Where's everybody gone?
lesley tried to spin:
>> It was quite amusing that she confided to you that the airplanes were >> trying to keep her and her secret information down > > Well.. if it was said I have no reason to not believe Derek's account of the conversation: She honestly believes she's been targetted for chemtrailing to dope her up and keep her quiet about things. She's certifiable. Derk Nash: http://snipurl.com/6yln > .. it was said in jest.. Just like your wild-assed claims about curing your sister via foot massage: The crap and lies you peddle are just that, Lieslie: crap and lies. But even the tallest story ever told concerning the claims of reflexology pale into insignificance when we look at yours and how you FULLY cured your sister from irreversible brain damage. Haw haw haw. Why don't you just give it all up, you silly bitch? No one believes you. You're finished. Take your snake oils, crystals and quackery, and stick to conning the gullible public instead. I'm sure there's someone out there in a great deal of pain who'll gladly pay anything for just a hope of some relief. They're the one's evil bitches like you and Hulda should be targetting. You're a leech on those crippled with pain and will egotistically persuade them away from genuine pain relief just so you can continue playing little Miss Healing Hands. What a fraud. Derek Nash, 2003-06-11 http://tinyurl.com/mk8q >> by spraying >> "chemtrails" over her leaning house. Even more amusing, she's posted >> pics of contrails > > 'What's the difference between a jet contrail and a chemtrail? The difference is whether one is mentally sound or mentally ill. The latter will be irrational and afraid that it's trying to keep her "doped up and quiet about things," as Derek said you claimed. > Chemtrails: > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/chemfilth.html Those are contrails, you stupid slut. The reason there are so many more than when you were a child has to do with the number of flights today. >> on her website (I must use that word very loosely; her >> HTML coding is quite horrible). > > I use Netscape 4.6. It's pretty basic, but quite adequate. You cannot blame Netscape/Mozilla for your amateurish abuse of their product. That's your own failure, not theirs. |
Where's everybody gone?
the foot-rubbing skag of Ireland wrote:
> <..> > >>>>>> This is a very strange situation indeed, >>>>> The only strange situation going on here is your hate campaign against her and your >>>>> refusal to accept the fact that she rejects at least two of the things you're all accusing >>>>> her of. > >>>> She didn't reject it outright, dummy. Go back and look. It was qualified in every >>>> clause: > >>>> "*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires >>>> conditioning *OR* abuse..." > > Twisterrrrr. That's a server name, dummy. > "To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if Why the "if"? > it is contrary to an animals' instinct Tell us when it IS consistent with "an animals' [sic] instinct" to **** a human. > and requires conditioning When do animals naturally desire to mate outside their own species? > or abuse, What else do you call it when a human "entices" an animal for sex? > I _strongly_ condemn it." Your condemnation is feeble because you've given so many qualifications to the issue. You have yet to categorically state that it's always wrong for humans to **** animals. Why haven't you? Karen's not here to mind you now so you don't have to worry about offending her predilections in this area. |
Where's everybody gone?
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote: > >>>>>>> He was a lying criminal >>>>>> Then how can you believe him cut I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from lying criminals. cut -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message > ... > >>Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then how can you believe him > > > cut > > I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from > lying criminals. lesley's ex-husband was a skinhead, and he was telling the truth about lesley's apparent participation in the depraved skinhead subculture. |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead:
>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal >>>>>>> Then how can you believe him > > cut > > I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from > lying criminals. What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some way with his skinhead worldview? |
Where's everybody gone?
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > Billy Blight wrote: > > <...> >> Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to >> know you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though. > > Why should you be surprised? The guy is an insufferable prick. > He seems OK to me if you can manage to stay on his good side. >> OK, I've read those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her. > > Because she's a friggin' moron and he came to his senses about the little green > men, the claims that foot massages cure people of dread disease (and brain > injury!), etc. > >> And yes, you regret it and blame yourself. Too late! > > He's wrong to now regret pointing out her serious mental defects. Why is it too > late to make amends, rightly or (in this case) wrongly, if one believes one has > offended or wronged another? > >> Do you argue with everyone > > He DOES! > >> that > > Everyone "WHO," not "that." > >> disagrees with you? > > He DOES! He's the most argumentative shit in these groups. > >> You knew she was a vegan. > > She's not a vegan. > >> She's on your side, so why weren't you on her side!! > > So we have yet another instance in which "the side" is deemed more important than > "the truth." That's not what I meant. Derek had it right when he called her a > goofy bitch or whatever it was he said, No, he regrets his baseless attack on her. He admitted to me that he lied about her for no reason. So what's yours, or don't you have one either. and he'd be correct in calling > you one, too. > He hasn't attacked me. Indeed, he's spent a lot of his time writing to me at some considerable length with some sound advice I really appreciate. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > Billy Blight wrote: > >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Then how can you believe him >> >> >> cut >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from >> lying criminals. > > lesley's ex-husband was a skinhead, and he was telling the truth about lesley's > apparent participation in the depraved skinhead subculture. I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from lying criminals. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: > >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him >> >> cut >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from >> lying criminals. > > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. > Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some way > with his skinhead worldview? I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he didn't identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
chico chupacabra wrote:
> chelsea foot-masseuse wrote: > >>>>>>>>> bestiality <snip> >>> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) is >>> repeatedly >>> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an >>> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response. >>> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to >>> coerce behavior >>> children and animals would normally not engage. >> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical. > How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go > around seeking interspecies copulation? <snip> It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm and rational manner; shall we try? Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to, or who would be a biologically appropriate mate. They learn through imprinting and/or socialization after hatching or during a fairly narrow window of time during the growing-up period. If the young animals are not raised by/with conspecifics, they often regard members of whichever species raised them as appropriate mates when they grow up. Anyone who is familiar with raising orphan animals or wildlife rehabilitation can tell many stories of non-human animals who were raised by humans and later tried to court and mate with humans. The earliest example I remember reading about was the hand-raised jackdaw who tried to court Konrad Lorenz ( described in _King Solomon's Ring_). This is so common that people working with wildlife now understand it and deliberately try to avoid it by disguising themselves as the animal's own species. In most cases, this interspecies attraction was unintentional and was not desired by the human, but it certainly is not that uncommon. It's not surprising that in some few cases among humans, the attraction would be found on the human's side of the equation as well; we are, after all, not that different from other mammals. We see a variety of examples of interspecies copulation which do not involve humans. In the cases where the two species are close, we sometimes get hybrid offspring, such as mules, coy- and wolf-dogs, and lion/tiger crossbreeds. Sometimes these interspecies matings happen in the wild, without human intervention, as in the case of wolf/dog or coyote/dog matings. More often, human intervention of some kind is involved, as in the case of deliberately breeding mules. Certainly, if humans deliberately condition young animals to want to mate with humans instead of their own species, for the benefit of humans, it is unethical by AR standards, but no more unethical than deliberately conditioning animals to do other unnatural things for the benefit of humans, such as pulling wagons, allowing humans to ride them, engaging in silly entertainment shows, or herding sheep or cattle for humans. <snip> >>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the >>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per >>> se_. This, I think, is true. <snip> >> Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary >> to your implying that she defended it). <snip> > She was suggesting one's position on such > conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we > condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.). *IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics, and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole criterion. <snip> >> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an >> animals' >> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it. I agree <snip> |
Where's everybody gone?
William wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Billy Blight wrote: >> >> >>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message .. . >>> >>> >>>>Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Then how can you believe him >>> >>> >>>cut >>> >>>I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from >>>lying criminals. >> >>lesley's ex-husband was a skinhead, and he was telling the truth about lesley's >>apparent participation in the depraved skinhead subculture. > > > I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from > lying criminals. He is lesley's ex-husband. He was a skinhead when she married him. That's all you need to know. He wasn't even writing to any of these groups when he wrote "Beware of the Chelsea..." He was writing to one of his skinhead groups. lesley was a Chelsea - a shaved-head **** who, at the very least, was trying to look like a skinhead. She was married to the guy, and she married him because his dangerous appearance and bad character turned her on. |
Where's everybody gone?
"William" > wrote in message ...
> > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message > ... > > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: > > > >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal > >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him > >> > >> cut > >> > >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from > >> lying criminals. > > > > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? > > The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. > > Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some way > > with his skinhead worldview? > > I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he didn't > identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to > dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. He wasn't a vegan. He was near-vegan when here, but after he'd left I found out that he'd been scoffing hamburgers in town... Our common ground was mainly religious belief. He was not violent or abusive toward me, but it eventually became apparent that our differences outweighed agreement, and, he was a really lazy sod. The end came when I discovered that he had been trawling for girls at porn sites. |
Where's everybody gone?
Karen Winter, bestiality advocate, unable to stay away
from groups she supposedly has sworn off, oozed back in and lied: > chico chupacabra wrote: > >> chelsea foot-masseuse wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> bestiality > > > <snip> > >>>> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) >>>> is repeatedly >>>> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an >>>> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response. >>>> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to >>>> coerce behavior >>>> children and animals would normally not engage. > > >>> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical. > > >> How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go >> around seeking interspecies copulation? > > > <snip> > > It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm > and rational manner; shall we try? > > Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to, [snip crap Karen Winter is not qualified to know] Prove it. > <snip> > >>>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the >>>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per >>>> se_. > > > This, I think, is true. It's bullshit. You have no ethical insight that enables you to say that with any authority. It's nothing but immature sentiment on which you've slathered a cheap veneer of phony intellectualism. >>> Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary >>> to your implying that she defended it). > > > <snip> > >> She was suggesting one's position on such >> conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we >> condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.). > > > *IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject > conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics, > and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole > criterion. > > <snip> > >>> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an >>> animals' >>> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it. > > > I agree But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and lesley-the-foot-rubbing-whore are strongly supportive of it. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net... > William wrote: > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> ink.net... >> >>>Billy Blight wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message . .. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Then how can you believe him >>>> >>>> >>>>cut >>>> >>>>I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come >>>>from lying criminals. >>> >>>lesley's ex-husband was a skinhead, and he was telling the truth about lesley's >>>apparent participation in the depraved skinhead subculture. >> >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from >> lying criminals. > > He is lesley's ex-husband. He was a skinhead when she married him. That's all you > need to know. He wasn't even writing to any of these groups when he wrote "Beware > of the Chelsea..." He was writing to one of his skinhead groups. > > lesley was a Chelsea - a shaved-head **** who, at the very least, was trying to > look like a skinhead. She was married to the guy, and she married him because his > dangerous appearance and bad character turned her on. I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from lying criminals. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
pearl wrote:
> "William" > wrote in message ... > >>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message .. . >> >>>Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Then how can you believe him >>>> >>>>cut >>>> >>>>I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from >>>>lying criminals. >>> >>>What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? >> >>The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. > > > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. He wasn't "blaming" you for anything, you ****. He was identifying you: a Chelsea. >>>Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some way >>>with his skinhead worldview? >> >>I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he didn't >>identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to >>dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. > > > He wasn't a vegan. He was near-vegan when here, but after he'd left I found out > that he'd been scoffing hamburgers in town... Ha ha ha ha ha! The beef came from the Amazon rain forest, no doubt... Ha ha ha ha ha! That's ****ing hilarious! > Our common ground was mainly ....weird, excruciatingly self conscious... > religious belief. He was not violent or abusive toward me, but it eventually became > apparent that our differences outweighed agreement, and, he was a really lazy sod. That figures. > The end came when I discovered that he had been trawling for girls at porn sites. Oh, ****ing hell - that's *great*! Ha ha ha ha ha! Thanks for making this the funniest Saturday on record. |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Billy Blight wrote: >> >> >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Billy Blight wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Then how can you believe him >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>cut >>>>> >>>>>I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come >>>> >>>>>from lying criminals. >>>> >>>>lesley's ex-husband was a skinhead, and he was telling the truth about lesley's >>>>apparent participation in the depraved skinhead subculture. >>> >>> >>>I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from >>>lying criminals. >> >>He is lesley's ex-husband. He was a skinhead when she married him. That's all you >>need to know. He wasn't even writing to any of these groups when he wrote "Beware >>of the Chelsea..." He was writing to one of his skinhead groups. >> >>lesley was a Chelsea - a shaved-head **** who, at the very least, was trying to >>look like a skinhead. She was married to the guy, and she married him because his >>dangerous appearance and bad character turned her on. > > > I don't believe you You're an idiot, billy. lesley was a Chelsea. You're an idiot by choice. |
Where's everybody gone?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "William" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message >> ... >> > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: >> > >> >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal >> >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him >> >> >> >> cut >> >> >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come >> >> from >> >> lying criminals. >> > >> > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? >> >> The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. > > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. > Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent he went to. >> > Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some >> > way >> > with his skinhead worldview? >> >> I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he >> didn't >> identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to >> dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. > > He wasn't a vegan. He was near-vegan when here, but after he'd left I found out > that he'd been scoffing hamburgers in town... Our common ground was mainly > religious belief. He was not violent or abusive toward me, but it eventually > became > apparent that our differences outweighed agreement, and, he was a really lazy sod. > The end came when I discovered that he had been trawling for girls at porn sites. > Really sorry to hear that Pearl. Glad to hear you had the bottle to dump him though. A lot don't and find they've wasted their lives on wasters like your ex. > > > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
William wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > >>"William" > wrote in message . .. >> >>>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message . .. >>> >>>>Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>He was a lying criminal >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Then how can you believe him >>>>> >>>>>cut >>>>> >>>>>I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come >>>>>from >>>>>lying criminals. >>>> >>>>What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? >>> >>>The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. >> >>He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. >> > > Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent he > went to. > > >>>>Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some >>>>way >>>>with his skinhead worldview? >>> >>>I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he >>>didn't >>>identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to >>>dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. >> >>He wasn't a vegan. He was near-vegan when here, but after he'd left I found out >>that he'd been scoffing hamburgers in town... Our common ground was mainly >>religious belief. He was not violent or abusive toward me, but it eventually >>became >>apparent that our differences outweighed agreement, and, he was a really lazy sod. >>The end came when I discovered that he had been trawling for girls at porn sites. >> > > Really sorry to hear that Pearl. Glad to hear you had the bottle to dump him though. > A lot don't and find they've wasted their lives on wasters like your ex. It's the other way around. She is the waster - the "love everyone and the animals" do-nothing, wastrel hippy: "Can't be worse than your wife turnin into a ****in love everyone and the animals hippy. That's why I'm gettin a divorce. Beware of the Chelsea that shaves only to lure a skinhead into her llair [sic]." This was not addressed to anyone in these groups, nor to anyone who even knew who lesley was. This was lesley's ex-convict ex-husband's post to a skinhead group: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...d081d63?hl=en& |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... cut > It's the other way around. I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come from lying criminals. cut -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > cut > > >>It's the other way around. > > > I don't believe you You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. She married a skinhead. She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > Billy Blight wrote: > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> ink.net... >> >> cut >> >> >>>It's the other way around. >> >> >> I don't believe you > > You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies from someone you describe as a lying criminal? >She married a skinhead. He married a vegan. >She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Billy Blight wrote: >> >> >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>>cut >>> >>> >>> >>>>It's the other way around. >>> >>> >>>I don't believe you >> >>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. > > > Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies Because you're mentally damaged. > >>She married a skinhead. > > > He married a vegan. She married a skinhead. She was at least a skinhead-wannabe. She was a Chelsea. > > >>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. > > > No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > Billy Blight wrote: > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> ink.net... >> >>>Billy Blight wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>>> >>>>cut >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>It's the other way around. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't believe you >>> >>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. >> >> >> Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies > > Because you're mentally damaged. > My faculties are in peek condition. >> >>>She married a skinhead. >> >> >> He married a vegan. > > She married a skinhead. I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. Doesn't mean to say I'm one, Jonathan Ball. cut >>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. >> >> >> No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. > > Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. They often do. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Billy Blight wrote: >> >> >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Billy Blight wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>>cut >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It's the other way around. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't believe you >>>> >>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. >>> >>> >>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies >> >>Because you're mentally damaged. >> > > My faculties are in peek condition. Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are stupid-by-choice. >>>>She married a skinhead. >>> >>> >>>He married a vegan. >> >>She married a skinhead. > > > I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of being one herself. >>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. >>> >>> >>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. >> >>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. > > > They often do. When did you last? |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > Billy Blight wrote: > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> ink.net... >> >>>Billy Blight wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Billy Blight wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>>> >>>>>>cut >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>It's the other way around. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't believe you >>>>> >>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. >>>> >>>> >>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies >>> >>>Because you're mentally damaged. >>> >> >> My faculties are in peek condition. > > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are > stupid-by-choice. > Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well. > >>>>>She married a skinhead. >>>> >>>> >>>>He married a vegan. >>> >>>She married a skinhead. >> >> >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. > > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. > > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of > being one herself. You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually being one. > >>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. >>>> >>>> >>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. >>> >>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. >> >> >> They often do. > > When did you last? Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan about two years ago. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
Billy Blight wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Billy Blight wrote: >> >> >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message thlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Billy Blight wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Billy Blight wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message .earthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>cut >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's the other way around. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't believe you >>>>>> >>>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies >>>> >>>>Because you're mentally damaged. >>>> >>> >>>My faculties are in peek condition. >> >>Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are >>stupid-by-choice. >> > > Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh, you're funny, all right. >>>>>>She married a skinhead. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>He married a vegan. >>>> >>>>She married a skinhead. >>> >>> >>>I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. >> >>You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. > > > If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because > Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. But in fact, she *did* at least affect the external appearance of one. >>In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of >>being one herself. > > > You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually > being one. I never said she was one, dummy. I said she was a Chelsea. She was. >>>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. >>>> >>>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. >>> >>> >>>They often do. >> >>When did you last? > > > Can't remember. The lack of protein is affecting your memory. |
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote: > Billy Blight wrote: > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > >>Billy Blight wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > thlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Billy Blight wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > arthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Billy Blight wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > .earthlink.net... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>cut > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>It's the other way around. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I don't believe you > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies > >>>> > >>>>Because you're mentally damaged. > >>>> > >>> > >>>My faculties are in peek condition. > >> > >>Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are > >>stupid-by-choice. > >> > > > > Actually, I was trying to be funny. > > Oh, you're funny, all right. > > > >>>>>>She married a skinhead. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>He married a vegan. > >>>> > >>>>She married a skinhead. > >>> > >>> > >>>I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. > >> > >>You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. > > > > > > If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because > > Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. > > But in fact, she *did* at least affect the external > appearance of one. > > > >>In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of > >>being one herself. > > > > > > You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually > > being one. > > I never said she was one, dummy. I said she was a > Chelsea. She was. > > > >>>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. > >>>> > >>>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. > >>> > >>> > >>>They often do. > >> > >>When did you last? > > > > > > Can't remember. > > The lack of protein is affecting your memory. the lack of a functioning brain is affecting your's Goo. |
Where's everybody gone?
"William" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "William" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: > >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal > >> >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him > >> >> > >> >> cut > >> >> > >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information come > >> >> from > >> >> lying criminals. > >> > > >> > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? > >> > >> The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. > > > > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. > > > Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent he > went to. Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to him- he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face after that. > >> > Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some > >> > way > >> > with his skinhead worldview? > >> > >> I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he > >> didn't > >> identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to > >> dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. > > > > He wasn't a vegan. He was near-vegan when here, but after he'd left I found out > > that he'd been scoffing hamburgers in town... Our common ground was mainly > > religious belief. He was not violent or abusive toward me, but it eventually > > became > > apparent that our differences outweighed agreement, and, he was a really lazy sod. > > The end came when I discovered that he had been trawling for girls at porn sites. > > > Really sorry to hear that Pearl. Glad to hear you had the bottle to dump him though. > A lot don't and find they've wasted their lives on wasters like your ex. It wasn't a good time, I'll say that, and not just because of that.. At the end of the day it was really just as well, as I had to go to England quite regularly and needed someone here to look after the place whilst I was gone. A reason for everything.. |
Where's everybody gone?
"William" > wrote in message ...
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > Billy Blight wrote: > > > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> ink.net... > >> > >>>Billy Blight wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Billy Blight wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > . earthlink.net... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>cut > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>It's the other way around. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I don't believe you > >>>>> > >>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies > >>> > >>>Because you're mentally damaged. > >>> > >> > >> My faculties are in peek condition. > > > > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are > > stupid-by-choice. > > > Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well. :). > >>>>>She married a skinhead. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>He married a vegan. > >>> > >>>She married a skinhead. > >> > >> > >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. > > > > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. > > If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because > Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. That's the truth of it. > > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of > > being one herself. > > You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually > being one. Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything else. ! > >>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. > >>> > >>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. > >> > >> > >> They often do. > > > > When did you last? > > Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan about two > years ago. |
Where's everybody gone?
Leif Erikson wrote:
>> chico chupacabra wrote: Pearl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> bestiality >> <snip> >>>>> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) >>>>> is repeatedly >>>>> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an >>>>> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the >>>>> response. >>>>> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to >>>>> coerce behavior >>>>> children and animals would normally not engage. >>>> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical. >>> How friggin' long did it take you to realize animals generally don't go >>> around seeking interspecies copulation? >> <snip> >> >> It would be nice if we could discuss this *scientific* claim in a calm >> and rational manner; shall we try? >> Mammals and birds are not born knowing which species they belong to, >> [snip crap Glorfindel is not qualified to know] Why do you claim I am not qualified to know? And what scientific evidence can you offer to disprove anything I wrote? You are engaging in fallacies, not argument here. I put forward the material I cited for others, and to make my own position clear. I don't think anyone with any background in scientific study of animal behavior can argue with the examples I gave. > Prove it. I don't know that one can prove it, but the scientific community agrees the evidence is overwhelming that it is so. There are far too many examples of animals raised with other species, imprinting on them, and later engaging in courtship behavior with them, and sometimes ( although rarely with humans )copulation. One could cite examples such as the lioness raised by Gareth Patterson, the Siberian tiger cub raised by a dog, who refused later to mate with other tigers, the goshawks raised by Robert Berry who refused to mate with other goshawks, or many other examples. It doesn't involve just sexual behavior. Birds raised with other species mimic their song; primates raised with humans mimic some human behaviors, including sign language and cuddling a doll (and sometimes engage in courtship behavior toward humans). Exactly who these animals believe they are, we can't know. But what we *can* know -- because we can observe it -- is that they will often demonstrate a desire for a mate relationship with members of other species, including humans. >> <snip> >>>>> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the >>>>> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per >>>>> se_. >> This, I think, is true. > It's bullshit. Why? <snip> >>>> Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary >>>> to your implying that she defended it). >> <snip> >>> She was suggesting one's position on such >>> conditioning must be all or nothing in relation to other ways we >>> condition animals (zoos, farms, training dogs to sit-stay, etc.). >> *IF* the issue is conditioning in itself. I, myself, do reject >> conditioning in general as a violation of animal rights ethics, >> and do not think the purpose of the conditioning is the sole >> criterion. >> <snip> >>>> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an >>>> animals' >>>> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it. >> I agree > But if it doesn't require such conditioning, you and > lesley-the-foot-rubbing-whore are strongly supportive of it. No. One can condemn it on the grounds that it causes harm either to the animal or to the human involved, or to both. |
Where's everybody gone?
|
Where's everybody gone?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "William" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> ink.net... >> > Billy Blight wrote: >> > >> >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> >> ink.net... >> >> >> >>>Billy Blight wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> rthlink.net... >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>Billy Blight wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message >> . earthlink.net... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>cut >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>It's the other way around. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>I don't believe you >> >>>>> >> >>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies >> >>> >> >>>Because you're mentally damaged. >> >>> >> >> >> >> My faculties are in peek condition. >> > >> > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are >> > stupid-by-choice. >> > >> Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well. > > :). These guys have no sense of humour. It seems my use of peek in place of peak aroused in Leif a state of pique. :-) >> >>>>>She married a skinhead. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>He married a vegan. >> >>> >> >>>She married a skinhead. >> >> >> >> >> >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. >> > >> > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. >> >> If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that >> because >> Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. > > That's the truth of it. I would say so. >> > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of >> > being one herself. >> >> You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of >> actually >> being one. > > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything > else. ! > My bad. Sorry. >> >>>>>She was a skinhead-wannabe herself. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>No, but it seems pretty certain that he was a vegan-wannabe. >> >>> >> >>>Hardly - he was scarfing hamburgers. >> >> >> >> >> >> They often do. >> > >> > When did you last? >> >> Can't remember. I was a vegetarian for quite a long time before going vegan about >> two >> years ago. > > > > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "William" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "pearl" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "William" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: >> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal >> >> >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him >> >> >> >> >> >> cut >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information >> >> >> come >> >> >> from >> >> >> lying criminals. >> >> > >> >> > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? >> >> >> >> The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. >> > >> > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. >> > >> Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent >> he >> went to. > > Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to him- > he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face after > that. > He says you lured him, and that's shifting the blame onto you for the breakup. >> >> > Moreover, what bond would he have had with her if she didn't identify in some >> >> > way >> >> > with his skinhead worldview? >> >> >> >> I think the real question here is, what bond would she have had with him if he >> >> didn't >> >> identify in some way with her vegan worldview? I think he was a vegan trying to >> >> dispel the myth that all vegans are whimps. >> > >> > He wasn't a vegan. He was near-vegan when here, but after he'd left I found out >> > that he'd been scoffing hamburgers in town... Our common ground was mainly >> > religious belief. He was not violent or abusive toward me, but it eventually >> > became >> > apparent that our differences outweighed agreement, and, he was a really lazy >> > sod. >> > The end came when I discovered that he had been trawling for girls at porn >> > sites. >> > >> Really sorry to hear that Pearl. Glad to hear you had the bottle to dump him >> though. >> A lot don't and find they've wasted their lives on wasters like your ex. > > It wasn't a good time, I'll say that, and not just because of that.. At the end of > the > day it was really just as well, as I had to go to England quite regularly and > needed > someone here to look after the place whilst I was gone. A reason for everything.. > :-) > > -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:02:55 +0100, "William" > wrote: > >> >>"pearl" > wrote in message ... >>> "William" > wrote in message >>> .. . >>> >>>> Hello Usual Suspect. I know who you are now. >>> >>> An understandable misidentification of clone. >>> >>> "Leif Erikson" is the infamous Jonathan Ball. >>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html >>> >>Him! I thought they came and carted him off ages ago. Oh crap! > > If we Google Goo, we find that he is: > __________________________________________________ _______ > Web Results 1 - 10 of about 499 for Goobernicus Gonad. (0.51 seconds) > [...] > Goobernicus Gonad - - the moron who thinks he's a genius and enjoys > being referred to simply as " Goo " - - > [...] > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > In his dishonest attempts to promote his own dishonesty, Goo has > pretended to be the following people agreeing with himself, *plus* > what is likely to be an even longer list that we're not yet aware of: > > Jonathan Ball > Citizen > Benfez > Wilson Woods > Radical Moderate > Bingo > Edward > George > Bill > Fred > Mystery Poster > Merlin the dog > Bob the dog > > elvira > Dieter > "Dieter " > > > Abner Hale > Roger Whitaker > ****tard > Apoo > Ted Bell > > Jay Santos > > Rudy Canoza > Trappist > > Leif Erikson > S. Maizlich > SlipperySlope > Eden > Sylvia Stevens > I remember some of those names. Are they all him? Who's Goo? > Goo claims to have some sort of honorary PhD from somewhere, > reportedly in dishonesty and idiotics. Whether or not there's any > element of truth to it, the Goober has certainly displayed himself in > a dishonest and idiotic manner a number of times: > __________________________________________________ _______ > Ron asked: >>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance >>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in >>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of >>supplying the pet food industry? > > Goo replied: > Yes. > > Message-ID: et> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > __________________________________________________ _______ > Ron pointed out: >>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become >>PET FOOD. > > Goo replied: > Some are. > > Message-ID: .com> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or > any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo > > "Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo > > "Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He > saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way, > hallucinating." - Goo > > "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing > benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals > benefit from farming." - Goo > > "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" > . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo > > "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude > than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo > > "When considering your food choices ethically, assign > ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to > eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo > > "I have examined the question at length, and feel > there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se, > is not a benefit." - Goo > > "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo > > "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo > > "Non human animals experience neither pride nor > disappointment. They don't have the mental ability > to feel either." - Goo > > "Anticipation requires language." - Goo > > "No animals anticipate." - Goo > > "The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of > the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo > > "Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than > the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo > > "They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo > > "They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo > > "The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and > dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot > be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans." - Goo > > "Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is > going to be used entirely for human consumption, > entirely for animal consumption, or for some > combination; nor do they care." - Goo > > "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be > pet food. " - Goo > > "I'm right about all of it." - Goo > "I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo > "Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo > "I'm not stupid." - Goo > "I know exactly what I think" - Goo > "I educated the public" - Goo > "I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Where's everybody gone?
pearl wrote:
> "William" > wrote in message ... > > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > Billy Blight wrote: > > > > > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > >> ink.net... > > >> > > >>>Billy Blight wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > rthlink.net... > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>Billy Blight wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > . earthlink.net... > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>cut > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>It's the other way around. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>I don't believe you > > >>>>> > > >>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies > > >>> > > >>>Because you're mentally damaged. > > >>> > > >> > > >> My faculties are in peek condition. > > > > > > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are > > > stupid-by-choice. > > > > > Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well. > > :). > > > >>>>>She married a skinhead. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>He married a vegan. > > >>> > > >>>She married a skinhead. > > >> > > >> > > >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. > > > > > > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. > > > > If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that because > > Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. > > That's the truth of it. Bullshit. You adopted the outward appearance, and you talked the talk, even if you didn't fully walk the walk. For all intents and purposes, you *were* a skinhead during the time you were married to that violent felon. > > > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of > > > being one herself. > > > > You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of actually > > being one. > > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything else. That's a lie, you dirty foot-rubbing Chelsea. And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality: *As long as the feelings are mutual*, and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why should you be concerned? Personally, I have no problem with people's personal choices *as long as they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it human or animal. [emphasis in original] http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 |
Where's everybody gone?
William wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "William" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> ink.net... > >> > Billy Blight wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> >> ink.net... > >> >> > >> >>>Billy Blight wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> rthlink.net... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>>Billy Blight wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > >> . earthlink.net... > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>cut > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>It's the other way around. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>I don't believe you > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>You're an idiot-by-choice, billy. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>Because I refuse to accept your second-hand lies > >> >>> > >> >>>Because you're mentally damaged. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> My faculties are in peek condition. > >> > > >> > Nope. They're so damaged, you misspelled "peak" as "peek". You are > >> > stupid-by-choice. > >> > > >> Actually, I was trying to be funny. Oh well. > > > > :). > > These guys have no sense of humour. It seems my use of peek in place of peak aroused > in Leif a state of pique. :-) > > >> >>>>>She married a skinhead. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>He married a vegan. > >> >>> > >> >>>She married a skinhead. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I went out with a hard-nosed capitalist for quite a while. > >> > > >> > You should have stayed with her. Or maybe it was him. > >> > >> If I had I would still have rejected her principles. It doesn't follow that > >> because > >> Pearl married a skinhead that she would be one herself. > > > > That's the truth of it. > > I would say so. Of course you would! You're another true believer in irrational, anti-scientific bullshit. You *always* are willing to be credulous towards another fellow crackpot. > >> > In any case, lesley married her skinhead, and adopted the outward appearance of > >> > being one herself. > >> > >> You're backpedaling. Adopting the outward appearance is a long way short of > >> actually > >> being one. > > > > Just to be clear: I did *not* adopt the style, look, dress, haircut, or anything > > else. ! > > > My bad. Sorry. It's bullshit. She was a Chelsea - a skinhead at least in appearance. |
Where's everybody gone?
William wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "William" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "pearl" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "William" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > Billy Blight continued his pathetic defense of a known airhead: > >> >> > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> He was a lying criminal > >> >> >>>>>>>> Then how can you believe him > >> >> >> > >> >> >> cut > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I don't believe you now you've admitted that your sources of information > >> >> >> come > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> lying criminals. > >> >> > > >> >> > What did he have to gain by saying that she participated in his culture? > >> >> > >> >> The same as you - the hope that his lies would discredit her - revenge. > >> > > >> > He needed an excuse for the break up - so of course shifted the blame onto me. > >> > > >> Naturally. I've blamed my ex girlfriends for our break ups but not to the extent > >> he > >> went to. > > > > Seems that the appearance of being happily married and settled meant a lot to him- > > he relied on it to lend some credibility to his ranting. Couldn't lose face after > > that. > > > He says you lured him, and that's shifting the blame onto you for the breakup. He isn't blaming her for the *breakup*, you stupid shitstain. He's blaming her, quite correctly, for deceiving him into getting mixed up with her new-age shiftless do-nothing ass in the first place. |
Where's everybody gone?
William wrote:
> cut > > > He was a lying criminal > > Then how can you believe him, He was right about lesley's appearance and the way she at least pretended to be a skinhead in order to lure him into shagging her. |
Where's everybody gone?
born liar lesley ("liesley") lied again:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > k.net... > > > > William wrote: > > Leif wrote: > <..> > > >>>>>> bestiality > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>I very much doubt that. > > Thank you. For the record... For the record: *As long as the feelings are mutual*, and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why should you be concerned? Personally, I have no problem with people's personal choices *as long as they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it human or animal. [emphasis in original] lesley ("liesley") - http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > > >>>>I thought you were open minded? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>>You can doubt things while being open-minded about them. > > >> > > >>You're not being honestly open-minded about it. > > >> > > > > > > Yes I am, > > > > No, you aren't. > > > > Her endorsement of it was correctly inferred from her > > failure to state her opposition to it following her > > statement of support for someone (Karen Winter) who > > openly endorses it. lesley was asked repeatedly if she > > wanted to distance herself from Karen on at least that > > one issue, and she refused to do so. That is implicit > > support for it. > > From: pearl Yes, from lesley: *As long as the feelings are mutual*, and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why should you be concerned? Personally, I have no problem with people's personal choices *as long as they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it human or animal. [emphasis in original] http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7 > > > >>>>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles, > > >>>>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists > > >>>>and horse traders like yourself > > > >>>Ipse dixit. > > > >>No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those > > >>issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty > > >>about you. > > > > I don't recall reading that support. I seldom read off-topic posts. > > > It wasn't off topic. > > If I didn't read it, it was within an off-topic post/thread. Bullshit. > > >>>>The guy was an ex-convict. > > He did a stint in prison. Where you should be. I have committed no crime. You married a violent felon. > > > He was a skinhead when she hooked up with him. That's *why* she got > > >>>>together with him: she was aroused by it. > > False. No, *true*. > > >>>You can't possibly know all that. Soryy, but I don't believe you. > > >> > > >>I do know all of it. > > Deductive as ever. Correct. > > > > Then you should be quiet and stop all your nonsense. > > > > > > cut > > > > Why did you cut, you chickenshit closed-minded ****wit? > > > > <restore> > > > > She went out of town, and he got into her computer and > > started posting, right here in this newsgroup - a lot > > of wild, violence-tinged stuff. He found and began > > posting in some skinhead-oriented groups as well. Here > > is his post: http://tinyurl.com/p6lp8. He was using > > her computer and her pseudonym at that time, "lilweed". > > Following an inappropriate comment to a serious accident. Who gives a **** why or how? The point is, he revealed a lot about you. > Ball complaining about violent out-of-control skinheads - lol! Right. Also complaining about shitbags like you who enable violent out-of-control skinheads. > > your closed-mindedness. > > 'There are those who believe that science is not just mistaken > on some interesting theoretical possibilities, but IRREDEEMIBLY > wrong on the most fundamental questions science can ask. Your utter lack of scientific credentials couldn't be more thoroughly established than it has been by your posting this rabidly anti-science bit of bullshit. |
Where's everybody gone?
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ups.com... > William wrote: >> cut >> >> > He was a lying criminal >> >> Then how can you believe him, > > He was right about lesley's appearance and the way she at least > pretended to be a skinhead in order to lure him into shagging her. > Based on his evidence, and let's not forget that you called him a lying criminal. I don't believe him, and therefore I don't believe you. You accept information from lying criminals when it suits you, and I find that unethical. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter