Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote: This is all slander. Cheap.
I tried to help Scott.

Scott's already let you know what he thinks about your attempts to "help."

And as for the car accident I safely left the traffic lane indicating properly. The accident happened some 80 to100 meters further down the road.

Ah. So you just added the following for dramatic effect? That is to say, it was a lie you added to make the "truth" you were telling more convincing?

my friends yelled. "Why in the hell did you do that?" because they were all jerked forward in their seats.

Ooops.

What?
I got out of the traffic lane with very little braking but then I had to slow my car down enough to bring it to a halt. There was some bitumen on the side lane where I had been able to brake harder but then as I moved further over on the side lane the two tyres on the passenger's side of my car went onto the gravel. We all got jerked forward. But they were also not expecting me to move out of the traffic lane. Maybe I should have said something.

the_5th_ape wrote:

Shrunk wrote: She has already revealed that she had, so she claims, metastatic ovarian cancer that miraculously disappeared. And she has also posted her real name, picture, and sensitive details about her married life on the internet. So concerns about her personal privacy cannot be the reason for her refusal. So, why will she not post this evidence to support one of her chief claims? Assuming that evidence exists, of course. If it doesn't, then the explanation becomes quite simple, doesn't it?

Kyrani. Would you like to respond to that?

I don't think I need to show my medical records on the net for all and sundry to see.
The important point is for me to show using sound biological reasoning why the cancer forms. That is the key.

kyrani99 wrote:

the_5th_ape wrote:

Shrunk wrote: She has already revealed that she had, so she claims, metastatic ovarian cancer that miraculously disappeared. And she has also posted her real name, picture, and sensitive details about her married life on the internet. So concerns about her personal privacy cannot be the reason for her refusal. So, why will she not post this evidence to support one of her chief claims? Assuming that evidence exists, of course. If it doesn't, then the explanation becomes quite simple, doesn't it?

Kyrani. Would you like to respond to that?

I don't think I need to show my medical records on the net for all and sundry to see.
The important point is for me to show using sound biological reasoning why the cancer forms. That is the key.

No, you need to show evidence, not more of your ignorant made up shit.

I am finished posting on this thread. I've seen enough.

the_5th_ape wrote:Right. But I did not know about the "Spontaneous remissions occuring, but not rarely" part

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=773446

I will admit to their being a dearth of information regarding the natural course of malignant imaginomas.

Shrunk wrote:

the_5th_ape wrote:Right. But I did not know about the "Spontaneous remissions occuring, but not rarely" part

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=773446

I will admit to their being a dearth of information regarding the natural course of malignant imaginomas.

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote: This is all slander. Cheap.
I tried to help Scott.

Scott's already let you know what he thinks about your attempts to "help."

And as for the car accident I safely left the traffic lane indicating properly. The accident happened some 80 to100 meters further down the road.

Ah. So you just added the following for dramatic effect? That is to say, it was a lie you added to make the "truth" you were telling more convincing?

my friends yelled. "Why in the hell did you do that?" because they were all jerked forward in their seats.

Ooops.

What?
I got out of the traffic lane with very little braking but then I had to slow my car down enough to bring it to a halt. There was some bitumen on the side lane where I had been able to brake harder but then as I moved further over on the side lane the two tyres on the passenger's side of my car went onto the gravel. We all got jerked forward. But they were also not expecting me to move out of the traffic lane. Maybe I should have said something.

Interesting how your story keeps changing. Why might that be?

kyrani99 wrote:I am finished posting on this thread. I've seen enough.

Again?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

the_5th_ape wrote:Right. But I did not know about the "Spontaneous remissions occuring, but not rarely" part

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=773446

I will admit to their being a dearth of information regarding the natural course of malignant imaginomas.

tolman deserves credit for coining that term.

Shrunk wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

the_5th_ape wrote:Right. But I did not know about the "Spontaneous remissions occuring, but not rarely" part

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=773446

I will admit to their being a dearth of information regarding the natural course of malignant imaginomas.

tolman deserves credit for coining that term.

Hey, Kyrani, are you up for a challenge?

There is someone buried not far from the back of my house who, if your good doctor and others who go on about the existence of an 'afterlife' are correct, should prove to be an ideal subject for contact with 'the dead', given the circumstances in which this person was buried.

If you, or one of your fellow psychics would be good enough to attempt to speak to this soul, and gain information which you could pass to me, i.e. gender, age, how and when interred, etc. etc., any of those but as many as possible, then I swear I will eat my hat, bow down and worship and never dismiss your beliefs ever again.

kyrani99 wrote:I am finished posting on this thread. I've seen enough awkward questions that I can't answer and perfectly reasonable requests for evidence to support my assertions that I haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of providing.

Fixed it for you.

kyrani99 wrote:I am finished posting on this thread. I've seen enough.

Thank God for that, and that's not an expression I use very often.

Doubtdispelled wrote:Hey, Kyrani, are you up for a challenge?

There is someone buried not far from the back of my house who, if your good doctor and others who go on about the existence of an 'afterlife' are correct, should prove to be an ideal subject for contact with 'the dead', given the circumstances in which this person was buried.

If you, or one of your fellow psychics would be good enough to attempt to speak to this soul, and gain information which you could pass to me, i.e. gender, age, how and when interred, etc. etc., any of those but as many as possible, then I swear I will eat my hat, bow down and worship and never dismiss your beliefs ever again.

...and buy BlackBart a new XBox.


Hey, just covering my bases.

Arnold Layne wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I am finished posting on this thread. I've seen enough.

Thank God for that, and that's not an expression I use very often.

I wouldn't thank your puny god too soon...

BlackBart wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:Hey, Kyrani, are you up for a challenge?

There is someone buried not far from the back of my house who, if your good doctor and others who go on about the existence of an 'afterlife' are correct, should prove to be an ideal subject for contact with 'the dead', given the circumstances in which this person was buried.

If you, or one of your fellow psychics would be good enough to attempt to speak to this soul, and gain information which you could pass to me, i.e. gender, age, how and when interred, etc. etc., any of those but as many as possible, then I swear I will eat my hat, bow down and worship and never dismiss your beliefs ever again.

...and buy BlackBart a new XBox.


Hey, just covering my bases.

I have an old 360 you can have.....

Doubtdispelled wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:Hey, Kyrani, are you up for a challenge?

There is someone buried not far from the back of my house who, if your good doctor and others who go on about the existence of an 'afterlife' are correct, should prove to be an ideal subject for contact with 'the dead', given the circumstances in which this person was buried.

If you, or one of your fellow psychics would be good enough to attempt to speak to this soul, and gain information which you could pass to me, i.e. gender, age, how and when interred, etc. etc., any of those but as many as possible, then I swear I will eat my hat, bow down and worship and never dismiss your beliefs ever again.

...and buy BlackBart a new XBox.


Hey, just covering my bases.

I have an old 360 you can have.....

kyrani99 wrote:

the_5th_ape wrote:

Shrunk wrote: She has already revealed that she had, so she claims, metastatic ovarian cancer that miraculously disappeared. And she has also posted her real name, picture, and sensitive details about her married life on the internet. So concerns about her personal privacy cannot be the reason for her refusal. So, why will she not post this evidence to support one of her chief claims? Assuming that evidence exists, of course. If it doesn't, then the explanation becomes quite simple, doesn't it?

Kyrani. Would you like to respond to that?

I don't think I need to show my medical records on the net for all and sundry to see.

Its upto you. But since you have put so much of personal information on this forum, and a little more in your website, I was wondering why you have a problem with medical records alone. You can still edit out some portions from your record before posting it online.

The important point is for me to show using sound biological reasoning why the cancer forms. That is the key.

You collected information from internet that fits with your "toxic-this-and-that" story, and you ignored the rest that contradicts. Now that you have convinced yourself that your "thriller story" is worth "discussing" on a forum, you come here, and you got unexpected results(response).

kyrani99 wrote:I am finished posting on this thread. I've seen enough.

You are leaving? Did you read this

Take care

BlackBart wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:Hey, Kyrani, are you up for a challenge?

There is someone buried not far from the back of my house who, if your good doctor and others who go on about the existence of an 'afterlife' are correct, should prove to be an ideal subject for contact with 'the dead', given the circumstances in which this person was buried.

If you, or one of your fellow psychics would be good enough to attempt to speak to this soul, and gain information which you could pass to me, i.e. gender, age, how and when interred, etc. etc., any of those but as many as possible, then I swear I will eat my hat, bow down and worship and never dismiss your beliefs ever again.

...and buy BlackBart a new XBox.


Hey, just covering my bases.

I have an old 360 you can have.....

You mean I'm dopey? How very dare you! I was serious!

No, that's the actual look on my face. That's very kind but I have one of those.