The vegan cat diet FAQ & protesting @ support for declawing @TVAnimalPlanet
pearl
news:MjtZa.176067$xg5.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> little miss lacks-originality echoed:
'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
Don't like it? Tough.
> > See Derek's post.
>
> Cut-n-paste it, silly woman.
'Blame Shifting - Blaming others for our own problems.
In this simplest case of projection, the responsibility for
ones own problems or failures is shifted to someone else,
usually with a display of exaggerated anger. '
http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
> > Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
>
> Echo. Why *did* you post this whole, thoughtless, un-original reply?
And again. Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:MjtZa.176067$xg5.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>little miss lacks-originality echoed:
>
>
> 'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
> ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
> the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
> http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
> I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
> Don't like it? Tough.
You're doing no such thing. You are exhibiting your
typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>
>
>>>See Derek's post.
>>
>>Cut-n-paste it, silly woman.
>
>
> 'Blame Shifting - Blaming others for our own problems.
Exactly what you do.
>
>>>Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
>>
>>Echo. Why *did* you post this whole, thoughtless, un-original reply?
>
>
> And again. Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
Yes, yours is.
usual suspect
> 'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
> ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
> the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
> http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
> I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
No, you're not. You're further demonstrating both your inability to
grasp simple concepts and your complete lack of original thought. What
else are you going to cut and paste tonight? I bet it will again miss
the point.
FYI, projection is what you're doing with respect to American timber
policy from your crumbling Irish "cottage." Fix your own house before
you worry about ours.
> Don't like it? Tough.
More like, I don't care. Come on and tell us more of your goofy beliefs
about civilizations hidden beneath Mount Shasta, stolen flying saucers,
healthcare quackery (you never answered Mr Nash's questions about
healing your sister of her coma or whatever was wrong), gazing at the
sun instead of eating, "chemtrails," etc. Surely you're holding back the
best stuff. At least that kind of stuff gives us some amusement. That's
the only thing you have to offer of interest to anyone.
>>>See Derek's post.
>>
>>Cut-n-paste it, silly woman.
>
> 'Blame Shifting - Blaming others for our own problems.
> In this simplest case of projection, the responsibility for
> ones own problems or failures is shifted to someone else,
> usually with a display of exaggerated anger. '
> http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
Sorry, but I'm not blaming you for anything and I'm not angry *big cute
smile*. You amuse me. You're like a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
>>>Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
>>
>>Echo. Why *did* you post this whole, thoughtless, un-original reply?
>
> And again. Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
I'll give you *some* credit: your best reasoned posts simply throw back
quotes from my, Jonathan's, Dutch's, and Rick's posts. The least you
could do, though, is properly cite such remarks so the correct
individual gets credit.
pearl
news:vAxZa.5412$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:MjtZa.176067$xg5.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>little miss lacks-originality echoed:
> >
> >
> > 'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
> > ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
> > the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
> > http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
> > I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
> > Don't like it? Tough.
>
> You're doing no such thing.
Yes I am.. no you're not... ad infinitum.....
> You are exhibiting your
> typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
142 second attempt.
> >>>See Derek's post.
> >>
> >>Cut-n-paste it, silly woman.
> >
> >
> > 'Blame Shifting - Blaming others for our own problems.
>
> Exactly what you do.
Exactly what you do.
> >>>Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
> >>
> >>Echo. Why *did* you post this whole, thoughtless, un-original reply?
> >
> >
> > And again. Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
>
> Yes, yours is.
Yours is.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:vAxZa.5412$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>>>news:MjtZa.176067$xg5.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>little miss lacks-originality echoed:
>>>
>>>
>>>'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
>>>ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
>>>the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
>>>http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
>>>I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
>>>Don't like it? Tough.
>>
>>You're doing no such thing.
>
>
> Yes I am.
No, you're not.
>
>
>>You are exhibiting your
>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>
>
> 142 second attempt.
You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
and you had help.
pearl
> whirrrrrrrrrl wrote:
> > 'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
> > ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
> > the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
> > http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
> > I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
>
> No, you're not.
Yes I am.
> You're further demonstrating both your inability to
> grasp simple concepts and your complete lack of original thought.
You are further demonstrating both your inability to grasp
the simple facts of the matter.
> What
> else are you going to cut and paste tonight? I bet it will again miss
> the point.
I bet the evidence I post will again have you squirming in a stew.
> FYI, projection is what you're doing with respect to American timber
> policy from your crumbling Irish "cottage." Fix your own house before
> you worry about ours.
My stone house built on rock will be here in another hundred years,
- long after you've fulfilled your destiny as worm food. <lol>
> > Don't like it? Tough.
>
> More like, I don't care. Come on and tell us more of your goofy beliefs
> about civilizations hidden beneath Mount Shasta, stolen flying saucers,
> healthcare quackery (you never answered Mr Nash's questions about
> healing your sister of her coma or whatever was wrong), gazing at the
> sun instead of eating, "chemtrails," etc. Surely you're holding back the
> best stuff. At least that kind of stuff gives us some amusement. That's
> the only thing you have to offer of interest to anyone.
Sounds like you care a great deal, (liar). Still, true to form;
'Projection is almost never seen without an accompanying
Rationalization.' http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
'Rationalization is the attempt to provide an alternative explanation
for a behavior or impulse that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable.
It is an attempt to obscure our true motivations with a logical-sounding
"cover story" that we may or may not believe ourselves. It smoothes
over the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in our lives and makes us
believe that our own past decisions were the best ones possible. '
http://www.defensemechanisms.net/rationalization/
> >>>See Derek's post.
> >>
> >>Cut-n-paste it, silly woman.
> >
> > 'Blame Shifting - Blaming others for our own problems.
> > In this simplest case of projection, the responsibility for
> > ones own problems or failures is shifted to someone else,
> > usually with a display of exaggerated anger. '
> > http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
>
> Sorry, but I'm not blaming you for anything and I'm not angry *big cute
> smile*. You amuse me. You're like a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
'Almost any criminal, when caught red-handed, can come up with an
alternative explanation for the uncomfortable evidence against them. '
http://www.defensemechanisms.net/rationalization/
> >>>Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
> >>
> >>Echo. Why *did* you post this whole, thoughtless, un-original reply?
> >
> > And again. Your incessant denial and evasion is abhorrent and retarded.
>
> I'll give you *some* credit: your best reasoned posts simply throw back
> quotes from my, Jonathan's, Dutch's, and Rick's posts. The least you
> could do, though, is properly cite such remarks so the correct
> individual gets credit.
LOL.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:vAxZa.5412$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> >>>news:MjtZa.176067$xg5.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>little miss lacks-originality echoed:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>'Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing
> >>>ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In
> >>>the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. '
> >>>http://www.defensemechanisms.net/projection/
> >>>I'm reflecting your crap right back at you, where it belongs.
> >>>Don't like it? Tough.
> >>
> >>You're doing no such thing.
> >
> >
> > Yes I am.
>
> No, you're not.
Yes, I am. [x 1 trillion]
> >>You are exhibiting your
> >>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
> >
> >
> > 142 second attempt.
>
> You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> and you had help.
Liar.
Which reminds me.. your page is coming on very nicely.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:iDzZa.5634$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>142 second attempt.
>>
>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>and you had help.
>
>
> Liar.
I'm not lying. You don't get to re-take a legitimate
IQ test, moron. It defeats the purpose.
And you *did* have help, lots of it.
>
> Which reminds me.. your page is coming on very nicely.
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
What an amateurish bucket-of-shit "web page". Most of
the bullshit at the bottom is illegible, and the whole
page reflects scatter-brained juvenile angst. You're a
riot, WHIRRRRRRRRRL.
Graham Burnett
>
> Liar.
>
>
Pants on fire.
(no idea what this is about, just a random dip in, this made me laugh, so
that's how shallow I am....)
Megan Milligan
DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!DIE!
though i think this is a thread of the undead.
Megan
pearl
heh heh heh, LIAR.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:cRzZa.5659$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:iDzZa.5634$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>142 second attempt.
>>>>
>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>>>and you had help.
>>>
>>>
>>>Liar.
>>
>>I'm not lying. You don't get to re-take a legitimate
>>IQ test, moron. It defeats the purpose.
>>
>>And you *did* have help, lots of it.
>>
>>
>>>Which reminds me.. your page is coming on very nicely.
>>>http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>>
>>What an amateurish bucket-of-shit "web page". Most of
>>the bullshit at the bottom is illegible, and the whole
>>page reflects scatter-brained juvenile angst. You're a
>>riot, WHIRRRRRRRRRL.
>
>
> heh heh heh, LIAR.
Nope. You don't get to retake a legitimate IQ test.
You had LOTS of help on it. We all know it, and so do you.
Your bucket-of-shit "web page" is amateurish. Just
thrown up slap-dash, without any thought to it. Most
of it is illegible.
usual suspect
>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>>>
>>>142 second attempt.
>>
>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>and you had help.
>
> Liar.
Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions. That's not an
increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're still the hapless
fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of your academic
prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
usual suspect
>>You're further demonstrating both your inability to
>>grasp simple concepts and your complete lack of original thought.
>
> You are further demonstrating both your inability to grasp
> the simple facts of the matter.
Again, this is your complete lack of originality and your inability to
properly edit out words from incomplete quotes ("both").
>>What
>>else are you going to cut and paste tonight? I bet it will again miss
>>the point.
>
> I bet the evidence I post will again have you squirming in a stew.
How much do you wanna bet? You've yet to make me squirm.
>>FYI, projection is what you're doing with respect to American timber
>>policy from your crumbling Irish "cottage." Fix your own house before
>>you worry about ours.
>
> My stone house built on rock will be here in another hundred years,
> - long after you've fulfilled your destiny as worm food. <lol>
I'll probably outlive you. After all, you connect yourself to electric
zappers, gaze into the sun, and suffer from an unbalanced diet.
>>More like, I don't care. Come on and tell us more of your goofy beliefs
>>about civilizations hidden beneath Mount Shasta, stolen flying saucers,
>>healthcare quackery (you never answered Mr Nash's questions about
>>healing your sister of her coma or whatever was wrong), gazing at the
>>sun instead of eating, "chemtrails," etc. Surely you're holding back the
>>best stuff. At least that kind of stuff gives us some amusement. That's
>>the only thing you have to offer of interest to anyone.
>
> Sounds like you care a great deal, (liar).
No, the only reason I read your posts is for amusement. Even your boy
Derek, who once called you astute, seems to treat you as the joke you are.
<snip>
>>I'll give you *some* credit: your best reasoned posts simply throw back
>>quotes from my, Jonathan's, Dutch's, and Rick's posts. The least you
>>could do, though, is properly cite such remarks so the correct
>>individual gets credit.
>
> LOL.
You know you're better off leaving it to experts, dummy. That's why you
do it, and it's why 90% of the rest of your posts is simply cut-n-paste
jobs. The (im)balance is your amusing abortion of "original" mathematics.
Jonathan Ball
> pearl wrote:
>
>>>>> You are exhibiting your
>>>>> typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 142 second attempt.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>> test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>> and you had help.
>>
>>
>> Liar.
>
>
> Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
> doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
> quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
> didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
> than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
> familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
It reflects something else: the assistance she got
with the questions.
By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her
first attempt.
> That's not an
> increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
> cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're still the hapless
> fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of your academic
> prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
>
> Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie
has an aversion to real science.
usual suspect
>>>>> 142 second attempt.
>>>>
>>>> You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>>> test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>>> and you had help.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've
>> no doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your
>> intelligence quotient rise so many points in a short period of time?
>> That's right, it didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two
>> more accurately than you did before, and your subsequent score only
>> reflects your familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>
> It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
flagrant illogic.
> By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
I can believe that.
>> That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
>> (notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
>> still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
>> your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
>> test.
>>
>> Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>
> That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
> to real science.
It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
Ray
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:bh6iqi$qo2$1...@kermit.esat.net...
At last, ~~jonnie~~ has his own web page.
He should appreciate the fact that you are a truly ethical person and kept
the crossposting to a minimum.
Others have less scruples.
>
Lotta Laughs
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > Which reminds me.. your page is coming on very nicely.
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >
> >
> ROTFLMAO Pearl.
>
> At last, ~~jonnie~~ has his own web page.
> He should appreciate the fact that you are a truly ethical person and kept
> the crossposting to a minimum.
> Others have less scruples.
What a pathetic excuse for a web page.
Ray
"Lotta Laughs" <nev...@y.die> wrote in message
news:vjg7l8e...@news.supernews.com...
He's a pathetic excuse for a man!
>
>
>
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>You are exhibiting your
> >>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
135 first go.
> >>>142 second attempt.
> >>
> >>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>and you had help.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
> doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
> quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
> didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
> than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
> familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a little more time
and care than I did at first.
> That's not an
> increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
> cheapest things are named after the Irish?).
Notice how hopelessly bigoted you are?
> You're still the hapless
> fool you were a month ago
You called me an 'idiot' numerous times in your dirty tricks
attempted character assassination, seeing as you haven't a
hope in hell of EVER beating my arguments fair and square.
I'd taken the test about a week earlier, so thought I'd use it
to prove you wrong about that too.
> when you first boasted of your academic
> prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
>
> Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
'usual suspect'
13 July 2003 19:27 --
Narcissism, no. Egotism, yes. I'm a Texan after all; it's hard to be
humble. Let me set off my results so you can't miss (like so many other
things which go STRAIGHT over your head):
*********************************************************************
************************** My Test Result ***************************
*********************************************************************
Score: 142
..
I already know I
have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual talents of an artist
-- a result of my creative, expressive mind.
-end quote-
Urgh.
pearl
> usual suspect wrote:
> > pearl wrote:
> >
> >>>>> You are exhibiting your
> >>>>> typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 142 second attempt.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>> test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>> and you had help.
> >>
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
> >
> > Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
> > doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
> > quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
> > didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
> > than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
> > familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>
> It reflects something else: the assistance she got
> with the questions.
No assistance.
> By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her
> first attempt.
Yes it was, liar ball.
> > That's not an
> > increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
> > cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're still the hapless
> > fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of your academic
> > prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
> >
> > Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>
> That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie
> has an aversion to real science.
Got that proof that beef gain in the feedlot is 95% of total gain yet, liar ball?
pearl
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>>>> 142 second attempt.
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>>> test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>>> and you had help.
> >>>
> >>> Liar.
> >>
> >> Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've
> >> no doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your
> >> intelligence quotient rise so many points in a short period of time?
> >> That's right, it didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two
> >> more accurately than you did before, and your subsequent score only
> >> reflects your familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
> >
> > It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
>
> Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
> flagrant illogic.
Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
> > By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
>
> I can believe that.
You'd like to.
> >> That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
> >> (notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
> >> still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
> >> your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
> >> test.
> >>
> >> Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
> >
> > That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
> > to real science.
>
> It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
> explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
You're still projecting.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:cRzZa.5659$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >>>news:iDzZa.5634$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>>>>>You are exhibiting your
> >>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>142 second attempt.
> >>>>
> >>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>>>and you had help.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Liar.
> >>
> >>I'm not lying. You don't get to re-take a legitimate
> >>IQ test, moron. It defeats the purpose.
> >>
> >>And you *did* have help, lots of it.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Which reminds me.. your page is coming on very nicely.
> >>>http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >>
> >>What an amateurish bucket-of-shit "web page". Most of
> >>the bullshit at the bottom is illegible, and the whole
> >>page reflects scatter-brained juvenile angst. You're a
> >>riot, WHIRRRRRRRRRL.
> >
> >
> > heh heh heh, LIAR.
>
> Nope.
Ohhhhhh YES.
> You don't get to retake a legitimate IQ test.
Whatever.
> You had LOTS of help on it. We all know it, and so do you.
No help. You know what everyone knows? You're delusional.
> Your bucket-of-shit "web page" is amateurish. Just
> thrown up slap-dash, without any thought to it. Most
> of it is illegible.
heh heh heh.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:bh6iqi$qo2$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:iDzZa.5634$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > Which reminds me.. your page is coming on very nicely.
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >
> >
> ROTFLMAO Pearl.
;) Ray.
> At last, ~~jonnie~~ has his own web page.
> He should appreciate the fact that you are a truly ethical person and kept
> the crossposting to a minimum.
> Others have less scruples.
lol!
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:XATZa.154903$TJ.91...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>142 second attempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>>>>>and you had help.
>>>>>
>>>>>Liar.
>>>>
>>>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've
>>>>no doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your
>>>>intelligence quotient rise so many points in a short period of time?
>>>>That's right, it didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two
>>>>more accurately than you did before, and your subsequent score only
>>>>reflects your familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>>>
>>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
>>
>>Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
>>flagrant illogic.
>
>
> Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
> help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
>
>
>>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
>>
>>I can believe that.
>
>
> You'd like to.
Why would he like to? What's in it for him?
But it's true: your 13x score was not on your first
attempt.
>
>
>>>>That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
>>>>(notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
>>>>still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
>>>>your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
>>>>test.
>>>>
>>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>>>
>>>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
>>>to real science.
>>
>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
>
>
> You're still projecting.
No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
Jonathan Ball
No, not "whatever", miss 103. It's the truth: you do
not get to retake a legitimate IQ test. If the
psychologist thought there was something way wrong with
your score, you'd be given a different test.
>
>
>>You had LOTS of help on it. We all know it, and so do you.
>
>
> No help.
Lots of help.
>>Your bucket-of-shit "web page" is amateurish. Just
>>thrown up slap-dash, without any thought to it. Most
>>of it is illegible.
>
>
> heh heh heh.
Laugh away, WHIRRRRRRRRRL. Your page stinks, because
you're a doltish amateur.
Why would you even *think* that anyone would be amused
by it? Any poor shitbag who stumbles onto it has no
context. I *know* what anyone looking at it thinks:
"What the fuck kind of contaminated shit was the web
page author on when she put THIS bucket-o-shit up?"
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:sdOZa.182441$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>
>
> 135 first go.
Nope. That was after several. I checked with the web
master, who logs the IP addresses.
>
>
>>>>>142 second attempt.
>>>>
>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>>>and you had help.
>>>
>>>Liar.
>>
>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
>>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
>>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
>>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
>>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
>>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>
>
> I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a little more time
> and care than I did at first.
And with lots of help. With or without the help, you
don't get to retake an IQ test.
>
>
>>That's not an
>>increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
>>cheapest things are named after the Irish?).
>
>
> Notice how hopelessly bigoted you are?
Not at all, you drunken Irish lout.
>
>
>>You're still the hapless
>>fool you were a month ago
>
>
> You called me an 'idiot' numerous times in your dirty tricks
> attempted character assassination, seeing as you haven't a
> hope in hell of EVER beating my arguments fair and square.
He *always* beats them fair and square, loon. Your
arguments always collapse in a shit heap.
> I'd taken the test about a week earlier,
Several times
> so thought I'd use it
> to prove you wrong about that too.
>
>
>>when you first boasted of your academic
>>prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
>>
>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>
>
> 'usual suspect'
> 13 July 2003 19:27 --
>
> Narcissism, no. Egotism, yes. I'm a Texan after all; it's hard to be
> humble. Let me set off my results so you can't miss (like so many other
> things which go STRAIGHT over your head):
>
> *********************************************************************
> ************************** My Test Result ***************************
> *********************************************************************
> Score: 142
> ..
>
> I already know I
> have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual talents of an artist
> -- a result of my creative, expressive mind.
>
> -end quote-
>
> Urgh.
Face it, cow: he can write, you can't.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:S2PZa.6481$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>>pearl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>142 second attempt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>>>>and you had help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
>>>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
>>>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
>>>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
>>>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
>>>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>>
>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got
>>with the questions.
>
>
> No assistance.
LOTS of assistance.
>
>
>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her
>>first attempt.
>
>
> Yes it was, liar ball.
No, it wasn't, ~~HIVweed~~.
pearl
Exactly right.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:XATZa.154903$TJ.91...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>142 second attempt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>>>>>and you had help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Liar.
> >>>>
> >>>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've
> >>>>no doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your
> >>>>intelligence quotient rise so many points in a short period of time?
> >>>>That's right, it didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two
> >>>>more accurately than you did before, and your subsequent score only
> >>>>reflects your familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
> >>>
> >>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
> >>
> >>Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
> >>flagrant illogic.
> >
> >
> > Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
> > help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
HELLO?
> >>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
> >>
> >>I can believe that.
> >
> > You'd like to.
>
> Why would he like to? What's in it for him?
Same as is in it for you, denying it wasn't my first attempt.
You tell me why. You're both too screwy for me to fathom.
> But it's true: your 13x score was not on your first
> attempt.
Yes it was.
> >>>>That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
> >>>>(notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
> >>>>still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
> >>>>your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
> >>>>test.
> >>>>
> >>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
> >>>
> >>>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
> >>>to real science.
> >>
> >>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
> >>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
> >
> >
> > You're still projecting.
>
> No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
> paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
LIAR.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:S2PZa.6481$M6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>usual suspect wrote:
> >>
> >>>pearl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>You are exhibiting your
> >>>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>142 second attempt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>>>>and you had help.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Liar.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
> >>>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
> >>>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
> >>>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
> >>>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
> >>>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
> >>
> >>It reflects something else: the assistance she got
> >>with the questions.
> >
> >
> > No assistance.
>
> LOTS of assistance.
NO assistance, LIAR ball.
> >>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her
> >>first attempt.
> >
> >
> > Yes it was, liar ball.
>
> No, it wasn't, ~~HIVweed~~.
Yes it was, LIAR ball.
> >>>That's not an
> >>>increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
> >>>cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're still the hapless
> >>>fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of your academic
> >>>prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
> >>>
> >>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
> >>
> >>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie
> >>has an aversion to real science.
> >
> >
> > Got that proof that beef gain in the feedlot is 95% of total gain yet, liar ball?
HELLO?
Jonathan Ball
That doesn't answer the question. Why would we like to
believe that? In fact, what we'd LIKE to believe is
that you might finally develop a little tiny flame of
honesty in you. We know better, however.
> You tell me why. You're both too screwy for me to fathom.
>
>
>>But it's true: your 13x score was not on your first
>>attempt.
>
>
> Yes it was.
No, it was not.
>
>
>>>>>>That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
>>>>>>(notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
>>>>>>still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
>>>>>>your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
>>>>>>test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>>>>>
>>>>>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
>>>>>to real science.
>>>>
>>>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
>>>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're still projecting.
>>
>>No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
>>paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
>
>
> LIAR.
Nope. You have an absolute aversion and/or paranoia
about science as demonstrated by:
- "inner earth beings"
- "hollow earth"
- that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
- your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
- rain forest destruction
- Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
You are 100% inept with science and numbers.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
>>>>>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
>>>>>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
>>>>>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
>>>>>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
>>>>>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>>>>
>>>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got
>>>>with the questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>No assistance.
>>
>>LOTS of assistance.
>
>
> NO assistance, LIAR ball.
LOTS and LOTS of assistance, mentally defective
~~HIVweed~~.
>
>
>>>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her
>>>>first attempt.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it was, liar ball.
>>
>>No, it wasn't, ~~HIVweed~~.
>
>
> Yes it was, LIAR ball.
No. It was not, ~~HIVweed~~. You took it several
times before being coached to the 135 figure.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:sdOZa.182441$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>You are exhibiting your
> >>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
> >
> >
> > 135 first go.
>
> Nope. That was after several. I checked with the web
> master, who logs the IP addresses.
BS.
> >>>>>142 second attempt.
> >>>>
> >>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>>>and you had help.
> >>>
> >>>Liar.
> >>
> >>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
> >>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
> >>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
> >>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
> >>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
> >>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
> >
> >
> > I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a little more time
> > and care than I did at first.
>
> And with lots of help. With or without the help, you
> don't get to retake an IQ test.
No. Whatever.
> >>That's not an
> >>increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
> >>cheapest things are named after the Irish?).
> >
> >
> > Notice how hopelessly bigoted you are?
>
> Not at all, you drunken Irish lout.
Yes, just like you, LIAR ball.
> >>You're still the hapless
> >>fool you were a month ago
> >
> >
> > You called me an 'idiot' numerous times in your dirty tricks
> > attempted character assassination, seeing as you haven't a
> > hope in hell of EVER beating my arguments fair and square.
>
> He *always* beats them fair and square, loon. Your
> arguments always collapse in a shit heap.
No, liar ball. He's sinking in the shit right behind you.
> > I'd taken the test about a week earlier,
>
> Several times
No.
> > so thought I'd use it
> > to prove you wrong about that too.
> >
> >
> >>when you first boasted of your academic
> >>prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
> >>
> >>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
> >
> >
> > 'usual suspect'
> > 13 July 2003 19:27 --
> >
> > Narcissism, no. Egotism, yes. I'm a Texan after all; it's hard to be
> > humble. Let me set off my results so you can't miss (like so many other
> > things which go STRAIGHT over your head):
> >
> > *********************************************************************
> > ************************** My Test Result ***************************
> > *********************************************************************
> > Score: 142
> > ..
> >
> > I already know I
> > have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual talents of an artist
> > -- a result of my creative, expressive mind.
> >
> > -end quote-
> >
> > Urgh.
>
> Face it, cow: he can write, you can't.
Face it, you're an psychopathic lying asshole.
usual suspect
>>>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>
> 135 first go.
No, probably 75 your first time.
>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
>>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
>>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
>>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
>>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
>>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>
> I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a little more time
> and care than I did at first.
And we all told you that re-takes are irrelevant, even on a test which
doesn't even measure IQ.
>>That's not an
>>increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
>>cheapest things are named after the Irish?).
>
> Notice how hopelessly bigoted you are?
Only when it concerns you. I like other Irish people.
>>You're still the hapless
>>fool you were a month ago
>
> You called me an 'idiot' numerous times in your dirty tricks
> attempted character assassination, seeing as you haven't a
> hope in hell of EVER beating my arguments fair and square.
How many times have you called MEEEEEE names? Oh yeah, you're not
counting. In any event, you've yet to win an argument with me. Remember
our first time (hehe)? Come on, think polar hole.
> I'd taken the test about a week earlier, so thought I'd use it
> to prove you wrong about that too.
Yeah, right. And you've managed to talk with Adama of Telos this week, too.
>>when you first boasted of your academic
>>prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
>>
>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>
> 'usual suspect'
> 13 July 2003 19:27 --
>
> Narcissism, no. Egotism, yes. I'm a Texan after all; it's hard to be
> humble. Let me set off my results so you can't miss (like so many other
> things which go STRAIGHT over your head):
>
> *********************************************************************
> ************************** My Test Result ***************************
> *********************************************************************
> Score: 142
> ..
>
> I already know I
> have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual talents of an artist
> -- a result of my creative, expressive mind.
>
> -end quote-
>
> Urgh.
First time AND I flew right through it, only guessing on some of the
questions. I didn't get any help like you did, either. As I said at the
time, it's not an IQ test. I already know my real IQ. I was tested once
as a child by a real live psychologist at a major university.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:jhXZa.7756$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>>>news:sdOZa.182441$xg5....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are exhibiting your
>>>>>>>>typical lack of originality, miss 103 IQ.
>>>
>>>
>>>135 first go.
>>
>>Nope. That was after several. I checked with the web
>>master, who logs the IP addresses.
>
>
> BS.
Nope.
Nervous, eh?
>
>
>>>>>>>142 second attempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
>>>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
>>>>>>and you had help.
>>>>>
>>>>>Liar.
>>>>
>>>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've no
>>>>doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your intelligence
>>>>quotient rise so many points in a short period of time? That's right, it
>>>>didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two more accurately
>>>>than you did before, and your subsequent score only reflects your
>>>>familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>I told you that I might raise it a notch or two if I took a little more time
>>>and care than I did at first.
>>
>>And with lots of help. With or without the help, you
>>don't get to retake an IQ test.
>
>
> No. Whatever.
Yes: LOTS of help.
Not "whatever", whore. You don't get to retake IQ
tests. The scores are meaningless on subsequent
sittings for the same test.
>
>
>>>>That's not an
>>>>increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan (notice how the
>>>>cheapest things are named after the Irish?).
>>>
>>>
>>>Notice how hopelessly bigoted you are?
>>
>>Not at all, you drunken Irish lout.
>
>
> Yes, just like you, LIAR ball.
No. You are a drunk; I seldom drink.
>
>
>>>>You're still the hapless
>>>>fool you were a month ago
>>>
>>>
>>>You called me an 'idiot' numerous times in your dirty tricks
>>>attempted character assassination, seeing as you haven't a
>>>hope in hell of EVER beating my arguments fair and square.
>>
>>He *always* beats them fair and square, loon. Your
>>arguments always collapse in a shit heap.
>
>
> No, liar ball. He's sinking in the shit right behind you.
Nope. He laughs his head off at your shit science.
>
>
>>>I'd taken the test about a week earlier,
>>
>>Several times
>
>
> No.
SEVERAL times.
>
>
>>>so thought I'd use it
>>>to prove you wrong about that too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>when you first boasted of your academic
>>>>prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific test.
>>>>
>>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>>>
>>>
>>>'usual suspect'
>>>13 July 2003 19:27 --
>>>
>>>Narcissism, no. Egotism, yes. I'm a Texan after all; it's hard to be
>>>humble. Let me set off my results so you can't miss (like so many other
>>>things which go STRAIGHT over your head):
>>>
>>>*********************************************************************
>>>************************** My Test Result ***************************
>>>*********************************************************************
>>>Score: 142
>>>..
>>>
>>>I already know I
>>>have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual talents of an artist
>>>-- a result of my creative, expressive mind.
>>>
>>>-end quote-
>>>
>>>Urgh.
>>
>>Face it, cow: he can write, you can't.
>
>
> Face it, you're an psychopathic lying asshole.
Nope. You don't know what you're talking about.
You're also a whore: a drug-snorting whore.
usual suspect
>>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
>>
>>Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
>>flagrant illogic.
>
> Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
> help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
Proof of your idiotic use of mathematics and illogic? Try all the bloody
corrections, bloody corrections of bloody corrections, bloody
corrections of bloody corrected corrections, etc., to all your bloody
math posts.
>>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
>>
>>I can believe that.
>
> You'd like to.
It's quite easy given your slovenly attempts of mathematics.
>>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>>>
>>>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
>>>to real science.
>>
>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
>
> You're still projecting.
It's not projecting. You're still a dummy.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:4cXZa.7735$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> >>>news:XATZa.154903$TJ.91...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>142 second attempt.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You don't *get* a second attempt on a legitimate IQ
> >>>>>>>>test, idiot. And it wasn't only your second attempt,
> >>>>>>>>and you had help.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Liar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Genuine IQ testing is far different from the online fluff test you've
> >>>>>>no doubt taken more than twice to get to 142. How did your
> >>>>>>intelligence quotient rise so many points in a short period of time?
> >>>>>>That's right, it didn't. You only managed to answer a question or two
> >>>>>>more accurately than you did before, and your subsequent score only
> >>>>>>reflects your familiarity with your previous exposure to the questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
> >>>>
> >>>>Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
> >>>>flagrant illogic.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
> >>>help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
> >
> >
> > HELLO?
HEEEEELLLOOOOOOOOOOOO?
> >>>>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
> >>>>
> >>>>I can believe that.
> >>>
> >>>You'd like to.
> >>
> >>Why would he like to? What's in it for him?
> >
> >
> > Same as is in it for you, denying it wasn't my first attempt.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. Why would we like to
> believe that? In fact, what we'd LIKE to believe is
> that you might finally develop a little tiny flame of
> honesty in you. We know better, however.
BS.
> > You tell me why. You're both too screwy for me to fathom.
> >
> >
> >>But it's true: your 13x score was not on your first
> >>attempt.
> >
> >
> > Yes it was.
>
> No, it was not.
Yes it was.
> >>>>>>That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
> >>>>>>(notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
> >>>>>>still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
> >>>>>>your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
> >>>>>>test.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
> >>>>>to real science.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
> >>>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're still projecting.
> >>
> >>No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
> >>paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
> >
> >
> > LIAR.
>
> Nope. You have an absolute aversion and/or paranoia
> about science as demonstrated by:
> - "inner earth beings"
You don't know anything about it.
> - "hollow earth"
You don't know anything about it.
> - that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
To demonstrate a hollow earth.
> - your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
Let's see your proof that the numbers were inaccurate.
And let's see your proof for your methane-inflated number;
'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
> - rain forest destruction
Yes.
> - Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Big deal. Years ago.
> You are 100% inept with science and numbers.
Prove it.
pearl
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3pXZa.7780$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
pearl
> whirrrrrrrrrrrrl wrote:
> >>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
> >>
> >>Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
> >>flagrant illogic.
> >
> > Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
> > help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
>
> Proof of your idiotic use of mathematics and illogic?
Yes, little lying boy-maniac.
> Try all the bloody
> corrections, bloody corrections of bloody corrections, bloody
> corrections of bloody corrected corrections, etc., to all your bloody
> math posts.
Yep, and now it's all correct. :).
Can't help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'?
Didn't think so.
nite nite.
usual suspect
>>>>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
>>>>
>>>>I can believe that.
>>>
>>>You'd like to.
>>
>>Why would he like to? What's in it for him?
>
> Same as is in it for you, denying it wasn't my first attempt.
It wasn't your first attempt.
> You tell me why. You're both too screwy for me to fathom.
Who believes in a civilization living beneath Mount Shasta? Who believes
in and uses a piece of quackery called a Zapper? Who believes that crop
circles are supernatural occurrences rather than pranks? Who believes
the US government stole a Frenchman's flying saucer? Who believes that
gazing at the sun for a few minutes can replace eating? Who believes in
leprechauns? Who believes in foot massage as a healing modality for
brain damage?
Yeah, you. Guess who the screwy one is.
>>But it's true: your 13x score was not on your first
>>attempt.
>
> Yes it was.
No it wasn't.
>>>>>>That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
>>>>>>(notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
>>>>>>still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
>>>>>>your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
>>>>>>test.
You still haven't addressed taking a Mulligan on an IQ test. Do you
really think your IQ is seven points higher just because you re-took the
test? Do you really believe your IQ was *ever* 135? lol
>>>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
>>>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
>>>
>>>You're still projecting.
>>
>>No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
>>paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
>
> LIAR.
He's spot on, lassie.
Jonathan Ball
> FO.
Wow. *That* sure told me, didn't it.
You're a loser, Leslie. A lifelong, self-marginalized
loser.
Oh, by the way. In the list of self inflicted science
disability items, I forgot a couple:
- the "zapper"
- "reflexology" curing "brain trauma"
usual suspect
>>>>>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
>>>>>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're still projecting.
>>>>
>>>>No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
>>>>paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
>>>
>>>LIAR.
>>
>>Nope. You have an absolute aversion and/or paranoia
>>about science as demonstrated by:
>
>>- "inner earth beings"
>
> You don't know anything about it.
Only because they don't exist.
>>- "hollow earth"
>
> You don't know anything about it.
Only because the earth isn't hollow.
>>- that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
>
> To demonstrate a hollow earth.
The earth isn't hollow. Your head *is*.
>>- your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>
> Let's see your proof that the numbers were inaccurate.
Already done. Go back and review the threads.
> And let's see your proof for your methane-inflated number;
> 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
Already done. You don't get off so easy. You never answered my last
questions about how butchers trim intramuscular fat, lassie.
>>- rain forest destruction
>
> Yes.
Not a problem except to emotional little women who sit in their
crumbling homes thousands of miles away.
>>- Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>
> Big deal. Years ago.
And every bit as stupid now as then.
>>You are 100% inept with science and numbers.
>
> Prove it.
How many corrections do you make to your math? How many times have you
corrected your corrections? How many times have you corrected your
corrected corrections? Etc.
usual suspect
>>Try all the bloody
>>corrections, bloody corrections of bloody corrections, bloody
>>corrections of bloody corrected corrections, etc., to all your bloody
>>math posts.
>
> Yep, and now it's all correct. :).
No, it's even more screwed up than it was when you started.
> Can't help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'?
Nothing to correct. He has a grasp of mathematics; you don't.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>
>>>>>>>By the way, her earlier reported score was not on her first attempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can believe that.
>>>>>
>>>>>You'd like to.
>>>>
>>>>Why would he like to? What's in it for him?
>>>
>>>
>>>Same as is in it for you, denying it wasn't my first attempt.
>>
>>That doesn't answer the question. Why would we like to
>>believe that? In fact, what we'd LIKE to believe is
>>that you might finally develop a little tiny flame of
>>honesty in you. We know better, however.
>
>
> BS.
Nope. It's true. No one wants to spend time debating
a chronic liar, and u.s. and I are no different. We'd
like to think that you might learn to approach these
issues honestly, but we have no real expectation of it.
>
>
>>>You tell me why. You're both too screwy for me to fathom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But it's true: your 13x score was not on your first
>>>>attempt.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it was.
>>
>>No, it was not.
>
>
> Yes it was.
No, it was not. It was after several attempts, AND
lots of help.
>
>
>>>>>>>>That's not an increase of IQ, that's what golfers call a Mulligan
>>>>>>>>(notice how the cheapest things are named after the Irish?). You're
>>>>>>>>still the hapless fool you were a month ago when you first boasted of
>>>>>>>>your academic prowess on the basis of that spurious, pseudo-scientific
>>>>>>>>test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Consult with a mainstream psychologist to learn about genuine IQ testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That would be a real scientist, and we know that Leslie has an aversion
>>>>>>>to real science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's probably as much of a paranoia as aversion, since she may have to
>>>>>>explain some of her irrational beliefs and incoherent ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're still projecting.
>>>>
>>>>No, he isn't. You have clearly shown science
>>>>paranoia/aversion for as long as you've been posting.
>>>
>>>
>>>LIAR.
>>
>>Nope. You have an absolute aversion and/or paranoia
>>about science as demonstrated by:
>
>
>>- "inner earth beings"
>
>
> You don't know anything about it.
There's nothing to know. It's bullshit.
What we *do* know is that you believe in it, because
you're hooked on mystical bullshit.
>
>
>>- "hollow earth"
>
>
> You don't know anything about it.
Same as before.
>
>
>>- that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
>
>
> To demonstrate a hollow earth.
No, liar Leslie. You thought it was a patent ON the
supposedly (but not in reality) "hollow earth". You
DENIED, strenuously and for weeks, that it was a patent
on a manufactured globe with an electric light in it.
You INSISTED, pseudo-scientifically as ever, that it
was a patent on the DISCOVERY of "hollow earth". You
were wrong, of course.
>
>
>>- your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>
>
> Let's see your proof that the numbers were inaccurate.
I've given the evidence several times. Your
assumptions are pulled from thin air.
> And let's see your proof for your methane-inflated number;
> 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
>
>
>>- rain forest destruction
>
>
> Yes.
No. You don't know your pimply, cottage-cheese ass
from your face.
>
>
>>- Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>
>
> Big deal. Years ago.
Yes, "big deal". It was a PERFECT, SHINING example of
your SLOVENLINESS with facts and numbers. It was
completely typical.
>
>
>>You are 100% inept with science and numbers.
>
>
> Prove it.
We have, over and over and over again.
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:wzXZa.163888$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>whirrrrrrrrrrrrl wrote:
>>
>>>>>It reflects something else: the assistance she got with the questions.
>>>>
>>>>Without a doubt. We've seen her idiotic use of mathematics and her
>>>>flagrant illogic.
>>>
>>>Let's see your proof of that, and while your at it perhaps you could
>>>help ball with that little matter of 'beef gain = 95% of total feedlot gain'.
>>
>>Proof of your idiotic use of mathematics and illogic?
>
>
> Yes, little lying boy-maniac.
>
>
>>Try all the bloody
>>corrections, bloody corrections of bloody corrections, bloody
>>corrections of bloody corrected corrections, etc., to all your bloody
>>math posts.
>
>
> Yep, and now it's all correct. :).
It's all wrong. That's why the number kept changing in
every post.
Jonathan Ball
You should have been here for that one. She was trying
to "prove" that U.S. demand for "beefburgers" (an
inflammatory term from a typical extremist,
pseudoscientific webpage that was shrieking
hysterically about tropical deforestation) is what
"causes" tropical deforestation.
Trouble was, she doesn't know where most Brazilian beef
is produced (big hint to stupid airhead Leslie: it is
NOT in the tropics). She also didn't know that for
alomst all of the period covered by the shitty "data"
she was manipulating, fresh beef importst to the U.S.
from Brazil were prohibited, due to foot and mouth
disease in the tropics.
But the absolute HOWLER was when she tried to "prove"
that the U.S. imports lots of beef from Brazil. She
made two hugely funny errors:
- she used TOTAL trade figures, not just figures for
beef;
- the figures she used were for ARGEN fucking TINA, not
Brazil.
She has never lived that down, and she never will. She
now breezily dismisses it as "big deal; years ago", but
her breeziness is bogus. It KILLS her when I bring it up.
usual suspect
<snip>
>>>> - Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>>>
>>> Big deal. Years ago.
>>
>> And every bit as stupid now as then.
>
> You should have been here for that one. She was trying to "prove" that
> U.S. demand for "beefburgers" (an inflammatory term from a typical
> extremist, pseudoscientific webpage that was shrieking hysterically
> about tropical deforestation) is what "causes" tropical deforestation.
>
> Trouble was, she doesn't know where most Brazilian beef is produced (big
> hint to stupid airhead Leslie: it is NOT in the tropics). She also
> didn't know that for alomst all of the period covered by the shitty
> "data" she was manipulating, fresh beef importst to the U.S. from Brazil
> were prohibited, due to foot and mouth disease in the tropics.
One of the reasons I never supported the groups that get up in arms
about saving rainforests is because they routinely lie about such
practices. The choice between the Amazon's survival and cheap hamburgers
*is* bogus.
> But the absolute HOWLER was when she tried to "prove" that the U.S.
> imports lots of beef from Brazil. She made two hugely funny errors:
>
> - she used TOTAL trade figures, not just figures for
> beef;
> - the figures she used were for ARGEN fucking TINA, not
> Brazil.
LOL
> She has never lived that down, and she never will. She now breezily
> dismisses it as "big deal; years ago", but her breeziness is bogus. It
> KILLS her when I bring it up.
Thanks for the info. I was going to search for it when I saw there was
something I'd missed. This is even better than her amply-corrected (but
still WRONG) math.
Jonathan Ball
>>- your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>
>
> Let's see your proof that the numbers were inaccurate.
The proof occurs as soon as you lie and say that
skeletal growth represents the same percentage of the
feedlot weight gain as it does of the entire carcass.
That PROVES that your numbers are wrong, as the feedlot
weight gain is almost ENTIRELY edible beef. The
skeleton grows very little during the time in the
feedlot, as do the hooves, the ears, the eyeballs, and
the *weight* of the skin.
Dutch
The quotes on the page are not from him. His are far more entertaining.
Dutch
news:bh9haq$igf$1...@kermit.esat.net...
The put some of his most juicy quotes on there, not lame responses.
usual suspect
>> Let's see your proof that the numbers were inaccurate.
>
> The proof occurs as soon as you lie and say that skeletal growth
> represents the same percentage of the feedlot weight gain as it does of
> the entire carcass. That PROVES that your numbers are wrong, as the
> feedlot weight gain is almost ENTIRELY edible beef. The skeleton grows
> very little during the time in the feedlot, as do the hooves, the ears,
> the eyeballs, and the *weight* of the skin.
All of her hang-ups with skeleton and other parts is related to her
ABYSMAL math. She doesn't seem to grasp certain very simple things. I
really wanted her to respond to this one. She tried once before
(miserably), but failed to answer the questions I actually asked:
---------
From: usual suspect <above...@earth.man>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting Perverts
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:33:58 GMT
whirrrrrrrrrrrl wrote:
>><snip of previous bullshit>
>>
>>>You not only fraudulently take the the data for 'harvests' 4 and 5
>>>when there is least bone growth to try and get a more favourable
>>>result (you think) while in practice yearlings and younger enter
>>>feedlots, not two year olds, but now you 'conveniently overlook'
>>>the increase in fat.
>>>
>>>(5) 850 x 34% = 289 -
>>>(4) 750 x 30.3% = 227.25
>>> = 61.75lbs gain fat
>>
[my original questions:]
>>How much of this fat is intramuscular and how much is subcutaneous? How
>>do butchers trim and discard intramuscular fat?
[her attempt:]
> All trimmed beef (with the exception of short ribs)
> contains up to 10% fat..
Answer the bloody questions I asked.
<snip non-response>
She never replied -- and she has the nerve to claim victory in any
debate. She may be paranoid *and* suffer delusions of grandeur.
usual suspect
> All of her hang-ups with skeleton and other parts is related to her
ARE related. Going to bed now. :-\
Ron Gaul
even talk to him. Damn, you leave an NG for a while, you hope that those who
fit criminal profiles move on, or go to jail. Anyway, for fun, check out
some old archives. He really hates the way anti-ARA's like me, (and some of
the brits who support foxhunting), attack the ARM. Especially if they don't
fit his AM talk radio style of "intellect" (using that term very loosely).
And he does change his addy just to avoid the kilfiles he gets, so it seems.
He will still be easy to dismiss. You ARA's stick to you anti-scientific
arguments, watch how easily they are smashed without Jeffrey Dahmer style
rantings.....
Jonathan Ball
> Can't believe wannabe sociopath goneballs is still stalking. Guys, don't
> even talk to him. Damn, you leave an NG for a while, you hope that those who
> fit criminal profiles move on, or go to jail. Anyway, for fun, check out
> some old archives. He really hates the way anti-ARA's like me,
Don't flatter yourself, rabid Zionist flyweight. No
one likes you.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:HTXZa.7875$M6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
"didn't", dolt. Past tense.
Jonathan Ball
Nope. She still doesn't.
Ray
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vjgl6g3...@news.supernews.com...
*Every* quote is from ~~jonnie~~.
I have not lied here "Dutch".
Poor old lad. I *almost* feel sorry for him.
>
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Ron Gaul wrote:
>
> > Can't believe wannabe sociopath goneballs is still stalking. Guys, don't
> > even talk to him. Damn, you leave an NG for a while, you hope that those
who
> > fit criminal profiles move on, or go to jail. Anyway, for fun, check out
> > some old archives. He really hates the way anti-ARA's like me,
>
> Don't flatter yourself, rabid Zionist flyweight. No
> one likes you.
That is a lie ~~jonnie~~.
I like him.
pearl
Can't have that.. I've added a 'pretty' pic'. ;).
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Ray
Far too 'pretty' for anything associated with "I never post under a
pseudonym" ~~jonnie- bingo- mystery poster~~ nymshifting ball.
IMO, the 'Jon Ball' official web page should depict the source of your
inspiration, personally I prefer the one with the teeth and hat.
"Zakhar" is the official UK Press Liason Officer of ~~jonnies~~ shirtlifting
club, but as he is away on holiday I feel certain he may ignore a slight
breach of copyright.
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:UK_Za.8177$M6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Ron Gaul wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can't believe wannabe sociopath goneballs is still stalking. Guys, don't
>>>even talk to him. Damn, you leave an NG for a while, you hope that those
>
> who
>
>>>fit criminal profiles move on, or go to jail. Anyway, for fun, check out
>>>some old archives. He really hates the way anti-ARA's like me,
>>
>>Don't flatter yourself, rabid Zionist flyweight. No
>>one likes you.
>
>
> That is a lie ~~jonnie~~.
> I like him.
As I said: no one.
usual suspect
> Can't have that.. I've added a 'pretty' pic'. ;).
Why don't you have any pics of *yourself* on your own site?
Lotta Laughs
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
> > > >
> > > > What a pathetic excuse for a web page.
> > >
> > > He's a pathetic excuse for a man!
> >
> > The quotes on the page are not from him. His are far more entertaining.
>
> *Every* quote is from ~~jonnie~~.
>
> I have not lied here "Dutch".
Look again, if you can bear it. I believe there are two or three
uninteresting quotes of his near the bottom of that dismal excuse for a web
page, the rest of the uninspired chaff is all from other people.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:bhalpc$953$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > "Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> news:bha9pr$4a7$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > Poor old lad. I *almost* feel sorry for him.
> >
> > Can't have that.. I've added a 'pretty' pic'. ;).
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> Far too 'pretty' for anything associated with "I never post under a
> pseudonym" ~~jonnie- bingo- mystery poster~~ nymshifting ball.
hmmm. Look again, maybe a little more closely?
> IMO, the 'Jon Ball' official web page should depict the source of your
> inspiration, personally I prefer the one with the teeth and hat.
Yes, agreed. How about this one?
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> "Zakhar" is the official UK Press Liason Officer of ~~jonnies~~ shirtlifting
> club, but as he is away on holiday I feel certain he may ignore a slight
> breach of copyright.
All for one, etc. ;).
Ray
I did'nt realize he wore designer clothes.
>
>
>
pearl
Funny, I just took a peek, and it did cross my mind that
if I saw it on the street I'd run the other way. Honest.
> I did'nt realize he wore designer clothes.
lol!