Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

Do you want me to create my own dialogue while I speak? Or do you have a particular dialogue you want me to say?

Doesn't matter, if you want to create your own dialogue then go nuts

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Do you want me to create my own dialogue while I speak? Or do you have a particular dialogue you want me to say?




So what you are saying is, you can perceive my quantum energy field through my typing?







Ask Baruch Spinoza

I mean, you're making a claim that DNA is physically changed, I'd like physical proof. Can you provide that?

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

Do you want me to create my own dialogue while I speak? Or do you have a particular dialogue you want me to say?




So what you are saying is, you can perceive my quantum energy field through my typing?







Ask Baruch Spinoza

Hilarious you cite Spinoza when you are the total antithesis of all he said.

 

[Kosher Salt]

Do you want me to create my own dialogue while I speak? Or do you have a particular dialogue you want me to say?

You're hereby permitted (and recommended) to read my dialogue from now on in Nick Rekieta's "Kermit the Frog" voice, Miss Piggy.

 

[Karl der Grosse]

Anyhow, are you talking about Modern Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew?

Does it matter? After all, you don't know either.

I've touched on this issue in my studies. But there is only so much time in the day to sit with a book or do research when you are a full time SAHM mom. Im not a part time mom and I do the best I can to be on top of adjacent fields.

If you'd ever learned anything in any of these fields that you're so ignorant in, you'd actually be able to see the Torah in context as part of a larger historical picture. Possibly then you would see what we see: Your belief structure and interpretation of the Torah is fundamentally an uninformed and incoherent mess. More likely, you'd cherry-pick and willfully misinterpret tiny snippets to bolster your egoistic hillbilly homebrew 'religion' and completely ignore the mass of evidence which contradicts you. Because you're fundamentally dishonest, and it's what you do already, anyway.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Possibly then you would see what we see: Your belief structure and interpretation of the Torah is fundamentally an uninformed and incoherent mess. More likely, you'd cherry-pick and willfully misinterpret tiny snippets to bolster your egoistic hillbilly homebrew 'religion' and completely ignore the mass of evidence which contradicts you. Because you're fundamentally dishonest, and it's what you do already, anyway.

That is your hypothesis, full of labels and accusations. Where are your facts to support that?

Hilarious you cite Spinoza when you are the total antithesis of all he said.

Actually, Spinoza and I have a lot in common.

I mean, you're making a claim that DNA is physically changed, I'd like physical proof. Can you provide that?

Define "proof"

I tried to with the difference between altering a DNA's basic building blocks and environmental influence on methylation that changes how sequences are potentially selected, but posts like those take time and effort to put together and man - it's basically wasted effort.

I did notice your comment was nicely detailed, but your formatting was jumbled up and it was hard to pinpoint where you were going. Made it difficult to respond

 

[A Cardboard Box]

That is your hypothesis, full of labels and accusations. Where are your facts to support that?







Actually, Spinoza and I have a lot in common.







Define "proof"







I did notice your comment was nicely detailed, but your formatting was jumbled up and it was hard to pinpoint where you were going. Made it difficult to respond

Proof, like, observable evidence that these quantum fields affect DNA. Something I can witness. Irrefutable evidence.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

observable evidence

Define "observable evidence".

 

[LoverofPi]

Proof, like, observable evidence that these quantum fields affect DNA. Something I can witness. Irrefutable evidence.

She can't even define her terms properly. She's never going to be able to provide evidence of a quantum field, much less show it interacting with DNA.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Define "observable evidence".

I want to be able to take genetic material, expose it to an observable quantum field, and then witness the DNA change. Simple.

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

Aaaaaaaaand times up! Time to cut your screen time Mel. You’ve been responding for the past 4 hours consistently. Definitely exceeded 60 minutes of Internet by now, most of which spent on the farms.

If anyone wants alcohol poisoning, take a shot each time she screeches for kiwis to get some new material while she’s crawling back every time a reply is made to her thread like a crack whore.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

Define "observable evidence".

ok that's nice sweety where's that clip of you speaking spanish

 

[Spergichu]

That doesn't make any sense. Are you claiming that DNA isn't physically affected by "quantum energy fields" but it is "philosophically" affected?

What philosophy does your DNA possess currently?

Monsoon is rolling in his grave.

 

[Baby Yoda]

Okay, woah! Hit the brakes there.

I haven't overestimated my competence in anything. I have a Bachelor's degree. I am completely capable and trained to (1) find (2) read and (3) analyze scholastic articles.

For two, I have been taught by professors Biblical Hebrew, as well as done independent study. In every study that I have produced, I have (a) identified Hebrew verbs and nouns (b) identified their derivatives (c) used other resources like a lexicon and concordance to "dig deeper". These are all things I was trained to do. Like I said, I am a student of Biblical Hebrew for 15 years now. That't not overestimating one's competence. That's well within my skill and knowledge level.

I already explained to you -- not that I owe you an explanation -- but the fact is, I am a specimen to the outside world, as much as you are a specimen to me -- I already explained to you that I put away my work computer because I don't want any chance whatsoever to be mentally connected to work on a Shabbat. It works for me. Also, I play homeschool tutorials on that computer for the children and I often need a second one for myself. So it works in that way too.







This is completely inaccurate, since I read and study opposing views. I also engage in debates with people of all sects of Judaism: except Ultra-Orthodox because they don't use the internet. I'm completely capable of handling competing views, I just simply don't agree with them.

I have entire library of peer scholars papers that I have read. Some I agree with. Some I completely disagree with, and I state my reasons respectfully in writing.







I've got way more than 300 hours under my belt. Not sure how you came up with that number!








This was already discussed on this thread. You'll have to search








Because in 2019, I confronted her online publicly for feeding information to someone I had a protective order against. During that conversation, it was confirmed that she had knowledge of Kiwi Farms and read it. After I made it very clear to her that she better keep my name out of her mouth, I cut off contact again.

My belated mom and family Google searched my name after I cut them off. So they found Kiwi Farms.

Do you think your sister read the part where I made a sex fantasy where Marshall has a perma prolapsed butt and when he sits down cum, poop, and blood wipe all over the floor? Or also the part where I said it would be hilarious if you suction cupped a dildo to tbe floor and sucked the dildo into you using your anus??

 

[AnOminous]

Because in 2019, I confronted her online publicly for feeding information to someone I had a protective order against. During that conversation, it was confirmed that she had knowledge of Kiwi Farms and read it. After I made it very clear to her that she better keep my name out of her mouth, I cut off contact again.

Lmao even your mom agreed with us you're a fucking nutjob.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Lmao even your mom agreed with us you're a fucking nutjob.

Imagine being a mostly normal Appalachian woman and having her as a daughter.

 

[Spergichu]

My mom didn't leave a will. Under Virginia law, everything is required to be split evenly between all descendants ("next of kin") when there is no will.

Yeah, but I thought you completely estranged yourself from her, to where you don't consider her family and call her an "ex-mother".

 

[AnOminous]

My mom didn't leave a will. Under Virginia law, everything is required to be split evenly between all descendants ("next of kin") when there is no will.

No, wrong, idiot. That's not how it works at all, in Virginia or anywhere else. It's evenly when it's between identical types of descendants. So it would work that way if it was split entirely between children of the decedent. Otherwise it gets complicated.

It depends on what kind of descendants they are. From the intestate succession statute of Virginia.

§ 64.2-200. Course of descents generally; right of Commonwealth if no other heir.

A. The real estate of any decedent not effectively disposed of by will descends and passes by intestate succession in the following course:

1. To the surviving spouse of the decedent, unless the decedent is survived by children or their descendants, one or more of whom are not children or their descendants of the surviving spouse, in which case, two-thirds of the estate descends and passes to the decedent's children and their descendants, and one-third of the estate descends and passes to the surviving spouse.

2. If there is no surviving spouse, then the estate descends and passes to the decedent's children and their descendants.

3. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's parents, or to the surviving parent.

4. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's siblings, and their descendants.

5. If there is none of the foregoing, then one-half of the estate descends and passes to the kindred of one of the decedent's parents and one-half descends and passes to the kindred of the other of the decedent's parents in the following course:

a. To the decedent's grandparents, or to the surviving grandparent.

b. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's uncles and aunts, and their descendants.

c. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's great-grandparents.

d. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the siblings of the decedent's grandparents, and their descendants.

e. And so on, in other cases, without end, passing to the nearest lineal ancestors, and the descendants of such ancestors.

B. If there are no surviving kindred of one of the decedent's parents, the whole estate descends and passes to the surviving kindred of the other of the decedent's parents. If there are no kindred of either parent, the whole estate descends and passes to the kindred of the decedent's most recent spouse, if any, provided that the decedent and the spouse were married at the time of the spouse's death, as if such spouse had died intestate and entitled to the estate.

C. If there is no other heir of a decedent's real estate, such real estate is subject to escheat to the Commonwealth in accordance with Chapter 24 (§ 55.1-2400 et seq.) of Title 55.1.

Code 1950, § 64-1; 1956, c. 109; 1968, c. 656, § 64.1-1; 1977, c. 474; 1982, c. 304; 1985, c. 189; 1990, c. 831; 2012, c. 614; 2020, c. 900.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

No, wrong, idiot. That's not how it works at all, in Virginia or anywhere else. It's evenly when it's between identical types of descendants. So it would work that way if it was split entirely between children of the decedent. Otherwise it gets complicated.

It depends on what kind of descendants they are. From the intestate succession statute of Virginia.

§ 64.2-200. Course of descents generally; right of Commonwealth if no other heir.

A. The real estate of any decedent not effectively disposed of by will descends and passes by intestate succession in the following course:

1. To the surviving spouse of the decedent, unless the decedent is survived by children or their descendants, one or more of whom are not children or their descendants of the surviving spouse, in which case, two-thirds of the estate descends and passes to the decedent's children and their descendants, and one-third of the estate descends and passes to the surviving spouse.

2. If there is no surviving spouse, then the estate descends and passes to the decedent's children and their descendants.

3. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's parents, or to the surviving parent.

4. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's siblings, and their descendants.

5. If there is none of the foregoing, then one-half of the estate descends and passes to the kindred of one of the decedent's parents and one-half descends and passes to the kindred of the other of the decedent's parents in the following course:

a. To the decedent's grandparents, or to the surviving grandparent.

b. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's uncles and aunts, and their descendants.

c. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the decedent's great-grandparents.

d. If there is none of the foregoing, then to the siblings of the decedent's grandparents, and their descendants.

e. And so on, in other cases, without end, passing to the nearest lineal ancestors, and the descendants of such ancestors.

B. If there are no surviving kindred of one of the decedent's parents, the whole estate descends and passes to the surviving kindred of the other of the decedent's parents. If there are no kindred of either parent, the whole estate descends and passes to the kindred of the decedent's most recent spouse, if any, provided that the decedent and the spouse were married at the time of the spouse's death, as if such spouse had died intestate and entitled to the estate.

C. If there is no other heir of a decedent's real estate, such real estate is subject to escheat to the Commonwealth in accordance with Chapter 24 (§ 55.1-2400 et seq.) of Title 55.1.

Code 1950, § 64-1; 1956, c. 109; 1968, c. 656, § 64.1-1; 1977, c. 474; 1982, c. 304; 1985, c. 189; 1990, c. 831; 2012, c. 614; 2020, c. 900.

TLDR= she got fuckall, her sister got it all and she sued about it and lost.

 

[Karl der Grosse]

Lmao even your mom agreed with us you're a fucking nutjob.

It's worth nothing that Melinda's mom had a perfectly normal facebook account, with lots of proud photos of her other daughters and her other grandkids. She may have had a substance abuse issue in the past, but not in the recent past. She was living a cheerful and happy existence in at least the last few years.