On 17 Jan 2004 21:51:05 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On 17 Jan 2004 13:39:10 -0800, (K D B) wrote:
ipse dixit wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:
wrote:

Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.

It's what you meant.

So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
also been forging posts using his name and email
address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
liar, Harrison.

Pot, kettle...

Snipping without notation is dishonest even when
the victim is Jethro Harrison.

No, it isn't, but if you're sincere about that claim
why don't you say the same to Jon who always
snips without notation, you little coward?

Pot, kettle...

Do you mean as a retaliatory measure against trolls who make
use of the same practice?

No. I mean that he snips without notation, something
you claim is dishonest and leaves the snipper with "no
ethical grounds for accusing someone else of dishonesty."

Why don't you say the same to Jonathan if you're
sincere about that claim?

Your use of the word "always" makes your
claim a demonstrable lie.

I've never noted a single instance where he has
made a note of his snips, so my use of the word
"always" is correct. He always snips without
notation, especially over the last few months or
years, and if you weren't such a coward you
would point this out to him. You won't though,
because you're worried he'll rip your head off in
his reply to you. Your safest bet is to continue
trying to beat up on the slow-witted types like
Harrison as usual instead.