Re: Planet X Debate Enterprise2002 vs J.William Dell

Sarah Mc wrote:
> Jan wrote:
>> John Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> When did someone on sci.astro called Nancy a lesbian, pimp, or
>>> prostitute?
>>
>> Never, as far as I know. Nor has Nancy used more than one of the three
>> words above in the IRC chats.
>
> Funny that you seem to be the only one who didn't understand what
> Nancy was saying. Isn't it odd that you can understand her bending red
> light, repulsion force, and non-rotating moon, etc, etc, but you
> didn't understand that she was calling me a whore.

Of course both you and I understood what she was hinting at. Just as I have
multiple times responded to your unfounded allegations and insinuations
about Nancy and Troubled Times, I have stated that such comments were unwise
of Nancy.

However, in this pseudo-scientific group where everybody talks about proof
for this and that, I wanted to illustrate the lack of precision, as Nancy
only used the word lesbian. I have not found any of the others words in the
IRC chats.

> It's called insinuation, Jan. Just like everything else Nancy says,
> she does so in a fashion to giver her an "out" later on when she's
> called on it.

Coming from a master in the field, I guess you know the mechanisms well?

<snip>

>>
>> Instead, the sci.astro debunking crowd has accused Nancy of
>> - being a Cult leader and/or a scam artist;
>
> The difference being is that Nancy has no proof that I'm a lesbian, or
> prostitute (and the reason for calling me one was to avoid answering a
> question), and all the evidence that she's a cult leader and a scam
> artist exists right in this newsgroup and on the web, and in print.

You have no such evidence for any of your unfounded allegations against
Nancy and Troubled Times Inc. Repeating your mantra endlessly does not make
it any more true. Each and every of your clever though-out allegations have
been countered numerous times.

> Let's not forget that Nancy has absolutely NO evidence that her planet
> exists.

Nor do you have any evidence that it does not exist. Science learns new
things, and new heavenly bodies are discovered all the time. Some are only
detected through the impact on other bodies, as they themselves are
undetectable. (E.g. extra-solar planets & dark nebulae.)

>> - planning "assisted" suicide (I believe there is another word for
>> that...) through references to Heaven's Gate, KoolAid etc.;
>
> Better safe than sorry. History has a bad habit of repeating itself to
> those that haven't learnt from the past.  I doubt that even you could
> claim that no one is out there contemplating suicide because of
> "Planet X". If someone kills themselves and leaves a note describing
> ZetaTalk and Planet X, how will you feel as being a part of the scam
> and cult that took a human life?

There are people committing suicide every day for a number of reasons. In
some Western countries, it's the no. 1 death cause, especially for
youngsters. Anyone who can reduce the suicide rate would be a hero in my
eyes.

What Nancy & ZetaTalk does is to warn people about a threat, so that they
can take the necessary precautions to survive. If somebody misinterprets
this and commits suicide, then that has of course no bearing whatsoever on
her, ZetaTalk or Troubled Times. Tell me, what do you do to lower the
suicide rate in the US?

Having participated in the Troubled Times Inc., I would in fact be proud of
being part of the only organization that has been trying to warn people
about the potential threat and how to survive, should a pole shift happen.

> > - embezzling funds from Troubled Times Inc.
>
> We never did get an explaination, other than yours. You don't handle
> the money or the checks, all you see is the reciepts and cancelled
> checks.

As well as bank statements etc. As the Internal Auditor, I have a pretty
tight control.

> How do you know that checks and donations weren't made
> directly to Nancy Lieder? Other than her word, that is.

Why on Earth should anyone care? Should I audit Nancy's paycheck as well?
If somebody wants to donate something directly to Nancy or you for that
matter, that's none of my business. Nor should you have to care about that.

Donations to Troubled Times Inc. are in the name of the non-profit, and are
fully accounted for.

<snip>

> I have no doubt that *you* think there is no theft of funds, or
> inappropriate tax breaks.

As the IRS, which has prolonged our non-profit status. Don't you remember?

>> in addition to all the "kook of the year" type postings.
>
> J William Dell deserves exactly what he showed himself to be -

Mixing apples and oranges here? - I only spoke about Nancy, nobody else.

<snip>

> Nancy has been a known kook for well over 7 years. She got that from
> posting pseudoscience on a science newsgroup.

On a pseudo-science newsgroup, I would say.

I have never ever seen any of the ZetaTalk debunking crowd provide one
single line of science to this NG. The S/N ratio of sci.astro is real bad,
and is mostly due to the endless ZetaTalk debunking threads, our "friend"
from Hawaii who can never end a thread, the astrology guys and the moon
hoaxers.

> Had she stayed off sci.astro and kept to TT, she wouldn't have this
> problem, would she?

Now if there is a 10th planet, does that not belong to an astronomy NG?

<snip>

> Lets not forget that Nancy was treated with respect and dignity when
> she first arrived on sci.astro,

Never seen that. However, since I haven't been since the start, I cannot
rule out the possibility that there may have been one or two decent postings
initially. Seeing how others are treated here, I would doubt it though.

<snip>

> But you're correct, Jan. We'll soon see who is lying, and who has been
> telling the truth, who has honour and who has shame. I also note, with
> some amusement, your attempts to lay the groundwork for "bad
> coordinates" or "a later passage".

No groundwork whatsoever. Do all of the debunkers have dyslexia or some
other reading disorder?

I have merely stated the possible reasons for the current lack of verifiable
sightings & images of Planet X, and listed a number of alternative reasons
including <quote> the sci.astro favored explanation that no such thing as a
10th planet exists </quote>.

ZetaTalk has always stated the date of late May 2003. If Planet X does not
show up by then, then the ZetaTalk pole-shift prediction has failed. Period.

> Nancy has claimed 100% accuracy. If she fails on April 1st and PX isn't
> visible, everything else fails as well.

I have noted that Nancy uses that "100% accuracy" term. In my world however
nothing is ever 100% anything.

ZetaTalk has a lot of interesting stuff unrelated to Planet X. However,
since Planet X is the main theme, it will of course impact ZetaTalk big time
if May 2003 comes and goes without any Planet X.

<snip>

> Keep looking up Jan, take the time to look at the universe the way
> most of us here do on a regular basis, and you'll start to understand
> why we defend what we *do* know.

Astronomy is an extremely interesting field, probably because we know so
little and still have so much to learn. Many of our current theories are
obviously flawed, and will need correction over time. Therefore I have no
problem accepting that there may be heavenly bodies like Planet X having
different behavior than what we already know. Our current theories cannot in
any way disprove the predicted trajectory of Planet X, it can only say that
it does not comply with our current knowledge and formulas.

> By the way Jan, I liked your little speech on TT-watch regarding
> Nancy's outbursts.

> Just to set the record straight for those TT-watch people that read
> sci.astro, I called you a sexist  and a dickhead **only after** you
> refered to me as a "PMS ridden bitch". I did not "call you names"
> first. You reap what you sow Jan Rypdal. Make sexist comments to a
> woman nowadays and you'll get exactly what you deserve.
>
> First, you claimed I was someone else, and had that I had PMS - twice:
> My first reply, to the point of topic and without calling you names:
> Second Time, you retract the statement that I was the person you
> named, but claimed I was still a PMS ridden bitch:
> And my reply calling you a sexist and few other choice words:
>
> Read your posts Jan. Sound familiar? Maybe like a few recent ZetaTalk
> chats where someone lost credibility because they resorted to refering
> to people with sexist remarks when they couldn't defend their
> statements?

Thanks for providing those links, As anyone can see, you have been throwing
the normal sci.astro insults in the air, yet snap when you get some of your
own medicine. And btw, that a certain disorder like PMS only affects one sex
does not make it sexist.

Regards,
Jan