FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Where's everybody gone? (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/96820-wheres-everybody-gone.html)

Derek[_2_] 28-07-2006 10:58 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:31:05 +0100, "William" wrote:

Hello Usual Suspect. I know who you are now.

"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:

[..]
If born liars exist

lesley is one.

No. Ispe Dixit knows her well and told me ages ago that she's a reliable
expert on nutrition and alternative animal-friendly treatments.


Derek was incorrect about that

Incorrect about what? I'm telling you what Ipse Dixit told me. He wrote me an email.


If you're as confused as you ought to be about all this and the
despicable, baseless hate campaign against Pearl, check your
email for a rather lengthy explanation I delivered there about
an hour ago. If you're still wary of revealing your IP but want
some more answers and a little more advice, such as using a
throw-away email address while on Usenet, let me know here
which paragraph number you're referring to and I shall write to
you again.

[..]
For me it's not a choice. I cannot go against my principles any more than you can


Same as that, Billy.

pearl[_1_] 28-07-2006 11:32 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:31:05 +0100, "William" wrote:

Hello Usual Suspect. I know who you are now.

"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:

[..]
If born liars exist

lesley is one.

No. Ispe Dixit knows her well and told me ages ago that she's a reliable
expert on nutrition and alternative animal-friendly treatments.

Derek was incorrect about that

Incorrect about what? I'm telling you what Ipse Dixit told me. He wrote me an email.


If you're as confused as you ought to be about all this and the
despicable, baseless hate campaign against Pearl, check your
email for a rather lengthy explanation I delivered there about
an hour ago. If you're still wary of revealing your IP but want
some more answers and a little more advice, such as using a
throw-away email address while on Usenet, let me know here
which paragraph number you're referring to and I shall write to
you again.


May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.

[..]
For me it's not a choice. I cannot go against my principles any more than you can


Same as that, Billy.




Derek[_2_] 28-07-2006 12:26 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:31:05 +0100, "William" wrote:

Hello Usual Suspect. I know who you are now.

"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:

[..]
If born liars exist

lesley is one.

No. Ispe Dixit knows her well and told me ages ago that she's a reliable
expert on nutrition and alternative animal-friendly treatments.

Derek was incorrect about that

Incorrect about what? I'm telling you what Ipse Dixit told me. He wrote me an email.


If you're as confused as you ought to be about all this and the
despicable, baseless hate campaign against Pearl, check your
email for a rather lengthy explanation I delivered there about
an hour ago. If you're still wary of revealing your IP but want
some more answers and a little more advice, such as using a
throw-away email address while on Usenet, let me know here
which paragraph number you're referring to and I shall write to
you again.


May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.


I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.

[..]
For me it's not a choice. I cannot go against my principles any more than you can


Same as that, Billy.



chico chupacabra 28-07-2006 01:18 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Derek wrote:

If born liars exist
lesley is one.
No. Ispe Dixit knows her well and told me ages ago that she's a reliable
expert on nutrition and alternative animal-friendly treatments.
Derek was incorrect about that

Incorrect about what? I'm telling you what Ipse Dixit told me. He wrote me an email.
If you're as confused as you ought to be about all this and the
despicable, baseless hate campaign against Pearl, check your
email for a rather lengthy explanation I delivered there about
an hour ago. If you're still wary of revealing your IP but want
some more answers and a little more advice, such as using a
throw-away email address while on Usenet, let me know here
which paragraph number you're referring to and I shall write to
you again.

May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.


I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you,


They *were* warranted, Nash. They weren't baseless accusations, they
were very well-founded.

and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",


No, they were apropos assessments of her loony beliefs.

"wrong",


Why, post facto, do you consider it wrong to have called her out for
claiming that foot rubs cured her sister of brain injury? Is it that or
do you only consider it wrong to have taken your and her private
conversations and dragged them into aaev/tpa?

"vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."


You should grow a pair. Be proud you were able to call a quack a quack.

William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.


It was quite amusing that she confided to you that the airplanes were
trying to keep her and her secret information down by spraying
"chemtrails" over her leaning house. Even more amusing, she's posted
pics of contrails on her website (I must use that word very loosely; her
HTML coding is quite horrible).

[..]
For me it's not a choice. I cannot go against my principles any more than you can
Same as that, Billy.


You go against your principles all the time, Nash. Still taking your
medication?

William[_2_] 28-07-2006 01:43 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:31:05 +0100, "William" wrote:

Hello Usual Suspect. I know who you are now.

"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote:
William wrote:
[..]
If born liars exist

lesley is one.

No. Ispe Dixit knows her well and told me ages ago that she's a reliable
expert on nutrition and alternative animal-friendly treatments.

Derek was incorrect about that

Incorrect about what? I'm telling you what Ipse Dixit told me. He wrote me an
email.

If you're as confused as you ought to be about all this and the
despicable, baseless hate campaign against Pearl, check your
email for a rather lengthy explanation I delivered there about
an hour ago. If you're still wary of revealing your IP but want
some more answers and a little more advice, such as using a
throw-away email address while on Usenet, let me know here
which paragraph number you're referring to and I shall write to
you again.


May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.


I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.

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. OK, I've read
those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her. And yes, you regret it and
blame yourself. Too late! Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you? You
knew she was a vegan. She's on your side, so why weren't you on her side!!

[..]
For me it's not a choice. I cannot go against my principles any more than you
can

Same as that, Billy.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


William[_2_] 28-07-2006 01:54 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

"chico chupacabra" wrote in message
...
William wrote:

He was a lying criminal
Then how can you believe him, and why repeat his lies as being the truth about
Pearl?
This hate campaign against Pearl is over before it starts if the ONLY evidence
supporting it comes from someone you know to be a lying criminal. LOL

cut
She willingly had plenty to do with him, and therefore is most likely
quite comfortable with dishonesty.


No. You only have the word of a lying criminal to go on.


A criminal she willfully married.


A lying criminal you willingly believe.

That should tell you something of her character. Rather, lack of it.


The same must also apply to you then.

Also, Goo has a list of absurd things
that she believes, and she insists she doesn't believe in some of them
though amusingly she can't say which of them she thinks she doesn't
believe in...even when asked!


I've seen her reject at least two items on that list today. Read her posts.


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

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


She sees artificial insemination as a kind of rape for crying out loud, so I'd say
that she does believe it's always wrong to molest animals.

This is a very strange situation indeed,


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


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

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


I believe she already has done.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


pearl[_1_] 28-07-2006 02:24 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"chico chupacabra" wrote in message ...

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 .. it was said in jest..

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?
According to the U.S. Air Force, jet contrails form above 33,000
feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals
into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wake
behind a boat.

Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker,
extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of
Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of
quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare s
tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which
join together, forming a thin white veil or a "fake cirrus-type cloud"
that persists for hours.

http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/the_t...stions_ab.html

Chemtrails:
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/chemfilth.html

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.

Where's your website, chumpo?






Derek[_2_] 28-07-2006 02:31 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" 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.


I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
my own accord.

OK, I've read
those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.


Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
regrets.

And yes, you regret it and
blame yourself. Too late!


That's unfortunately true.

Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?


Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.

You knew she was a vegan. She's on your side, so why weren't you on her side!!


I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself, Billy.

Derek[_2_] 28-07-2006 02:45 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra wrote:

[..]
They weren't baseless accusations


That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
and lies.

pearl[_1_] 28-07-2006 03:31 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.


I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.


Alrighty. Thanks for the reassurance. Water under the bridge.


Man ! ... This is worse than Corry. :)



Derek[_2_] 28-07-2006 04:14 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.


I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.


Alrighty. Thanks for the reassurance.


Just giving what's owed, Pearl.

Water under the bridge.


Thank you.

Man ! ... This is worse than Corry. :)


This street's got more cobbles.

chico chupacabra 29-07-2006 04:06 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
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.

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." Derek had it right when he called her a
goofy bitch or whatever it was he said, and he'd be correct in calling
you one, too.

...

chico chupacabra 29-07-2006 04:19 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Billy Blight indefensibly and stupidly wrote:

He was a lying criminal
Then how can you believe him, and why repeat his lies as being the truth about
Pearl?
This hate campaign against Pearl is over before it starts if the ONLY evidence
supporting it comes from someone you know to be a lying criminal. LOL

cut
She willingly had plenty to do with him, and therefore is most likely
quite comfortable with dishonesty.


No. You only have the word of a lying criminal to go on.


A criminal she willfully married.


A lying criminal you willingly believe.


A violent, vile criminal she willfully married.

That should tell you something of her character. Rather, lack of it.


The same must also apply to you then.


Non sequitur. I don't particularly find either of them credibile,
particularly since they seemed to agree on quite a lot of inane,
childish bullshit, and since both are also hateful authoritarians. Her
husband, though, did write that she'd shaved her head to lure him into
her lair; I suspect he meant that literally (I can't think of a reason
to not believe it), but I also accept that he could've used that as a
figure of speech to describe the process in which she beguiled him into
believing she was something he found agreeable to his worldview and,
accordingly, wanted until he figured out her lies. Either way, whether
she participated in his violent culture by shaving her head or agreed
with him enough to trap him in her nasty web, it's not good on her.

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

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

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


She sees artificial insemination as a kind of rape for crying out loud, so I'd say
that she does believe it's always wrong to molest animals.


Another non sequitur. Her objection to artificial insemination is
FARMING itself, not to how animals copulate (including with the human
species) and/or reproduce. She didn't say anything about whether it's
wrong for someone to **** a cow; she objects to a cow being impregnated
without the use of a bull. When pressed on the issue of bestiality, she
wanted to remain "open-minded" and offered only a qualified objection to
it. As such, she tacitly endorsed Karen Winter's deranged, perverted
belief that bestiality is acceptable because it's pro-AR. (Even though
many of us would ask how an animal's rights are protected when it's
being abused like that.)

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

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

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


I believe she already has done.


No, she has not. Ever. She objects to farming, she objects mildly to
conditioning; she has NEVER come straight out and said it's
categorically wrong for humans to engage in sex with animals.

pearl[_1_] 29-07-2006 04:52 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"chico chupacabra" indefensibly and stupidly wrote in message ...

Billy Bligh 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.

"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."

Thesaurus
perversion
noun
1. Wrong, often corrupt use: abuse, misapplication, misappropriation,
mishandling, misuse. See treat well/treat badly/treat.
2. Degrading, immoral acts or habits: bestiality, corruption, depravity,
flagitiousness, immorality, turpitude, vice, villainousness, villainy,
wickedness. See clean/dirty.
http://www.answers.com/perversion&r=67

All of which apply to you, chumpo. You're a *VERY* sick joke.





Leif Erikson[_1_] 29-07-2006 05:31 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
pearl wrote:
"chico chupacabra" indefensibly and stupidly wrote in message ...


Billy Bligh 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.

"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."


But *only* if the animal has to be conditioned to
accept it. If not, then you're all for it.

You also believe in guffaw "zero point field". You
self consciously go out of your way to embrace weird,
irrational, ANTI-scientific bullshit.

'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.'

lesley, the foot-rubbing whore of Cork
http://tinyurl.com/o8uwn

You have zero credibility on matters of science. That
includes nutrition.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter