| usual suspect |
Heh! Lesley wants an explanation for what's nutty about believing in
alien abduction. In response to her post about how "the first group of
ET's are not going to be benevolent," she asks:
So explain what's 'kooky' about it.
She further admits the points on the list are correct.
pearl wrote:
> What happened to 'support.our.troops'
I still do, and at a level I'm glad to know infuriates you. As far as
baby seals go, I'm only seeing how many people actually care what I put
in my header. I'm not surprised you're the first to irrationally emote
about it.
> So long as it involves cruel, senseless killing, eh.
So long as it yanks your chain, weirdo.
> Replies to both + repeat of past post which wasn't addressed..
It didn't require addressing -- you conceded every point of the post.
<...>
> You should have listened to this 'ditz'
No, I shouldn't've.
> instead
> of whining about anti-war protesters delaying
> your getting home- urging for police brutality.
That stupid protest wasn't going to stop the war, it only stopped
traffic. It didn't serve any purpose beyond congesting the Congress
Avenue bridge while the leftist nutjobs engaged in their mindless
shenanigans.
<...>
>>including her sister's brain injury.
>
> Now enjoying a fully active life, Thank G-d.
And her recovery had *nothing* to do with your massaging her feet.
>>Derek Nash asked her, "She suffered PHYSICAL brain trauma
>>said to be incurable. So how did you FULLY cure her using a foot
>>massage?" Lesley answered, "Very, very carefully."
>>http://tinyurl.com/c6ezj
>>
>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Astrology
>>>>>> Numerology
>>>
>>>Stars and numbers, my favorites.
>>
>>I hope your interests are astroNoMy and MATHEMATICS, not those two
>>irrational quack pursuits
>
> Ipse dixit, and therefore worthless.
There's no scientific validity to astrology or numerology. Both are
myth-based systems of divination.
http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html
(see list of links at end of article)
http://skepdic.com/numology.html
<...>
>>>>>> Alien abduction
>>>>>
>>>>>I have never stated that I believe or advocate it.
>>>>
>>>>Never? Let me refresh your memory:
>>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: The REAL Galactic Federation Is HERE NOW !
>>>>Date: 2000/06/18
>>>>
>>>>''Folks, the first group of ET's are not going to be benevolent,
>>>>but they are going to pass themselves off as benevolent, and
>>>>they are going to be telling you that we are "their creation",
>>>>and that they "own" us because they "created us". The fact
>>>>of the matter is that they didn't. It's another lie, and the
>>>>first group that gets here will probably be those from Sirius B
>>>>that will be openly contacting us.
>>>>[Editor note: Several contactees in November 96 are purporting
>>>>to convey information from the "Federation" are dealing with
>>>>those from Sirius B, who have been among those conveying
>>>>advanced manipulative technology to world power factions
>>>>for at least three decades, and who are known to participate
>>>>in the abduction and manipulation of humans]
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/ajh92
>
> I did forget about that.
Aha. So you admit you lied that it was invalid.
> So explain what's 'kooky' about it.
http://skepdic.com/aliens.html
>>>>In response to my objection to Rense as a source for news, you wrote:
>>>>'usual suspect' thinks we're all alone in the universe, it
>>>>seems.
>>>>
>>>>He's welcome to his opinion of course, but what he is
>>>>demonstrating is an intolerance for others opinions, and
>>>>the desire to impose his own views onto others,.. or else.
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/8zglq
>
> Your belief that we are all alone in the universe is
> _not_ a belief shared by most scientists, suspect.
Strawman and appeal to authority/popularity: where have I said we're
alone in the universe? I've conceded there very well may be, but thus
far we have ZERO evidence of it:
Odds are one thing, evidence is another. Thus far, I see no
evidence aside from quasi-religious sources and possible myths,
which are ambiguous enough for more than one interpretation,
from ancient cultures. I think it's clear earlier civilizations
had a pretty good grasp of astronomy, but they also seem to have
clouded some things over with astrology (which is hardly
science). I think the legends of ET contact(s) come somewhere in
that confusion.
I've often thought of the signals we send with the possibility
that someone or something in space will answer. We really may
not want a response for a variety of reasons. And in fairness to
other "higher" life forms out there, they may regard our signals
the same way most of us regard telemarketers -- an unwanted
intrusion.
http://tinyurl.com/b93xe
Contrary to your appeal to authority, most scientists don't believe in
alien abductions.
BTW, when was the last time an alien probed Uranus?
>>>>You also posted links to Rense articles on UFOs:
>>>>Interesting.
>>>>
>>>>This just in;
>>>>Mars Sparks Rise In UFO Sightings
>>>>Filer's Files #36 9-1-03
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/72k2q
>>>>
>>>>I'm pretty sure I could find a lot more than these if I searched harder.
>>>>This item in the list *stands*.
>
> 1. USual sUSpect Jun 13 2003, 7:02 pm
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> From: USual sUSpect <n...@even.try>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:03:33 GMT
> Local: Fri, Jun 13 2003 7:03 pm
> Subject: Ping: pearl -- OT
>
> I'm sure your boy Rense will be talking about this very soon. Think your
> little friends (greens, greys, who knows) are watching us?
>
> http://www.local6.com/news/2267894/detail.html
>
> PS: I watched the launch of the rocket carrying the Mars Rover earlier
> this week and noticed other "anomalies" flying around once it was ~30
> miles up. That's when they cut the video feed of it.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7vc3h
That was tongue in cheek -- references to Rense (YOUR boy) and little
friends. In NO way do I believe we're being visited, much less being
abducted.
>>>Yeah, the UFO section is one of the areas that isn't usually worth
>>>checking out, unless you have more than a passing interest is sociology
>>>and/or psychology of that kind of thing.
>>
>>She's interested in neither, just aliens and UFOs.
>
> 'The serial bully:
I established a fact using your own words. You admitted those items are
true after being shown your past posts. That's not bullying.
<...>
>>>>>> Leprechauns
>>>>>
>>>>>I have never said that I believe in Leprechauns.
>>>>
>>>>You've prided yourself on your evasive answers about them. Do you or do
>>>>you not believe they exist? Why are you open-minded on the issue?
>>>>
>>>>This point *stands* until you reject the existence of leprechauns.
>
> No.
It stands. You're open-minded about their existence. Heh!
>>>The leprechaun draws on various areas of collective mythology /
>>>consciousness as a mythologic figure. Is that a rejection? Personally
>>>I've never eaten 8 grams of psilocybe cubensis
>>
>>She probably has. One of her past pseudonyms was "lilweed."
>
> Perhaps you should.
No, I shouldn't:
Marijuana or ecstasy use and the heart
Cigarette smoking is the leading contributor to preventable
deaths in the United States. Many people think that smoking
marijuana is safer than smoking cigarettes. However, marijuana
contains many of the same harmful chemicals as cigarettes. In
fact, some researchers believe that smoking five marijuana
cigarettes (“joints”) per week can harm the body as much as
smoking a pack of cigarettes every day and may raise the risk of
lung cancer even higher than cigarettes do. Research has also
suggested that marijuana can increase the heart rate by as much
as 50 percent and can interfere with the functioning of the
immune system.
Recent research has also suggested a possible link between
smoking marijuana and having a heart attack. A study of
middle-aged users suggested that people who smoke marijuana were
at greater risk of heart attack within the hour of using the
drug.
This research is consistent with an earlier study noting that
people who already have a heart condition (whether or not they
are aware of it) have a significantly greater risk of having a
heart attack within an hour of smoking the drug. Therefore,
people with heart disease are strongly urged to avoid smoking
marijuana.
http://www.heartcenteronline.com/my...rev.cfm?file...
---------
US researchers report that smoking marijuana is associated with
an increase in the risk of many of the same respiratory symptoms
caused by cigarette smoke, such as chronic bronchitis, coughing,
phlegm production, shortness of breath and wheezing.
Dr Brent Moore and colleagues from Yale University in New Haven,
Connecticut, examined the respiratory effects of marijuana and
tobacco use in a nationally representative sample of 6728
individuals aged between 20 and 59 years.
Participants were interviewed in person and asked to undergo a
medical examination, including measurement of lung function.
Marijuana smokers were defined as those who had used the drug at
least 100 times in their lifetime and at least once in the past
month.
The findings, published in the Journal of General Internal
Medicine, showed that marijuana users reported smoking on an
average of 10 days out of the previous 30, with 16% reporting
daily or near daily use. Notably, 77% of marijuana smokers also
smoked tobacco.
Further analysis revealed that, after taking into account age,
gender, tobacco use and asthma, smoking marijuana was
significantly associated with an increased risk of respiratory
symptoms.
Specifically, compared with nonusers, both tobacco and marijuana
smokers had increased risks of chronic bronchitis, cough on most
days, phlegm production, shortness of breath, wheezing and
abnormal chest sounds.
http://www.patienthealthinternation.../news/4627.aspx
---------
Some harmful effects of long-term marijuana use have been
demonstrated, based upon reasonable evidence. These include:
* Chronic lung disease -- Smoking three or four marijuana
cigarettes per day has been identified as an approximate
equivalent of smoking 20 nicotine-based cigarettes, in terms of
its effects on chronic lung injury from pollutant exposure.
* Cancers -- Marijuana use is understood to increase the risk of
cancer in the head and neck and is thought to contribute to lung
cancer.
* Heart attack -- Heart attack risk is higher immediately after
you smoke marijuana.
* Effects on fertility and sex drive -- In men, marijuana
affects the function and quantity of sperm, reduces testosterone
levels and sexual drive, enlarges male breasts and causes
impotence. In women, period cycles can become shorter and
fertility can be reduced. It can cause spontaneous leakage of
milk from the breasts.
* Effects in pregnancy -- Marijuana crosses the placenta and
appears to reduce the birth weight of babies.
* Psychiatric effects -- Marijuana use is associated with higher
rates of depression, schizophrenia and unexplained psychotic
symptoms in later adult years. Also, there is strong evidence
that suggests marijuana use can lead to the abuse of other
substances.
* Long-term memory and attention skills -- People averaging 10
years of marijuana use have poorer brain function than do
short-term users, even after they have discontinued the drug.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtI.../405245.html...
Many people may have never associated marijuana with heart
attacks, especially with the prevailing concept of marijuana as
a "mellowing" drug. The truth is that although energy levels
decrease after smoking marijuana, blood pressure and heart rate
actually increase. In fact, a marijuana smoker's heart rate can
increase by about 40 beats per minute, double the normal rate.
Blood pressure increases if the user is sedentary or lying down,
but it drops drastically if the person stands up or becomes
active. This fluctuating blood pressure results in dizziness....
It's not yet clear why marijuana causes risk to the heart. It
could be THC (the active ingredient in marijuana), the carbon
monoxide, or any of the other components of the drug (although
we know that one marijuana joint has four times as many toxins
and carcinogens as a tobacco cigarette). If the marijuana is
laced with cocaine, speed, LSD, or PCP, these added chemicals
could have a greater impact on the heart.
http://www.prevlink.org/getthefacts...juanaheart.html
<..>
>>>Was that VHF or UHF? These days messages are also "chunneled".
>>
>>This goes back to inner earth beings. One of the "head" beings, Adama of
>>Telos, is channeled by Aurelia Louise Jones and others. That's how they
>>get their messages out from beneath Mount Shasta to the, ummm, true
>>believers.
>>http://tinyurl.com/cmd4z
>
> 'What happened to Lemuria? (The Egyptian/ Native American
> Connection)
It was a figment of someone's imagination.
> Can an entire continent sink or vanish? That's something most
> geologists say is impossible. Yet the event is widely supported
> by Pacific area mythology from Australia to Arizona. From Hopi
> legend: 'Down on the bottom of the seas lie all the proud cities,
> the flying patuwvotas, and the worldly treasures corrupted with
> evil . . ." Faced with disaster, some people hid inside the earth
> while others escaped by crossing the ocean on reed rafts, using
> the islands as stepping-stones. The same story of escape to
> dry land appears in the Popul Vu epic of the Quiche Maya
> and the Modoc tribe near Mt. Shasta among many others.
> ...'
> http://www.galerevilla.com/lemuria.htm [404]
Heh! Double heh!
<...>
>>No, she thinks there's a conspiracy to poison or infect people by means
>>of "chemtrails." She apparently
>
> If I did, and I don't recall doing so, it was in jest.
Derek repeated it several times, and he consistently said the same
thing. I believe him.
>>told Derek in a phone conversation that
>>people are trying to keep her from sharing Hulda Clark's "Zapper" with
>>the world, and that they're targeting her with the chemtrails:
>>She honestly believes she's been targetted for chemtrailing
>>to dope her up and keep her quiet about things. She's
>>certifiable.
>>http://tinyurl.com/b8tz3
>>
>>See also: http://tinyurl.com/arlcv
>
> Derek had a hate-on for me going on at that time.
Yet you admit he was substantively correct in his accounts of your
conversations -- you admitted to rubbing your sister's feet and Zapping
-- so I'm buying that you told him about chemtrails.
<...>
>>She believes they were created as part of a conspiracy to control people.
>
> To put it mildly.
PCTs:
http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html
>>>>>> conspiracy theory
>
> 'What is generally known as the 'conspiracy theory of
> history' holds that the world's major political, economic
> and social developments are not haphazard, they are
> caused. They are, in fact, planned. The bad conditions
> we see around us do not just happen. The basic premise
> being that certain forces, which are not operating in the
> best interest of all humankind, are guiding world history
> along predetermined paths. If we accept this, then we
> are led to conclude that for the last few millennia, history
> has been secretly and ruthlessly controlled by small
> groups of self-appointed elites, who themselves function
> under the influence of negative powers. Powers hostile
> to mankind's spiritual freedom. Without this conspiracy
> theory of history, the economic upheavals, major and
> minor wars, mindless violence, withering of spiritual
> values and worship of materialism, would mean that
> we live in an absurd world rapidly going mad for no
> seeming reason.' - .. -
See http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html
<...>
>>>>>> participation in skinhead subculture
>>>>>
>>>>>False.
>>>>
>>>>You married a skinhead. The point *stands*.
>
> Nonsense. I married (and divorced) a person.
A skinhead.
>>>That could mean almost anything. Neo-nazi? US Military? Swimmer?
>
> SHARP. (Skinheads against racial prejudice).
>
>
>>The kind who writes these kinds of posts:
>>http://tinyurl.com/849zu
>
> You didn't answer the question, o' clueless one.
I pointed shev to your ex's posts to get a sense of his own words.
>>>>>> the validity of online IQ tests
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't see why not. ?
>>>>
>>>>That's another Yes. See the relevant thread for why online IQ tests are
>>>>bogus -- particularly beyond the first try. The point *stands*.
>
> Goose hunting now? Explain why here.
Not hunting. The point stands because you thought you were getting
smarter with each retake of the online IQ test. You told Dreck:
Careful, or I might REALLY apply myself and go
raise that score a notch or few.
Memorizing answers to invalid IQ test questions doesn't increase your
intelligence quotient, dumb ass.
>>>The limited validity..
>>
>>They have no validity,
>
> Because .... ?
http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar04/test.html
>>particularly beyond the first try. She kept
>
> No. I took it twice in total.
And you thought you were "smarter" the second time around.
>>retaking the SAME test and suggested her IQ was rising with each
>>re-take. IQ isn't a measure of ability to memorize (or write down)
>>answers to the same test, but thinking that such is valid indicates
>>possession of a fairly low IQ.
>
> A little more time and care, that's all.
You took a Mulligan -- something you wouldn't get in legitimate IQ testing.
<...>
>>>>The only issue that didn't stand was "holocaust denial," and that one
>>>>was removed despite the fact that your virulent anti-Semitism has made
>>>>you _persona non grata_ in the Jewish newsgroups you infect with your
>
> I didn't even read this odious rant before. I am Jewish myself
> yet I'm an 'anti-semite'?
Yes. This has been established by regulars at soc.culture.jewish.
> The pro-zionists were the ones shrieking 'anti-semite'. They're
> in those groups the equivalent of the vermin
Anti-semite. Your hatred for others, though, isn't solely based on
religion. You hate all of mankind. You're a misanthrope.
>>>>cross-posts.
>
> No. I was invited to participate in those groups.
You weren't invited to post there, and you quickly became insolent and
showed contempt for others -- evidence of your misanthropy.
<...>
>>>Well maybe we have enough to talk about without bringing up these cans
>>>of worms..
>
> The worms are the meatheads who use this 'list' to derail
> arguments they are losing whilst at the same time trying
> to undermine my credibility and by extension what I post.
You undermine *your own* credibility and you DON'T win arguments. Ever.
The list exists to demonstrate why your views should be taken with a
grain of salt. You're a total flake.
>>>>You have no credibility, and you are of poor character.
>>>
>>>I must have missed something Usual, why the long and drawn out ad
>>>hominem attack?
>>
>>It isn't ad hominem. It's true.
>
> It is
Established!
|
|
|
| pearl |
"usual suspect" <club@baby.seals> wrote in message news:W53hf.10460$%i.7209@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Heh! Lesley wants an explanation for what's nutty about believing in
> alien abduction. In response to her post about how "the first group of
> ET's are not going to be benevolent," she asks:
>
> So explain what's 'kooky' about it.
And this was your reply.. http://skepdic.com/aliens.html .
'The Skeptic's Dictionary
Several people have drawn my attention to Robert Todd
Carroll's Critique of my Alternative Science website at
http://www.skepdic.com/r ...
Normally I don't trouble replying to such criticisms, even
when they are ill-informed or misguided, because people
have the right to speak as they wish on the Internet, and
that includes the right to get things wrong.
This case is different because almost every statement of
"fact" on Robert Carroll's page regarding my Alternative
Science site is false -- including a substantial number of
completely fictional quotes that he has made up and
tried to put in my mouth.
I am putting this rebuttal here because I know that for
every pseudo-skeptic like Robert Carroll there are a
dozen real skeptics who care as much as I do about
the careful handling of facts and evidence.
Any reasonable person who even glances at the facts
below will see that Carroll's "critique" is an outrageous
distortion composed of false assertions and bogus
arguments. Any honourable person would withdraw
these lies and apologise. However, I do not expect
Robert Todd Carroll to behave in any such honourable
manner, since he is plainly not interested in scientific
truth or the integrity of philosophical discourse.
...
http://www.alternativescience.com/skepdic.com.htm
So much for your source, suspect. Spin again.
> She further admits the points on the list are correct.
Some are, some aren't.
> pearl wrote:
> > What happened to 'support.our.troops', -psycho.-
>
> I still do, and at a level I'm glad to know infuriates you.
Not enough to actually go to Iraq, cowardly windbag.
'The most penetrating critique of the realism informing
President Bush's second inaugural address, a trumpet
call of imperial ambition, was made one month before
it was delivered, by Lt Gen James Helmly, chief of the
US Army Reserve.
In an internal memorandum, he described "the Army
Reserve's inability under current policies, procedures
and practices ... to meet mission requirements
associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom. The Army Reserve is additionally in grave
danger of being unable to meet other operational
requirements and is rapidly degenerating into a broken
force".
These "dysfunctional" policies are producing a crisis
"more acute and hurtful", as the Reserve's ability to
mobilise troops is "eroding daily".
The US force in Iraq of about 150,000 troops is
composed of a "volunteer" army that came into being
with the end of military conscription during the Vietnam
war. More than 40% are National Guard and Reserves,
most having completed second tours of duty and being
sent out again.
The force level has been maintained by the Pentagon
only by "stop-loss" orders that coerce soldiers to
remain in service after their contractual enlistment
expires - a back-door draft.
Re-enlistment is collapsing, by 30% last year. The
Pentagon justified this de facto conscription by telling
Congress that it is merely a short-term solution that
would not be necessary as Iraq quickly stabilises and
an Iraqi security force fills the vacuum. But this week
the Pentagon announced that the US force level would
remain unchanged through 2006.
....
The Guardian Thursday January 27, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1399444,00.html
You once used to boast of almost superhuman strength
and endurance, suspect, so why aren't you over there??
Why won't you address this, 'usual suspect'?
http://www.911proof.com/
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C...60132%2C00.html
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
> As far as
> baby seals go, I'm only seeing how many people actually care what I put
> in my header. I'm not surprised you're the first to irrationally emote
> about it.
'Bullies feel inadequate and compensates for it by being violent
– verbally, psychologically, or physically. Some bullies suffer
from personality and other mental health disorders. They feel
entitled to special treatment, seek attention, lack empathy, are
rageful and envious, and exploit and then discard their co-workers.
Bullies are insincere, haughty, unreliable, and lack empathy and
sensitivity to the emotions, needs, and preferences of others
whom they regard and treat as objects or instruments of
gratification.
Bullies are ruthless, cold, and have alloplastic defences (and
outside locus of control) – they blame others for their failures,
defeats, or misfortunes. Bullies have low frustration and
tolerance thresholds, get bored and anxious easily, are violently
impatient, emotionally labile, unstable, erratic, and untrustworthy.
They lack self-discipline, are egotistic, exploitative, rapacious,
opportunistic, driven, reckless, and callous.
Bullies are emotionally immature and control freaks. They are
consummate liars and deceivingly charming. Bullies dress, talk,
and behave normally. Many of them are persuasive, manipulative,
or even charismatic. They are socially adept, liked, and often
fun to be around and the centre of attention. Only a prolonged
and intensive interaction with them – sometimes as a victim –
exposes their dysfunctions.
Though ruthless and, typically, violent, the psychopath is a
calculating machine, out to maximize his gratification and
personal profit. Psychopaths lack empathy and may even
be sadistic – but understand well and instantly the language
of carrots and sticks.
....
http://samvak.tripod.com/abusefamily20.html
> > So long as it involves cruel, senseless killing, eh.
>
> So long as it yanks your chain, weirdo.
All you've done is further expose yourself, psychoid.
> > Replies to both + repeat of past post which wasn't addressed..
>
> It didn't require addressing -- you conceded every point of the post.
Yes it did, and no, I haven't, liar.
> <...>
> >
> > You should have listened to this 'ditz'
>
> No, I shouldn't've.
'The Bush Butcher’s Bill: Officially, 40 US Military Deaths
in Iraq from 1 through 11 May, 2005 – Official Total of
1,791 US Dead to date (and rising)
U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en
route to German hospitals have not previously been counted.
They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing,
underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD
is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign
news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the
newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported
but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures
indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under
100,000.
Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department
of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number
of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests
from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover
AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that
the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially
acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded,
this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current
1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is
complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along
with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of
the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel
have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to
Canada and other European countries, none of whom are
inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities.
(See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the
mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S.
military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were
killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being
very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over
16,000 seriously wounded* (See note below. This figure
is now over 24,000 Ed) and a large number of suicides,
forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales,
murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers, rapes,
courts martial and so on –
...
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1654.htm
> > instead
> > of whining about anti-war protesters delaying
> > your getting home- urging for police brutality.
>
> That stupid protest wasn't going to stop the war,
Of course not.. It had been planned well in advance..
'A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals
that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a
premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change'
even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the
creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for
Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld
(defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy),
George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby
(Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled
Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century, was written in September
2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the
New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military
control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein
was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades
sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional
security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides
the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue
of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining
global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power
rival, and shaping the international security order in line with
American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as
far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls
for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous
major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as
'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC
blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz
and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even
aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
.....'
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
"The process of [military] transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
- (page 63) Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a Report of
The Project for a New American Century, September 2000.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf
> it only stopped
> traffic. It didn't serve any purpose beyond congesting the Congress
> Avenue bridge while the leftist nutjobs engaged in their mindless
> shenanigans.
'The 2003 invasion and war in Iraq prompted much popular
opposition. Between 2002 and 2005, protests against the Iraq
war were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to
occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest
series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York
Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that
there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States
and worldwide public opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...nst_war_on_Iraq
> <...>
> >>including her sister's brain injury.
> >
> > Now enjoying a fully active life, Thank G-d.
>
> And her recovery had *nothing* to do with your massaging her feet.
*Ipse dixit*, *ignoramus*.
> >>Derek Nash asked her, "She suffered PHYSICAL brain trauma
> >>said to be incurable. So how did you FULLY cure her using a foot
> >>massage?" Lesley answered, "Very, very carefully."
> >>http://tinyurl.com/c6ezj
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Astrology
> >>>>>> Numerology
> >>>
> >>>Stars and numbers, my favorites.
> >>
> >>I hope your interests are astroNoMy and MATHEMATICS, not those two
> >>irrational quack pursuits
> >
> > Ipse dixit, and therefore worthless.
>
> There's no scientific validity to astrology or numerology. Both are
> myth-based systems of divination.
>
> http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html
> (see list of links at end of article)
>
> http://skepdic.com/numology.html
'The Skeptic's Dictionary
Several people have drawn my attention to Robert Todd
Carroll's Critique of my Alternative Science website at
http://www.skepdic.com/r ...
Normally I don't trouble replying to such criticisms, even
when they are ill-informed or misguided, because people
have the right to speak as they wish on the Internet, and
that includes the right to get things wrong.
This case is different because almost every statement of
"fact" on Robert Carroll's page regarding my Alternative
Science site is false -- including a substantial number of
completely fictional quotes that he has made up and
tried to put in my mouth.
I am putting this rebuttal here because I know that for
every pseudo-skeptic like Robert Carroll there are a
dozen real skeptics who care as much as I do about
the careful handling of facts and evidence.
Any reasonable person who even glances at the facts
below will see that Carroll's "critique" is an outrageous
distortion composed of false assertions and bogus
arguments. Any honourable person would withdraw
these lies and apologise. However, I do not expect
Robert Todd Carroll to behave in any such honourable
manner, since he is plainly not interested in scientific
truth or the integrity of philosophical discourse.
...
http://www.alternativescience.com/skepdic.com.htm
So much for your source, suspect. Spin again.
> <...>
> >>>>>> Alien abduction
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have never stated that I believe or advocate it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Never? Let me refresh your memory:
> >>>>
> >>>>Subject: Re: The REAL Galactic Federation Is HERE NOW !
> >>>>Date: 2000/06/18
> >>>>
> >>>>''Folks, the first group of ET's are not going to be benevolent,
> >>>>but they are going to pass themselves off as benevolent, and
> >>>>they are going to be telling you that we are "their creation",
> >>>>and that they "own" us because they "created us". The fact
> >>>>of the matter is that they didn't. It's another lie, and the
> >>>>first group that gets here will probably be those from Sirius B
> >>>>that will be openly contacting us.
> >>>>[Editor note: Several contactees in November 96 are purporting
> >>>>to convey information from the "Federation" are dealing with
> >>>>those from Sirius B, who have been among those conveying
> >>>>advanced manipulative technology to world power factions
> >>>>for at least three decades, and who are known to participate
> >>>>in the abduction and manipulation of humans]
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/ajh92
> >
> > I did forget about that.
>
> Aha. So you admit you lied that it was invalid.
No. Despite posting the above, (which I now think
may be invalid), 'alien abduction' is not something
I've researched, to be able to say that I believe it.
> > So explain what's 'kooky' about it.
>
> http://skepdic.com/aliens.html
'The Skeptic's Dictionary
Several people have drawn my attention to Robert Todd
Carroll's Critique of my Alternative Science website at
http://www.skepdic.com/r ...
Normally I don't trouble replying to such criticisms, even
when they are ill-informed or misguided, because people
have the right to speak as they wish on the Internet, and
that includes the right to get things wrong.
This case is different because almost every statement of
"fact" on Robert Carroll's page regarding my Alternative
Science site is false -- including a substantial number of
completely fictional quotes that he has made up and
tried to put in my mouth.
I am putting this rebuttal here because I know that for
every pseudo-skeptic like Robert Carroll there are a
dozen real skeptics who care as much as I do about
the careful handling of facts and evidence.
Any reasonable person who even glances at the facts
below will see that Carroll's "critique" is an outrageous
distortion composed of false assertions and bogus
arguments. Any honourable person would withdraw
these lies and apologise. However, I do not expect
Robert Todd Carroll to behave in any such honourable
manner, since he is plainly not interested in scientific
truth or the integrity of philosophical discourse.
...
http://www.alternativescience.com/skepdic.com.htm
So much for your source, suspect. Spin again.
> >>>>In response to my objection to Rense as a source for news, you wrote:
> >>>>'usual suspect' thinks we're all alone in the universe, it
> >>>>seems.
> >>>>
> >>>>He's welcome to his opinion of course, but what he is
> >>>>demonstrating is an intolerance for others opinions, and
> >>>>the desire to impose his own views onto others,.. or else.
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/8zglq
> >
> > Your belief that we are all alone in the universe is
> > _not_ a belief shared by most scientists, suspect.
>
> Strawman and appeal to authority/popularity:
Just educated reason.
> where have I said we're alone in the universe? I've conceded there
> very well may be, but thus far we have ZERO evidence of it:
> Odds are one thing, evidence is another. Thus far, I see no
> evidence aside from quasi-religious sources and possible myths,
> which are ambiguous enough for more than one interpretation,
> from ancient cultures. I think it's clear earlier civilizations
> had a pretty good grasp of astronomy, but they also seem to have
> clouded some things over with astrology (which is hardly
> science). I think the legends of ET contact(s) come somewhere in
> that confusion.
>
> I've often thought of the signals we send with the possibility
> that someone or something in space will answer. We really may
> not want a response for a variety of reasons. And in fairness to
> other "higher" life forms out there, they may regard our signals
> the same way most of us regard telemarketers -- an unwanted
> intrusion.
> http://tinyurl.com/b93xe
http://www.rense.com/ufo/ufo.htm
> Contrary to your appeal to authority, most scientists don't believe in
> alien abductions.
All this chitter-chatter has sparked my interest..
'This is known as the 'Alien-United States Government
Technological Exchange Theory,' and is currently popular,
in varying degrees, among many researchers and others,
who believe that the government is constantly lying
about its involvement in the UFO phenomenon, and is
keeping much information secret, while using
disinformation tactics to make all eyewitnesses appear
to be fooling. The disinformation appears in various
forms, from government propaganda, lies about activities,
and threats to silence witnesses, to the more vocal and
outspoken of 'researchers' who attempt to convince
others that there is no UFO phenomenon, and no such
thing as extraterrestrial life. These 'debunkers' use any
explanation, no matter how unlikely and impossible, to
explain any and all sightings.
.....'
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/greyorigins.html
> BTW, when was the last time an alien probed Uranus?
Pathetic.
> >>>>You also posted links to Rense articles on UFOs:
> >>>>Interesting.
> >>>>
> >>>>This just in;
> >>>>Mars Sparks Rise In UFO Sightings
> >>>>Filer's Files #36 9-1-03
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/72k2q
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm pretty sure I could find a lot more than these if I searched harder.
> >>>>This item in the list *stands*.
> >
> > 1. USual sUSpect Jun 13 2003, 7:02 pm
> > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> > From: USual sUSpect <n...@even.try>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:03:33 GMT
> > Local: Fri, Jun 13 2003 7:03 pm
> > Subject: Ping: pearl -- OT
> >
> > I'm sure your boy Rense will be talking about this very soon. Think your
> > little friends (greens, greys, who knows) are watching us?
> >
> > http://www.local6.com/news/2267894/detail.html
> >
> > PS: I watched the launch of the rocket carrying the Mars Rover earlier
> > this week and noticed other "anomalies" flying around once it was ~30
> > miles up. That's when they cut the video feed of it.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/7vc3h
>
> That was tongue in cheek -- references to Rense (YOUR boy) and little
> friends. In NO way do I believe we're being visited, much less being
> abducted.
Yet you said you saw UFOs. What do you think they were?
> >>>Yeah, the UFO section is one of the areas that isn't usually worth
> >>>checking out, unless you have more than a passing interest is sociology
> >>>and/or psychology of that kind of thing.
> >>
> >>She's interested in neither, just aliens and UFOs.
> >
> > 'The serial bully:
>
> I established a fact using your own words. You admitted those items are
> true after being shown your past posts. That's not bullying.
"She's interested in neither, just aliens and UFOs."
'The serial bully:
...
- is constantly imposing on others a false reality
made up of distortion and fabrication
.....
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
> <...>
> >>>>>> Leprechauns
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have never said that I believe in Leprechauns.
> >>>>
> >>>>You've prided yourself on your evasive answers about them. Do you or do
> >>>>you not believe they exist? Why are you open-minded on the issue?
> >>>>
> >>>>This point *stands* until you reject the existence of leprechauns.
> >
> > No.
>
> It stands. You're open-minded about their existence. Heh!
You claim that I *do* believe in them. You're a liar.
> >>>The leprechaun draws on various areas of collective mythology /
> >>>consciousness as a mythologic figure. Is that a rejection? Personally
> >>>I've never eaten 8 grams of psilocybe cubensis
> >>
> >>She probably has. One of her past pseudonyms was "lilweed."
> >
> > Perhaps you should.
>
> No, I shouldn't:
>
> Marijuana or ecstasy use and the heart
> Cigarette smoking is the leading contributor to preventable
> deaths in the United States. Many people think that smoking
> marijuana is safer than smoking cigarettes. However, marijuana
> contains many of the same harmful chemicals as cigarettes. In
> fact, some researchers believe that smoking five marijuana
> cigarettes (“joints”) per week can harm the body as much as
> smoking a pack of cigarettes every day and may raise the risk of
> lung cancer even higher than cigarettes do. Research has also
> suggested that marijuana can increase the heart rate by as much
> as 50 percent and can interfere with the functioning of the
> immune system.
>
> Recent research has also suggested a possible link between
> smoking marijuana and having a heart attack. A study of
> middle-aged users suggested that people who smoke marijuana were
> at greater risk of heart attack within the hour of using the
> drug.
>
> This research is consistent with an earlier study noting that
> people who already have a heart condition (whether or not they
> are aware of it) have a significantly greater risk of having a
> heart attack within an hour of smoking the drug. Therefore,
> people with heart disease are strongly urged to avoid smoking
> marijuana.
> http://www.heartcenteronline.com/my...rev.cfm?file...
'WOL: Dr. Middleman said in an interview that he believes
that it is the increased heart rate from smoking marijuana that
is responsible.
Dr. Grinspoon: Yes, and he put that increase at 40 beats per
minute. In truth, that number is closer to 20 beats per minute,
which is probably consistent with running up the stairs in
one's house.
WOL: So you disagree with Dr. Middleman's characterization
of the risk as 'significant'?
Dr. Grinspoon: First, let me say that I blame the media far
more than I do Dr. Middleman. I read his abstract, and in its
conclusion he cautioned against making too much of the data.
Conceivably, there is some risk, although if there is, it is
barely measurable. Even assuming that the data presented is
right, one must still wait to see if it can be replicated.
WOL: You seem to be pretty skeptical about the chances
of that happening.
Dr. Grinspoon: Well, in 1997, Kaiser Permanente did a
large-scale study which included more than 65,000 admitted
marijuana users, and they could not demonstrate any impact
of marijuana use on mortality. If marijuana use really was a
significant risk factor for heart attack, it is hard to believe that
it didn't turn up there. Again, I'm not saying that there is
absolutely no risk demonstrated here. But given the history
of the research since 1967, I'd be surprised if these findings
don't go down the same chute as all of the other front-page
scare stories.
NOTE: In the April, 1997 edition of The American Journal
of Public Health, Dr. Stephen Sidney writes about a long-term
(12-year) study undertaken by Kaiser Permanente -- a medical
insurer/provider, therefore an entity with a fiduciary interest
in the integrity of the results -- into the mortality rates of
marijuana smokers. The study population comprised 65,171
subjects aged 15 through 49 years. Conclusion: Marijuana
use had little effect on non-AIDS mortality in men and on
total mortality in women (Am J Public Health. 1997;87:585-590).
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chron...juanarisk.shtml
<..>
All smoke is a lung irritant.
> >>>Was that VHF or UHF? These days messages are also "chunneled".
> >>
> >>This goes back to inner earth beings. One of the "head" beings, Adama of
> >>Telos, is channeled by Aurelia Louise Jones and others. That's how they
> >>get their messages out from beneath Mount Shasta to the, ummm, true
> >>believers.
> >>http://tinyurl.com/cmd4z
> >
> > 'What happened to Lemuria? (The Egyptian/ Native American
> > Connection)
>
> It was a figment of someone's imagination.
Who?
> > Can an entire continent sink or vanish? That's something most
> > geologists say is impossible. Yet the event is widely supported
> > by Pacific area mythology from Australia to Arizona. From Hopi
> > legend: 'Down on the bottom of the seas lie all the proud cities,
> > the flying patuwvotas, and the worldly treasures corrupted with
> > evil . . ." Faced with disaster, some people hid inside the earth
> > while others escaped by crossing the ocean on reed rafts, using
> > the islands as stepping-stones. The same story of escape to
> > dry land appears in the Popul Vu epic of the Quiche Maya
> > and the Modoc tribe near Mt. Shasta among many others.
> > ...'
> > http://www.galerevilla.com/lemuria.htm [404]
>
> Heh! Double heh!
'G: The sheer mass of detailed evidence that Churchward
compiled (five books just jammed full) presents an
overwhelming case for it. Since then, in the 1930's,
soundings of the Pacific by Capt. Claude Banks Mayo of
the U.S. Navy show that there is "a submerged continent,
with mountains, river courses and plateaus at an average
depth of one mile stretching from the Hawaiian to the
Barin Islands, east of the coast of Japan."
...'
http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/O..._of_lemuria.htm
> <...>
> >>No, she thinks there's a conspiracy to poison or infect people by means
> >>of "chemtrails." She apparently
> >
> > If I did, and I don't recall doing so, it was in jest.
>
> Derek repeated it several times, and he consistently said the same
> thing. I believe him.
Did he? I don't believe you. Anyway, he's retracted all that.
> >>told Derek in a phone conversation that
> >>people are trying to keep her from sharing Hulda Clark's "Zapper" with
> >>the world, and that they're targeting her with the chemtrails:
> >>She honestly believes she's been targetted for chemtrailing
> >>to dope her up and keep her quiet about things. She's
> >>certifiable.
> >>http://tinyurl.com/b8tz3
> >>
> >>See also: http://tinyurl.com/arlcv
> >
> > Derek had a hate-on for me going on at that time.
>
> Yet you admit he was substantively correct in his accounts of your
> conversations -- you admitted to rubbing your sister's feet and Zapping
> -- so I'm buying that you told him about chemtrails.
But directed at me, personally? If I said that, it was in jest.
> <...>
> >>She believes they were created as part of a conspiracy to control people.
> >
> > To put it mildly.
>
> PCTs:
> http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html
'The Skeptic's Dictionary
Several people have drawn my attention to Robert Todd
Carroll's Critique of my Alternative Science website at
http://www.skepdic.com/r ...
Normally I don't trouble replying to such criticisms, even
when they are ill-informed or misguided, because people
have the right to speak as they wish on the Internet, and
that includes the right to get things wrong.
This case is different because almost every statement of
"fact" on Robert Carroll's page regarding my Alternative
Science site is false -- including a substantial number of
completely fictional quotes that he has made up and
tried to put in my mouth.
I am putting this rebuttal here because I know that for
every pseudo-skeptic like Robert Carroll there are a
dozen real skeptics who care as much as I do about
the careful handling of facts and evidence.
Any reasonable person who even glances at the facts
below will see that Carroll's "critique" is an outrageous
distortion composed of false assertions and bogus
arguments. Any honourable person would withdraw
these lies and apologise. However, I do not expect
Robert Todd Carroll to behave in any such honourable
manner, since he is plainly not interested in scientific
truth or the integrity of philosophical discourse.
...
http://www.alternativescience.com/skepdic.com.htm
So much for your source, suspect. Spin again.
> >>>>>> conspiracy theory
> >
> > 'What is generally known as the 'conspiracy theory of
> > history' holds that the world's major political, economic
> > and social developments are not haphazard, they are
> > caused. They are, in fact, planned. The bad conditions
> > we see around us do not just happen. The basic premise
> > being that certain forces, which are not operating in the
> > best interest of all humankind, are guiding world history
> > along predetermined paths. If we accept this, then we
> > are led to conclude that for the last few millennia, history
> > has been secretly and ruthlessly controlled by small
> > groups of self-appointed elites, who themselves function
> > under the influence of negative powers. Powers hostile
> > to mankind's spiritual freedom. Without this conspiracy
> > theory of history, the economic upheavals, major and
> > minor wars, mindless violence, withering of spiritual
> > values and worship of materialism, would mean that
> > we live in an absurd world rapidly going mad for no
> > seeming reason.' - .. -
>
> See http://skepdic.com/illuminati.html
'The Skeptic's Dictionary
Several people have drawn my attention to Robert Todd
Carroll's Critique of my Alternative Science website at
http://www.skepdic.com/r ...
Normally I don't trouble replying to such criticisms, even
when they are ill-informed or misguided, because people
have the right to speak as they wish on the Internet, and
that includes the right to get things wrong.
This case is different because almost every statement of
"fact" on Robert Carroll's page regarding my Alternative
Science site is false -- including a substantial number of
completely fictional quotes that he has made up and
tried to put in my mouth.
I am putting this rebuttal here because I know that for
every pseudo-skeptic like Robert Carroll there are a
dozen real skeptics who care as much as I do about
the careful handling of facts and evidence.
Any reasonable person who even glances at the facts
below will see that Carroll's "critique" is an outrageous
distortion composed of false assertions and bogus
arguments. Any honourable person would withdraw
these lies and apologise. However, I do not expect
Robert Todd Carroll to behave in any such honourable
manner, since he is plainly not interested in scientific
truth or the integrity of philosophical discourse.
...
http://www.alternativescience.com/skepdic.com.htm
So much for your source, suspect. Spin again.
> <...>
> >>>>>> participation in skinhead subculture
> >>>>>
> >>>>>False.
> >>>>
> >>>>You married a skinhead. The point *stands*.
> >
> > Nonsense. I married (and divorced) a person.
>
> A skinhead.
A person. That meant nothing.
> >>>That could mean almost anything. Neo-nazi? US Military? Swimmer?
> >
> > SHARP. (Skinheads against racial prejudice).
> >
> >
> >>The kind who writes these kinds of posts:
> >>http://tinyurl.com/849zu
> >
> > You didn't answer the question, o' clueless one.
>
> I pointed shev to your ex's posts to get a sense of his own words.
Not very nice.
> >>>>>> the validity of online IQ tests
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Don't see why not. ?
> >>>>
> >>>>That's another Yes. See the relevant thread for why online IQ tests are
> >>>>bogus -- particularly beyond the first try. The point *stands*.
> >
> > Goose hunting now? Explain why here.
>
> Not hunting.
Now evading. Well?
> The point stands because you thought you were getting
> smarter with each retake of the online IQ test.
"I thought". Hey everyone- 'usual suspect' believes
that he *can read minds*.
> You told Dreck:
> Careful, or I might REALLY apply myself and go
> raise that score a notch or few.
Yes, and I did take it again, with a little more time and care.
> Memorizing answers to invalid IQ test questions doesn't increase your
> intelligence quotient, dumb ass.
I worked the answers out. Get over it.
> >>>The limited validity..
> >>
> >>They have no validity,
> >
> > Because .... ?
>
> http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar04/test.html
"We think that Internet testing doesn't really change
those basic principles of reliability and validity," says
Fritz Drasgow, PhD, of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, who co-chaired the task force
with Jack Naglieri, PhD, of George Mason University
in Virginia. '
> >>particularly beyond the first try. She kept
> >
> > No. I took it twice in total.
>
> And you thought you were "smarter" the second time around.
I thought it was smarter not to rush through it..
> >>retaking the SAME test and suggested her IQ was rising with each
> >>re-take. IQ isn't a measure of ability to memorize (or write down)
> >>answers to the same test, but thinking that such is valid indicates
> >>possession of a fairly low IQ.
> >
> > A little more time and care, that's all.
>
> You took a Mulligan -- something you wouldn't get in legitimate IQ testing.
No. I took a little more time and care.
> <...>
> >>>>The only issue that didn't stand was "holocaust denial," and that one
> >>>>was removed despite the fact that your virulent anti-Semitism has made
> >>>>you _persona non grata_ in the Jewish newsgroups you infect with your
> >
> > I didn't even read this odious rant before. I am Jewish myself
> > yet I'm an 'anti-semite'?
>
> Yes. This has been established by regulars at soc.culture.jewish.
Regular racists.
> > The pro-zionists were the ones shrieking 'anti-semite'. They're
> > in those groups the equivalent of the vermin
>
> Anti-semite. Your hatred for others, though, isn't solely based on
> religion. You hate all of mankind. You're a misanthrope.
False.
'Zionism is not Judaism
Letter from a Jewish Friend, and a Response
(March 7, 2003)
Dear Mike:
I read your article at
http://www.counterpunch.org/ladah03052003.html.
The grief felt by those of us who are Orthodox Jews
opposed to the abominable heresy of Zionism is multiplied
in view of the implications of a war in Iraq rooted in the fact
of Zionism being the source of all problems going on in the
Middle East. As you will see from the websites indicated
below, Zionism is a despicable heresy and desecration of
Judaism in every single respect.
The Zionists do not represent anything Jewish, and are,
in fact, the enemies of Judaism. They will have to account
to G-d himself for all their crimes and sins against Jew and
Palestinian. May G-d have mercy on all of us in these dark
times. The websites are:
www.nkusa.org, www.jewsagainstzionism.com,
www.netureikarta.org, www.jewsnotzionists.org,
www.netureikartauk.org.
..........
http://www.ladah.org/article48.htm
> >>>>cross-posts.
> >
> > No. I was invited to participate in those groups.
>
> You weren't invited to post there,
Yes, I was.
> and you quickly became insolent and
> showed contempt for others -- evidence of your misanthropy.
More lies.
> <...>
> >>>Well maybe we have enough to talk about without bringing up these cans
> >>>of worms..
> >
> > The worms are the meatheads who use this 'list' to derail
> > arguments they are losing whilst at the same time trying
> > to undermine my credibility and by extension what I post.
>
> You undermine *your own* credibility and you DON'T win arguments. Ever.
> The list exists to demonstrate why your views should be taken with a
> grain of salt. You're a total flake.
You're full of **it, suspect.
> >>>>You have no credibility, and you are of poor character.
> >>>
> >>>I must have missed something Usual, why the long and drawn out ad
> >>>hominem attack?
> >>
> >>It isn't ad hominem. It's true.
> >
> > It is - ad hominem, and everyone can see it, liar suspect.-
>
> Established!
|
|
|
| Mike |
pearl wrote:
> 'Bullies feel inadequate and compensates for it by being violent
> - verbally, psychologically, or physically. Some bullies suffer
> from personality and other mental health disorders. They feel
> entitled to special treatment, seek attention, lack empathy, are
> rageful and envious, and exploit and then discard their co-workers.
>
> Bullies are insincere, haughty, unreliable, and lack empathy and
> sensitivity to the emotions, needs, and preferences of others
> whom they regard and treat as objects or instruments of
> gratification.
>
> Bullies are ruthless, cold, and have alloplastic defences (and
> outside locus of control) - they blame others for their failures,
> defeats, or misfortunes. Bullies have low frustration and
> tolerance thresholds, get bored and anxious easily, are violently
> impatient, emotionally labile, unstable, erratic, and untrustworthy.
> They lack self-discipline, are egotistic, exploitative, rapacious,
> opportunistic, driven, reckless, and callous.
>
> Bullies are emotionally immature and control freaks. They are
> consummate liars and deceivingly charming. Bullies dress, talk,
> and behave normally. Many of them are persuasive, manipulative,
> or even charismatic. They are socially adept, liked, and often
> fun to be around and the centre of attention. Only a prolonged
> and intensive interaction with them - sometimes as a victim -
> exposes their dysfunctions.
>
> Though ruthless and, typically, violent, the psychopath is a
> calculating machine, out to maximize his gratification and
> personal profit. Psychopaths lack empathy and may even
> be sadistic - but understand well and instantly the language
> of carrots and sticks.
> ...
> http://samvak.tripod.com/abusefamily20.html
Hey some bullies have our own problems. As a teen I drove a van over
some animals on purpose but I was messed up after my old man left. I
found Jesus later so I'm redempted. Cruel is in the eyes of the
beholder and God forgives us all when we pass on. I even went vegan for
awhile to pay my dues to God's lower creatures.
Mike Longshore
|
|
|
| pearl |
"Mike" <mikelongshore@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1133387955.193510.84160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > 'Bullies feel inadequate and compensates for it by being violent
> > - verbally, psychologically, or physically. Some bullies suffer
> > from personality and other mental health disorders. They feel
> > entitled to special treatment, seek attention, lack empathy, are
> > rageful and envious, and exploit and then discard their co-workers.
> >
> > Bullies are insincere, haughty, unreliable, and lack empathy and
> > sensitivity to the emotions, needs, and preferences of others
> > whom they regard and treat as objects or instruments of
> > gratification.
> >
> > Bullies are ruthless, cold, and have alloplastic defences (and
> > outside locus of control) - they blame others for their failures,
> > defeats, or misfortunes. Bullies have low frustration and
> > tolerance thresholds, get bored and anxious easily, are violently
> > impatient, emotionally labile, unstable, erratic, and untrustworthy.
> > They lack self-discipline, are egotistic, exploitative, rapacious,
> > opportunistic, driven, reckless, and callous.
> >
> > Bullies are emotionally immature and control freaks. They are
> > consummate liars and deceivingly charming. Bullies dress, talk,
> > and behave normally. Many of them are persuasive, manipulative,
> > or even charismatic. They are socially adept, liked, and often
> > fun to be around and the centre of attention. Only a prolonged
> > and intensive interaction with them - sometimes as a victim -
> > exposes their dysfunctions.
> >
> > Though ruthless and, typically, violent, the psychopath is a
> > calculating machine, out to maximize his gratification and
> > personal profit. Psychopaths lack empathy and may even
> > be sadistic - but understand well and instantly the language
> > of carrots and sticks.
> > ...
> > http://samvak.tripod.com/abusefamily20.html
>
> Hey some bullies have our own problems. As a teen I drove a van over
> some animals on purpose but I was messed up after my old man left. I
> found Jesus later so I'm redempted. Cruel is in the eyes of the
> beholder and God forgives us all when we pass on. I even went vegan for
> awhile to pay my dues to God's lower creatures.
Lection XCIII
The Order of the Kingdom (Part III)
1. AND another spake, saying, Master, if one have
committed a sin, can a man remit or retain his sin? And
Jesus said, God forgiveth all sin to those who repent,
but as ye sow, so also must ye reap; Neither God nor
man can remit the sins of those who repent nor
forsake their sins; nor yet retain the sins of those who
forsake them. But if one being in the spirit seeth clearly
that any repent and forsake their sins, such may truly
say unto the penitent, Thy sins are forgiven thee, for
All sin is remitted by repentance and amendment and
they are loosed from it, who forsake it and bound to it,
who continue it.
2. Nevertheless the fruits of the sin must continue for
a season, for as we sow so must we reap, for God is
not mocked, and they who sow to the flesh shall reap
corruption, they who sow to the spirit shall reap life,
everlasting. Wherefore if any forsake their sins and
confess them, let the presbyter say unto such in this
wise, May God forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee
to everlasting life. All sin against God is forgiven by
God, and sin against man by man.
...
http://reluctant-messenger.com/esse....htm#Lection930
|
|
|
|
