>I sincerely hope that you
> >>>are not the Karen they're talking
> >>>about.
> >>
> >>She is, Skanky. It's exactly the same.
> >
> >
> > If true, maybe you two actually
> > have something in common,
> > given your frequent use of the
> > topic-change to child rape
> > when the topic was completely
> > unrelated.
>
> I never have changed the topic to child rape. I have
> usefully introduced child rape as an extreme concept to
> get you to see that there *are* moral absolutes,
> whether you like to admit it or not. Also, to
> illustrate the principle that doing less of an
> absolutely bad thing does not make you more virtuous,
> if you're still doing some of it.
>
> If you rape a child three times a week, and your filthy
> sister rapes a similar child a dozen times a week, you
> are not less evil than your sister.

Oops, here we go again. You
typed out your favourite twisted
fantasy again. It's too specific
not to be an authentic fantasy.
You left out the broomstick
detail that you usually slip in
there, but I'll assume it's in
your mind anyways. You and
(the real) Karen Winters should
hook up. Maybe you can role
play and leave the real kids
alone.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Meadowlark wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
> >>>>Meadowlark if she approves of
> >>>>adults seducing children into sex
> >>>>acts.
> >>
> >>Wrong question, to which Karen gave the easy and
> >>evasive answer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>No
> >>
> >>No, the correct question is to ask "Meadowlark" if she
> >>believes that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation
> >>for children and genuinely respects them.
> >>
> >>Another is to ask her if she would have any hesitation
> >>in letting her son associate with the responsible
> >>pedophiles she's met.
> >
> >
> > Ok, let's ask those. Personally,
> > the only pedofreak I would
> > consider safe around kids
> > would have to have ALL
> > appendages removed and
> > his mouth sown shut. Nambla
> > is an organization that wants
> > people to see the 'seduction'
> > of boys by adult men to be
> > seen as child liberation? It's
> > just a cover for pedophiles
> > who are looking to pretend it's
> > ok.
>
> You have to understand about Karen that, in her
> deliberate self-marginalization, she has adopted the
> belief that pedophilia is not morally wrong. She's a
> real hair-splitter, and to her, pedophilia is only the
> attraction; when it is acted upon, it's pederasty. She
> feels the attraction is fine.
>
> But furthermore, she has adopted the belief that as
> long as adults are not penetrating the orifices of
> children, a lot of adult-child sexual contact is just
> fine. "Meadowlark"/Karen, for example, would have no
> problem with an adult engaging in manual stimulation of
> a child's genitals, or with the child performing oral
> sex on an adult. She gets into a lot of bullshit about
> "consent", believing wrongly that very young children
> can give informed consent to sex with adults.
>
> You're going about your questioning in entirely the
> wrong way. Your questions are too specific, and too
> easy for her to give an evasive and false answer to on
> some kind of technical grounds. The one you asked,
> about "seducing" children, for example, is all wrong.
> "Meadowlark"/Karen can easily get around it by saying
> that "seduction" means the child, *in that case*, isn't
> giving informed consent.
>
> The way to get the truth out of her is just to get her
> to say what her thoughts are. You have to ask more
> general questions for that.

Ok, then let's go with the ones
that you asked at the top of this
post. Meadowlark, feel like
answering? Since Karen's son
is grown up, perhaps substitute
her grandson in the questions.
Here they are again for quicker
viewing:

> >>No, the correct question is to ask "Meadowlark" if she
> >>believes that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation
> >>for children and genuinely respects them.
> >>
> >>Another is to ask her if she would have any hesitation
> >>in letting her son associate with the responsible
> >>pedophiles she's met.



--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Meadowlark" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Settle it this way. Ask the new
>>>>>>>Meadowlark if she approves of
>>>>>>>adults seducing children into sex
>>>>>>>acts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I wasn't here during all
>>>>>the Karen postings, but this
>>>>>part anyways does not sound
>>>>>like her. The trolls here say that
>>>>>the problem with Karen is that
>>>>>she is a nambla supporter and
>>>>>abandoned her own child. I
>>>>>would actually agree with the
>>>>>trolls if you are indeed Karen,
>>>>>that you are despicable. But
>>>>>above you say you're against
>>>>>nambla's main obsession.
>>>>
>>>>No, you ****ing moron. You asked the wrong question.
>>>>It was a puffball. Ask "Meadowlark" if she believes
>>>>that NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for
>>>>children and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she
>>>>would have any hesitation in letting her son associate
>>>>with the responsible pedophiles she's met.
>>>
>>>
>>>What's with the insults again?
>>
>>What insults?
>
>
> "you ****ing moron",

That's not an insult.


> you ****ing moron.

There's no need to insult me.


>>>>>This contradicts the posting
>>>>>styles, headers,
>>>>
>>>>No. They're the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and groups
>>>>
>>>>They're the same, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that the trolls
>>>>
>>>>There are no trolls.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are the main troll.
>>
>>I am not a troll, and you know it. I ask hard
>>questions that you can't answer.
>
>
> You are a troll to the max. I know
> that very well.

I am not a troll at all, and you know it. "Troll" is
just an insult you happen to like a lot.


>>>>>have linked to
>>>>>you so I don't know what to
>>>>>think.
>>>>
>>>>You should start thinking at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>You should start thinking before
>>>you type. People look down on
>>>you here.
>>
>>Most don't. The ones that do aren't qualified, and I
>>take no notice of their opinions.
>
>
> Then why are those the ones you
> respond to?

To point out all the many areas in which they are wrong.


>>>Why are you here?
>>
>>I like it here. I make a valuable contribution here.
>
>
> Insults, lies, forgeries, uh huh...

None of that.


>>>>>I sincerely hope that you
>>>>>are not the Karen they're talking
>>>>>about.
>>>>
>>>>She is, Skanky. It's exactly the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>If true, maybe you two actually
>>>have something in common,
>>>given your frequent use of the
>>>topic-change to child rape
>>>when the topic was completely
>>>unrelated.
>>
>>I never have changed the topic to child rape. I have
>>usefully introduced child rape as an extreme concept to
>>get you to see that there *are* moral absolutes,
>>whether you like to admit it or not. Also, to
>>illustrate the principle that doing less of an
>>absolutely bad thing does not make you more virtuous,
>>if you're still doing some of it.
>>
>>If you rape a child three times a week, and your filthy
>>sister rapes a similar child a dozen times a week, you
>>are not less evil than your sister.
>
>
> Oops, here we go again.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the point.
Repetition may help you.


> You typed out your favourite twisted
> fantasy again.

No, I have no such fantasy. It's a useful example to
show you two things.



> It's too specific
> not to be an authentic fantasy.

It's not a fantasy at all. It is intended to be shocking.

Beach Runner wrote:
>> Which part would that be, numb nuts?

Which part?

>>> Please take into account Unusual Suspects attacks people without any
>>> facts
>>
>> Correct, Larry has no facts. Neither do you. You both whine when facts
>> are presented.
>
> The fact is in the posting you quoted, read it again. "Pig ****inging
> hill billy"

PIG-****ING HILLBILLY. Get it right, dumb ass.

> is clearly an insult.

Even if it happens to be true?