cheeky the meat lobbyist wrote:
> > What's After Worlds?
>
> The place where losers like you pay $85 to chat with other losers,
> "whisper" to each other, and send each other phony telegrams.

The place you are referring to is actually *Active* Worlds. Are you
going to insist on refusing correction again? Probably.

What are you doing chatting on these newsgroups if you are so against
chatting and online interactions? Answer. I know you will avoid
answering, either that or insist that what you do is different than
chatting.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky, stoned 46 year-old LOSER who wastes money and time sending
cyber telegrams and "whispering" to other LOSERS in very obscure chat
sites when she's NOT riding the bus or taking all-afternoon naps, wrote:

> > > What's After Worlds?
> >
> > The place where losers like you pay $85 to chat with other losers,
> > "whisper" to each other, and send each other phony telegrams.
>
> The place you are referring to is

....****ing irrelevant, just like you are.

> What are you doing chatting on these newsgroups

Newsgroups aren't chat, dipshit.

cheeko the meat lobbyist wrote:
> Newsgroups aren't chat, dipshit.

They are nothing more than a group chat. In postings rather than live,
but chat just the same.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky, unimportant 46 year-old pot-head who wastes her aimless life
riding the bus and "whispering" for $85 a year in a dopey chatroom
filled with other losers, wrote:

>>Newsgroups aren't chat, dipshit.
>
> They are nothing more than a group chat.

Wrong.

> In postings rather than live,
> but chat just the same.

No, you dumb bitch, newsgroups are specifically defined hierarchies of
topical repositories within Usenet. Usenet is not chat.

Chat, whether IRC, instant messaging, or some similar means of real-time
communication, is entirely different in method, design, scope, etc.,
from newsgroups (Usenet).

Skanky the 43-46 year old wasted wastrel pot-head
dipshit carless child rapist blabbered:
> cheeko the meat lobbyist wrote:
>
>>Newsgroups aren't chat, dipshit.
>
>
> They are nothing more than a group chat.

False. They aren't like chat at all. YOU treat them
like chat, because you're inconsequential and have
nothing meaningful to say.

Chat is real-time; synchronous. You see some small
outburst of what someone has said, and you - you
particularly - blurt out some inanity in reply. Usenet
is different. It is asynchronous. You see the
entirety of someone's post, and you can pick and choose
which parts of it to address. There may be - although
never with yours - more complete thoughts expressed.

As usual, you'll argue, no matter how badly wrong
you're shown to be.

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > <..>
> > > >
> > > >>>They are.
> > > >>
> > > >>They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
> > > >>accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
> > > >>but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
> > > >>the plane crashes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'Hijackers Alive And Well
> > >
> > > No, they are not. The hijackers all died in the
> > > crashes. Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
> > > are all dead. No one survived the crashes.
> >
> > Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
>
> Certain names are very common in various parts of the world, but that
> doesn't mean the hijackers are alive and well. They're all dead.

And "fire brought down the WTC".

"Ineptitude, confusion and perhaps ... deception. INCORRECT
TESTIMONY ... REPEATED MIS-STATEMENTS ... ALL OF
THE AFTER ACTION REPORTS .... ADVANCED AN ACCOUNT
OF 9/11 THAT WAS UNTRUE. ... WEREN'T FORTHCOMING
WITH INFORMATION ... DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH ... THE
FACT THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE AND PERPETUATE
THE LIE SUGGESTS THAT WE NEED A FULL INVESTIGATION
OF WHAT IS GOING ON .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahv3VdknyZ4

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > > > > ...dead.
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.

No.

> And the response to why large objects, like buildings, fall
> straight down doesn't change: gravity.

Only if the support is broken at multiple points throughout the
height of the three (3) structures. There were 47 huge central
steel support columns embedded within concrete (and with an
external layer of insulation) in WTC 1 & 2, and 24 in WTC 7.

We know that:

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So what went wrong, 'chico'? Tell us how you think it happened.

WELL?

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school

No, as you have been informed repeatedly, fool.

> > ...Let's see you address this:
>
> G-R-A-V-I-T-Y. It's why objects fall to earth. Dipshit.

Only if the support is broken at multiple points throughout the
height of the three (3) structures. There were 47 huge central
steel support columns embedded within concrete (and with an
external layer of insulation) in WTC 1 & 2, and 24 in WTC 7.

We know that:

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So what went wrong, 'chico'? Tell us how you think it happened.

WELL?

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

[BS]

This is still awaiting an answer, traitor:

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So what went wrong, 'chico'? Tell us how you think it happened.

WELL?

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>pearl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>><..>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>They are.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
> >>>>>>>>accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
> >>>>>>>>but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
> >>>>>>>>the plane crashes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>'Hijackers Alive And Well
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, they are not. The hijackers all died in the
> >>>>>>crashes. Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
> >>>>>>are all dead. No one survived the crashes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then either there are multiple people with the same
> >>>>names - do a Google search on "Eddie Johnson" for an
> >>>>unfortunate recent incident of mistaken identity,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Read what you snipped:
> >>>
> >>>'Hijackers Alive And Well
> >>
> >>[snip > >
> >
> > As expected.
>
> Because it's not what I want to believe.

Poor self-deluded, gullible dupe.

"Ineptitude, confusion and perhaps ... deception. INCORRECT
TESTIMONY ... REPEATED MIS-STATEMENTS ... ALL OF
THE AFTER ACTION REPORTS .... ADVANCED AN ACCOUNT
OF 9/11 THAT WAS UNTRUE. ... WEREN'T FORTHCOMING
WITH INFORMATION ... DIDN'T TELL THE TRUTH ... THE
FACT THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE AND PERPETUATE
THE LIE SUGGESTS THAT WE NEED A FULL INVESTIGATION
OF WHAT IS GOING ON .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahv3VdknyZ4

> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>>pearl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
> >>>>>>>into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Answer the question,
> >>>>
> >>>>And before you say "gravity" again,
> >>>
> >>>It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.
> >>
> >>Only if the support is broken at multiple points throughout the
> >>height of the three (3) structures. There were 47 huge central
> >>steel support columns embedded within concrete (and with an
> >>external layer of insulation) in WTC 1 & 2, and 24 in WTC 7.
> >>
> >>We know that:
> >>
> >>'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
> >>a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
> >>strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
> >>support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
> >>http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
>
> Not expert analysis.

That's the best you can come up with? Show otherwise.

pearl wrote:

>>>>><..>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>They are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
>>>>>>accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
>>>>>>but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
>>>>>>the plane crashes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>'Hijackers Alive And Well
>>>>
>>>>No, they are not. The hijackers all died in the
>>>>crashes. Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
>>>>are all dead. No one survived the crashes.
>>>
>>>Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
>>
>>Certain names are very common in various parts of the world, but that
>>doesn't mean the hijackers are alive and well. They're all dead.
>
> And "fire brought down the WTC".

Gravity did; the fire only weakened the steel, dumbass.

pearl wrote:

>>>>>>...dead.
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Yes.
>
> No.

Yes. They're all dead.

>>And the response to why large objects, like buildings, fall
>>straight down doesn't change: gravity.
>
> Only if

....gravity works. It does. That's why it came down, you incompetent
little foot-rubbing slut.

Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school, wrote:

>>Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school
>
> No

Yes. You've demonstrated an abject failure to apply to most elementary
principles of mathematics. That's because you never grasped those
principles in the first place.

>>>...Let's see you address this:
>>
>>G-R-A-V-I-T-Y. It's why objects fall to earth. Dipshit.
>
> Only if

It was gravity. Not UFOs with enlightened beings from beneath Mount
Shasta, not remote control jumbo jets, not a mystery man on a grassy knoll.

Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school, wrote:

> [BS]

It's your specialty.

> This is still

Gravity. It's why stuff falls to earth, dummy. Not UFOs, not hollow
earth, not secret societies beneath Mount Shasta, not foot massage, not
remote control jumbo jets, not someone on a grassy knoll. Just gravity,
you rabid bitch.

Goo, the inept idiot who is obsessed with accusing others of child rape
wrote:
> > They are nothing more than a group chat.
>
> False. They aren't like chat at all. YOU treat them
> like chat, because you're inconsequential and have
> nothing meaningful to say.

I can't believe you're arguing this point. You are willing to latch on
to ANYTHING to argue about.

> Chat is real-time; synchronous. You see some small
> outburst of what someone has said, and you - you
> particularly - blurt out some inanity in reply. Usenet
> is different. It is asynchronous. You see the
> entirety of someone's post, and you can pick and choose
> which parts of it to address. There may be - although
> never with yours - more complete thoughts expressed.
>
> As usual, you'll argue, no matter how badly wrong
> you're shown to be.

I'm not wrong. These groups are indeed a form of chat, no matter how
time-delayed your chatting abilities.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky, 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel who wastes time and money
"whispering and sending "telegrams" in loser chatrooms and then drags
her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also chat (but it's NOT), wrote:

>>>They are nothing more than a group chat.
>>
>>False. They aren't like chat at all. YOU treat them
>>like chat, because you're inconsequential and have
>>nothing meaningful to say.
>
> I can't believe

You're the one being argumentative about this. Chat and Usenet are not
the same thing. They're completely distinct.

>>Chat is real-time; synchronous. You see some small
>>outburst of what someone has said, and you - you
>>particularly - blurt out some inanity in reply. Usenet
>>is different. It is asynchronous. You see the
>>entirety of someone's post, and you can pick and choose
>>which parts of it to address. There may be - although
>>never with yours - more complete thoughts expressed.
>>
>>As usual, you'll argue, no matter how badly wrong
>>you're shown to be.
>
> I'm not wrong.

Yes, you are (as usual). Newsgroups are specifically defined hierarchies
of topical repositories within Usenet. Usenet is *not* chat.

Chat, whether IRC, instant messaging, or some similar means of real-time
communication, is entirely different in method, design, scope, etc.,
from newsgroups (Usenet).

> These groups are indeed

These groups are Usenet, NOT chat. Dummy.

cheeko upchuck wrote:
> Chat and Usenet are not
> the same thing. They're completely distinct.

People converse - both. People reply - both. Looks, smells, and
tastes like chatting to me.

> Newsgroups are specifically defined hierarchies
> of topical repositories within Usenet. Usenet is *not* chat.
>
> Chat, whether IRC, instant messaging, or some similar means of real-time
> communication, is entirely different in method, design, scope, etc.,
> from newsgroups (Usenet).

So let me get this straight. You are violently opposed to real-time
chat, yet you consider these usenet groups to be very good and
different because the chat is in delayed time. You're ****ed, Upchuck.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky, self-marginalized and passivist 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel
who wastes time and money "whispering and sending "telegrams" in loser
chatrooms and then drags her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also
chat (but it's NOT), wrote:

> So let me get this straight.

You never get anything straight. Maybe try comprehending it when you're
sober and have had your afternoon nap. You're not doing a very good job
of it now. Then again, I doubt sobriety or "rest" (when are you NOT
resting?) will be of any benefit, jellyhead.

> You are violently

I'm not violent, jellyhead. Your abuse of the English language, though, is.

pearl wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>><..>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>They are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
>>>>>>>>>>accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
>>>>>>>>>>but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
>>>>>>>>>>the plane crashes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>'Hijackers Alive And Well
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, they are not. The hijackers all died in the
>>>>>>>>crashes. Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
>>>>>>>>are all dead. No one survived the crashes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then either there are multiple people with the same
>>>>>>names - do a Google search on "Eddie Johnson" for an
>>>>>>unfortunate recent incident of mistaken identity,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read what you snipped:
>>>>>
>>>>>'Hijackers Alive And Well
>>>>
>>>>[snip > >
>>>
>>>As expected.
>>
>>Because it's a massive steaming load of BULLSHIT that is indicative of your tendency to believe in irrational, STUPID things.
>
>
> Poor self-deluded, gullible dupe lesley.
>
> [bullshit]

The hijackers are all dead.


>
>
>>>"pearl" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
>>>>>>>>>into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Answer the question,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And before you say "gravity" again,
>>>>>
>>>>>It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.
>>>>
>>>>Only if the support is broken at multiple points throughout the
>>>>height of the three (3) structures. There were 47 huge central
>>>>steel support columns embedded within concrete (and with an
>>>>external layer of insulation) in WTC 1 & 2, and 24 in WTC 7.
>>>>
>>>>We know that:
>>>>
>>>>'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
>>>>a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
>>>>strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
>>>>support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
>>>>http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
>>
>>Not expert analysis.
>
>
> That's the best

Right.

Skanky the 43-46 year old wasted wastrel pot-head
dipshit carless child rapist blabbered:

> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>>
>>Skanky the 43-46 year old wasted wastrel pot-head dipshit carless child rapist blabbered:
>
>>>They are nothing more than a group chat.
>>
>>False. They aren't like chat at all. YOU treat them
>>like chat, because you're inconsequential and have
>>nothing meaningful to say.
>
>
> I can't believe you're arguing this point.

My statement is correct.


>>Chat is real-time; synchronous. You see some small
>>outburst of what someone has said, and you - you
>>particularly - blurt out some inanity in reply. Usenet
>>is different. It is asynchronous. You see the
>>entirety of someone's post, and you can pick and choose
>>which parts of it to address. There may be - although
>>never with yours - more complete thoughts expressed.
>>
>>As usual, you'll argue, no matter how badly wrong
>>you're shown to be.
>
>
> I'm not wrong.

You *are* wrong, and as usual, you're stubborn about it.


> These groups are indeed a form of chat,

False.

cheeko upchuck wrote:
> I'm not violent

You show all the warning signs of someone who is violent. At the
least, you're violently opposed to chatting for some reason. Is it
because those who you chat with often don't like you?

Skanky the 43-46 year old wasted wastrel pot-head
dipshit carless child rapist blabbered:

> cheeko upchuck wrote:
>
>>I'm not violent
>
>
> You show all the warning signs of someone who is violent.

You have no background whatever in psychology or any
other mental health discipline. You're running your
ignorant fat yap, again.

Goo the meat lobbyist wrote:
> child rapist blabbered:

Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you. You have a strong history
of gratuitously mentioning child rape, usually specifying that the
victim is a boy and the method is a broom handle. Did this happen to
you? Or do you do this to others? Or both? Tell us. Everyone's
wondering where your obsessions and accusations come from.

> > These groups are indeed a form of chat,
>
> False.

Call it what you want, and I'll call it what I want. If I said the sky
was blue, you'd say it's green with purple polkadots. You are contrary
just for the purpose of being contrary.

Skanky, self-marginalized and passivist 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel
who wastes time and money "whispering" and sending "telegrams" in loser
chatrooms and then drags her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also
chat (but it's NOT), wrote:

>>I'm not violent
>
> You show all the warning signs

You're a chronic pot-head who rides the bus. You're not a psychologist
or psychiatrist. Your only famialiarity with either of those professions
would be in the role of patient, which wouldn't surprise me one bit.

> you're violently opposed

There's no violence in my opposition to your misunderstandings of the
differences between chatting and Usenet.

Skanky, self-marginalized and passivist 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel
who wastes time and money "whispering" and sending "telegrams" in loser
chatrooms and then drags her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also
chat (but it's NOT), wrote:

> Everyone's wondering

You don't speak for everyone, dummy.


>>>These groups are indeed a form of chat,
>>
>>False.
>
> Call it what you want

It's Usenet. It's not the same as chat.

> If I said the sky was blue, you'd say it's green

I doubt he would, though it would be reasonable for him to check himself
given your history of deceit and drug abuse.

Skanky the 43-46 year old wasted wastrel pot-head
dipshit carless child rapist blabbered:

> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>
>>child rapist blabbered:
>
>
> Seriously,

Hahahahaha! From you?! "Seriously"? You are ****ING
kidding...


>>>These groups are indeed a form of chat,
>>
>>False.
>
>
> Call it what you want,

It't not chat. You don't get to create your own
reality, skanky. It simply isn't chat. EVERYTHING
about it is different.

Leif Erikson wrote:

> Skanky the 43-46 year old wasted wastrel pot-head dipshit carless child
> rapist blabbered:
>
>> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>>
>>> child rapist blabbered:
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously,
>
>
> Hahahahaha! From you?! "Seriously"? You are ****ING kidding...

Isn't that the funniest shit when she starts out a sentence with
"seriously" or "let me get this straight"? Forty-six years of sloth and
trying so hard to NOT fit in and all of a sudden she's going to get
something straight or be serious. Haha, my sides hurt.

>>>> These groups are indeed a form of chat,
>>>
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>>
>>
>> Call it what you want,
>
>
> It't not chat. You don't get to create your own reality, skanky. It
> simply isn't chat. EVERYTHING about it is different.

chico chupacabra wrote:
> lesley, foot masseuse who pretends to be a learned scientist, wrote:
>
> > > http://www.thebukkakeagency.com/DyingForAHamburger.htm
> >
> > Thanks, shevek.
>
>
> > 'Absolutely impossible, insisted British health authorities, that mad
> > cow disease could be transmitted to humans through infected beef.
> > Yet less than a decade later, hundreds of people (including recent
> > victims in Saskatchewan and Florida) who ate infected beef have died
> > of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), with perhaps hundreds of thousands
> > more at risk for developing the disease. Could the same scenario hold
> > true for Alzheimer's disease?
>
> Nope. Two completely different diseases.
>
> > Before about 1900 Alzheimer's disease did not exist
>
> Yes, it did.
> Progressive mental deterioration in old age has been recognized
> and described throughout history. However, in was not until the
> early part of the 20th century that a collection of brain cell
> abnormalities were specifically identified by Dr. Alois
> Alzheimer, a German physician, in 1906.
> http://www.ahaf.org/alzdis/about/adhistory.htm
>
> The issue isn't the rate of the disease, but the increased life
> expectancy in the last century:
> Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century,
> especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in
> the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the
> century it was 77 years, an increase of 57%.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
>
> The reason there are more cases today than there were 100 years ago is
> because people are living almost 60% longer than they did 100 years
> ago. You ****ing retard.
>

There's enough evidence here to show that meat eating is linked to
Tourette's syndrome.

And you are pretty smart to realize that if longevity is correlated to
alheimers incidence, then nothing else could possibly play a role.

cheeko upchuck the meat lobbyist wrote:
> >>>These groups are indeed a form of chat,
> >>
> >>False.
> >
> > Call it what you want
>
> It's Usenet. It's not the same as chat.

I think it is. If you were a normal person, I'd just agree to
disagree, but you are contrary about anything you can be, so I don't
believe you could equally agree to disagree in a pleasant manner.

> > If I said the sky was blue, you'd say it's green
>
> I doubt he would, though it would be reasonable for him to check himself
> given your history of deceit and drug abuse.

What deceit and drug abuse? Huh? Can you prove your accusations? No
you can't, goatsucker.

Goo, obsessed with the form of child rape he himself suffered (or
practices?) wrote:
> >>child rapist blabbered:

Prove this absurdity. Now. Why are you obsessed with this sort of
thing? Did it happen to you? Was it by a woman, leaving you to hate
women forever? Have you considered medication and therapy?

> >>>These groups are indeed a form of chat,
> >>
> >>False.
> >
> >
> > Call it what you want,
>
> It't not chat. You don't get to create your own
> reality, skanky. It simply isn't chat. EVERYTHING
> about it is different.

Define 'everything', and then let's examine the characteristics in a
logical way to compare them. You willing? Let's see.

cheeky the meat lobbyist goatsucker wrote:
> Isn't that the funniest shit when she starts out a sentence with
> "seriously" or "let me get this straight"? Forty-six years of sloth and
> trying so hard to NOT fit in and all of a sudden she's going to get
> something straight or be serious. Haha, my sides hurt.

So you're avoiding the topic. Figures.

Skanky, self-marginalized and passivist 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel
who spends time and money "whispering" and sending "telegrams" in loser
chatrooms and then drags her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also
chat (but it's NOT), wrote:

> > >>>These groups are indeed a form of chat,
> > >>
> > >>False.
> > >
> > > Call it what you want
> >
> > It's Usenet. It's not the same as chat.
>
> I think

You don't think. You shoot your smeggy mouth off about stuff you'll
never comprehend or take the time to understand.

> > > If I said the sky was blue, you'd say it's green
> >
> > I doubt he would, though it would be reasonable for him to check
> > himself given your history of deceit and drug abuse.
>
> What deceit and drug abuse?

Your lies about your employment, aside from admitting you held a
low-level job in a candy factory briefly, and your retirement; your
lies about who and what benefits from your slothful lifestyle (animals,
environment, etc.); etc.

As for drug abuse, even your website has information about it. You've
also admitted to smoking pot. Your tendency to ask questions for
proof after you've already admitted things is a sign of poor character,
but that's not news to anyone who's read your posts.

Skanky, self-marginalized and passivist 46 year-old bus-riding wastrel
who spends time and money "whispering" and sending "telegrams" in loser
chatrooms and then drags her lazy ass to Usenet and thinks it's also
chat (but it's NOT) and whines about how inconvenient she finds saving
the world, wrote:

> > Isn't that the funniest shit when she starts out a sentence with
> > "seriously" or "let me get this straight"? Forty-six years of sloth
> > and trying so hard to NOT fit in and all of a sudden she's going to
> > get something straight or be serious. Haha, my sides hurt.
>
> So

So it's funny.

cheeko upchuck wrote:
> Your lies about your employment, aside from admitting you held a
> low-level job in a candy factory briefly, and your retirement; your
> lies about who and what benefits from your slothful lifestyle (animals,
> environment, etc.); etc.

I've not lied about anything other than some of my insults, eg you
being a chipmunk.

> As for drug abuse, even your website has information about it. You've
> also admitted to smoking pot.

Is every drinker an alcoholic?

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"chico chupacabra" > lied in message ...

> Gravity.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth

"chico chupacabra" > lied in message ...

> Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school,

> > No
>
> Yes.

No.

> You've demonstrated an abject failure to apply to most elementary
> principles of mathematics. That's because you never grasped those
> principles in the first place.

Where?

> >>>...Let's see you address this:
> >>
> >>G-R-A-V-I-T-Y. It's why objects fall to earth. Dipshit.
> >
> > Only if
>
> It was gravity.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>>>...dead.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes.
> >>>
> >>>No.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes. They're all dead.

No.

'EIGHT of the alleged September 11th Hijackers are Alive

The FBI STILL lists these men as the terrorists who crashed
planes into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon,
and Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania on September 11th.
But eight of them are ALIVE.

The FBI press release of September 27th, 2001 containing names,
photographs, aliases and other information.

Places of birth, date of birth and other personal details were
presented in news media throughout the world.

Eight men accused were NOT on those planes.

So, WHY has Bush been allowed to proceed with war???!!!
The so called evidence IS A LIE.
....'
http://100777.com/node/237

> >>And the response to why large objects, like buildings, fall
> >>straight down doesn't change: gravity.
> >
> > Only if
>
> ...gravity works. It does. That's why it came down,

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>><..>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>They are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
> >>>>>>accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
> >>>>>>but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
> >>>>>>the plane crashes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>'Hijackers Alive And Well
> >>>>
> >>>>No, they are not. The hijackers all died in the
> >>>>crashes. Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
> >>>>are all dead. No one survived the crashes.
> >>>
> >>>Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
> >>
> >>Certain names are very common in various parts of the world, but that
> >>doesn't mean the hijackers are alive and well. They're all dead.
> >
> > And "fire brought down the WTC".
>
> Gravity did; the fire only weakened the steel, dumbass.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

On 8/19/2006 3:44 PM, pearl wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> <..>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They aren't, lesley. The hijackers are all dead. Some
>>>>>>>> accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
>>>>>>>> but the hijackers are all dead. No one survived any of
>>>>>>>> the plane crashes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Hijackers Alive And Well

The hijackers are all dead.

>>>>>> No, they are not. The hijackers all died in the
>>>>>> crashes. Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
>>>>>> are all dead. No one survived the crashes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
>>>>
>>>> Certain names are very common in various parts of the world, but that
>>>> doesn't mean the hijackers are alive and well. They're all dead.
>>>
>>> And "fire brought down the WTC".
>>
>> Gravity did; the fire only weakened the steel, dumbass.
>
> 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
> a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
> strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
> support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

LOL! Very humorous to see a foot-rubbing prostitute trying to pass
herself off as a structural engineer.

On 12/29/17 12:55 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 8/19/2006 3:44 PM, pearl wrote:
>> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> <..>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They aren't, lesley.Â* The hijackers are all dead.Â* Some
>>>>>>>>> accomplices who didn't board the planes may be alive,
>>>>>>>>> but the hijackers are all dead.Â* No one survived any of
>>>>>>>>> the plane crashes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Hijackers Alive And Well
>
> The hijackers are all dead.
>
>>>>>>> No, they are not.Â* The hijackers all died in the
>>>>>>> crashes.Â* Some plotters may be alive, but the hijackers
>>>>>>> are all dead.Â* No one survived the crashes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the people named as hijackers are still alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certain names are very common in various parts of the world, but that
>>>>> doesn't mean the hijackers are alive and well. They're all dead.
>>>>
>>>> And "fire brought down the WTC".
>>>
>>> Gravity did; the fire only weakened the steel, dumbass.
>>
>> 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
>> a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
>> strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could
>> still
>> support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
>> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
>
> LOL!Â* Very humorous to see a foot-rubbing prostitute trying to pass
> herself off as a structural engineer.
>
>
very humorous to see a pet food cow genius trying to pass himself off as
a structural engineer.