"Bill" wrote in message k.net...
Rat & Swan wrote:

Bill wrote:

That's why your son was taken from you.

For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me
by anyone or any agency, public or private.

Your son was taken from you, by your father.

That's a lie and only shows you're still as sore as Hell
for the way your father left you, Ball.

Rat & Swan wrote:



Bill wrote:

That's why your son was taken from you.


For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me
by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this.


Your son was taken from you, by your father.


As I said, this is a lie. He was not.

He was. Your whole life has been one massive self
indulgence. Having the kid in the first place was a
self indulgence, and further self indulgence - focusing
on your sex life rather than nurturing and raising your
son - led to a conclusion that he needed to be raised
elsewhere. You were only too happy to be rid of him;
further evidence of your wrecked mind.

You snipped without noting that he is estranged from you.

drdoody wrote:
Rat & Swan wrote in message ...

Bill wrote:


That's why your son was taken
from you.

For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me
by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this.

My son is a career officer in the U.S. Army, an engineer.


Rat


You have my congratulations. May he return safely to you.

He won't be returning to her. He is estranged from
her, communicating only by e-mail. He has good reason
to be estranged from her: she abandoned him. It was
more important to her "to explore her lesbian side"
than to raise her son.

Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:28 GMT, Bill wrote:


Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote:



There are two problems with that.

No. Your analysis is wrong.


1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind
the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat.

She has knowledge of commercial fruit and vegetable
farming methods. The likelihood


Thank you

The probability is 1, Drec, you dumb ****. Do you know
what a P = 1 means? No, I knew you didn't; not
something they teach to grease monkeys.



is that the
production, storage and distribution of all the food
she buys causes animal death.


Then there's only a likelihood of them rather than a certainty,

No, there's a certainty, Dreck.

so any claim from you of her certain knowledge of them is
now seriously in doubt. We both knew that though, dint we?

No. We know that she has knowledge. She has admitted
as much.

You KNOW that animals are killed in the course of
producing your food.



If you drive a car at 80mph through a school playground
at recess, you *may* avoid striking any children, but
the likelihood is that you will strike and kill several.


2) You are assuming she will continue to buy goods which
have been produced in a way she finds unethical.

That is a rock-solid assumption.


What's a rock solid assumption if not just a plain old guess?

She will continue to buy goods which have been produced
in a way she finds unethical. She has done nothing to
stop so far, and nothing will change.



She DOES continue to
buy goods which have been produced in a way she finds
unethical,


So you assume.

No; we know. You know it too, Dreck.



and she has no intention of stopping, as her
posts have made clear; she's waiting for the unethical
production and distribution methods to disappear on
their own, with no concrete action from her.


What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop
them if she isn't already causing them?

She is causing them, Dreck; so are you. She knows how
not to do so; so do you, Dreck.


Her decision to avoid farmed meat on ethical grounds
proves she wouldn't do either 1 or 2.

No, it does not prove that at all.


It does.

It does not, Dreck. You're making it up as you go
along, the way you always have.



There is zero logic
to your assertion, because there is zero connection
between her self-serving, ego-enhancing


Oh. So it's about ego now, is it?

Yes, Dreck. It always has been. Same with you, Dreck,
except your accomplishments are so tiny, you really
shouldn't have an ego.



decision not to
eat meat, and her equally self-serving decision to eat
the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can
get.


You're still only assuming these things about her,

No. We know them about her, and about you, Dreck.

and of
course all other vegans who buy from the marketplace.

We know these things about all of them, including you,
Dreck.


That makes her morally complicit, if she
believes the killing of the animals is wrong.


Why or how, and by whose rule?

For the same reason that the getaway driver for a
robbery is fully morally and legally complicit for all
of the crimes that occur in the course of a robbery;
for the same reason that the buyer of stolen property
is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the
original crime doesn't happen. They are integral to crime.


If thieves use boot markets and auction rooms, or indeed the
general marketplace to sell their stuff alongside legitimate
goods, why or how, and by whose rule is the buyer of those
stolen goods morally or legally complicit?

Ask your crown prosecutor for the particulars, Dreck.

The fact is, Dreck, if you buy stolen property
unknowingly and it is determined that you have it, the
property may be seized from you without compensation.
If you buy it knowing it was stolen, you can be
prosecuted for the separate crime of receiving stolen
property. The rationale for the latter is that you
provide an incentive for the thief to steal.

We've been through all this several times in the last
couple of years, Dreck. You lost then, you lose now.

You'll just have to live with it, Dreck: your
purchases from animal-killing farmers - we know you buy
from them - reward them for doing something you claim
to find unethical. Your knowledge of the certainty of
animal death makes you morally complicit.


Is there any doubt that killing gratuitously is wrong,

Yes, much:

1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that
it's wrong.


Then if most Muslims don't believe philosophically that
murder and suicide bombing is wrong, do we or the rest of
the Muslim world also believe that is right to commit murder
by carrying bombs into public places, Mr. Ad populum?

My position is not an argumentum ad populum; I did not
argue that collateral deaths of animals is not wrong
because omnivores believe it not to be wrong.


"1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that
it's wrong."

Right. I already wrote that. I also wrote this, you
stupid ****:

I did not argue that collateral deaths of animals is
not wrong because omnivores believe it not to be
wrong.

You are dumber than a fence post, Dreck. You couldn't
correctly identify a fallacy if I beat you over the
head with it. That's why you commit so many fallacies
yourself, Dreck.



Admit
that you got it wrong; you did get it wrong.


You have attempted to argue that there are doubts among
people that gratuitous killing is not wrong on the basis that
"1. Most omnivores don't believe philosophically that
it's wrong."

Right, Dreck. This is how we know it's you: you
stubbornly keep reposting something that is not an
example of wha you claim. You don't need to keep
reposting what I wrote. You need to address the fact -
the fact, you fat **** - that what I wrote is not an
argumentum ad populum. You are simply wrong to assert
that it is one, Dreck.

Every time you have thought you've found your opponent
in a logical fallacy, Dreck, you're wrong. You have
never understood these logic citations you post.


That position attempts to win acceptance by appealing to
a large group of people.

I am not appealing or attempting to appeal to a large
group of people, Dreck. You lose.

Most Muslims *do* believe that murder and suicide
bombing are wrong, so your hypothetical premise is
crap, and your whole point disappears.

You stink at this.

You really stink at this, Dreck.




2. "vegans" *claim* to believe philosophically that it's
wrong, but their behavior says otherwise.


What vegan behaviour tells you that,

Their continued and fully aware trade with farmers who
kill animals collaterally.


They are not fully aware of any continued trade with farmers
who kill animals,

The ones who post here are, Dreck, you fat ****. They
acknowledge they are. You just puts your fingers in
your ears and go "nnnhh-nnnhh-nnnhh-nnnhh
I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them-I-don't-kill-them".
You're wrong.

and you have conceded this point already
by concluding there is only a likelihood of these deaths based
on assumption.

No, there's a certainty. The less-than-one probability
applies to any given apple or eggplant or carrot.

Don't worry about what I have "conceded", Dreck, you
fat ****; "vegans" who post here, all of them, have
conceded that animals die in the course of producing
the food they eat. It is not in dispute. Time for you
to concede, and move on to your next bit of sophistry,
so I can demolish it, too.



They are in exactly the
same moral position as someone knowingly buying stolen
property.


How does one know that the goods they buy are stolen or
produced unethically if bought from the same marketplace
as legitimate and ethically produced goods?

Sometimes, one knows, Dreck. That's why the law
provides a penalty for it. You're just going to have
to accept it.



and where have
you seen this contradictory behaviour?

Right here.


You're mistaken then.

I'm not, Dreck.


and should she
or you or I who buy from careless farmers and slave keepers
be held accountable for their wrong work practices, even though
we all buy from the general marketplace where these goods are
distributed, apparently as perfectly ethical goods?

1. You know what's going on before the goods get to
market.


No, I do not,

Yes, you do.


I do not,

You do, Dreck. You know.



Stop lying.


so please answer the question.

I did. You are shirking, Dreck, as usual. You know how the
vegetables are produced, and you know that it causes animal death.


I know there's a likelihood,

A certainty, when looking at all your purchases.


I buy goods
from the general marketplace without any prior knowledge

That's a lie.


I'm not clairvoyant, y'know.

You're just stupid, Dreck. Go back to your real name.
The adoption of ****witted pseudonyms doesn't get you
off the hook for all your past stupidity, because
you're just as stupid in the present.



You know animals are killed in the
production of the food you eat.


No I don't.

You do. You know, Dreck.



You can't get away
with a probabilistic dodge.


Neither can you.

I'm not.



Stop driving your car
through playgrounds.


Tell that to the driver.

You.



of the production methods used in my particular choice of
food or footwear, so how can I be held accountable for
buying the few unethical items that do reach my stores?

Because you are lying.


These personal attacks a becoming very tiresome, Bill.

They aren't personal attacks, Dreck.

[snip repetitious and tiresome lie of innocence]



You have the requisite knowledge.


Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical
means to satisfy your argument?

You know what you need to know about food.

The silence is deafening, Dreck.

Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with
his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message k.net...

Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message .net...

Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message k.net...

Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote:

Logic insists farmers cause them,

No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot.

1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are
responsible for their deaths.
2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals
therefore
3) they are responsible for their deaths.

What could be simpler?

That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral
responsibility for them.

Only according to buck-passing miscreants.

No. YOU are the buck-passer, and I am pointing it out.


You'll never convince a jury that the farmer or murderer
who kills isn't responsible for the deaths he causes,

The moral prosecutor will easily persuade the jury that
you share the moral responsibility.

You are the buck-passer. You've done it all your life.

Ditch the stupid "ipse dixit" pseudonym, ****head, and
just post under your own name. You're no better at
that disguise than you were with "jane".

Derek wrote:

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message ...

Stop replying to your own posts, cocksucker.

"Bill/ Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc." wrote

How many times are you going to make a complete
fool of yourself by claiming everyone who gives you
a hard time to be me, loser. You're pathetic. The last
opponent, "Immortalist" you tried evading in this way
made you look a right idiot, and you knew it as well.

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the mind.

Proof?

Odd how you question and demand proof for the obvious fact that
an enormous percentage of trees on this planet have been cut down
for cattle grazing all for needless meat-eating by humans.

Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by
alternating between half a dozen different posters
wrote in message nk.net...

Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote:

Logic insists farmers cause them,

No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot.

1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are
responsible for their deaths.
2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals
therefore
3) they are responsible for their deaths.

What could be simpler?

That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral
responsibility for them.

Only according to buck-passing miscreants.

No. YOU are the buck-passer, and I am pointing it out.

You'll never convince a jury that the farmer or murderer
who kills isn't responsible for the deaths he causes,

The moral prosecutor will easily persuade the jury that
you share the moral responsibility.

No, he wouldn't. He would rightly conclude that the
farmer is fully responsible for the deaths he causes. You
know it too.

You are the buck-passer.

You're the one passing the buck from him to me, don't
forget.

Ditch the stupid "ipse dixit" pseudonym, ****head, and
just post under your own name. You're no better at
that disguise than you were with "jane".

How many times are you going to make a complete
fool of yourself by claiming everyone who gives you
a hard time to be me, loser. You're pathetic. The last
opponent, "Immortalist" you tried evading in this way
made you look a right idiot, and you knew it as well.

Derek wrote:

"Bill/ Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc." wrote

How many times

Are you going to post under a new ****witted pseudonym
- "jane", "ipse dixt", whatever-the-**** - and pretend
it isn't you, when you say exactly the same things, in
the same language, in the same glaringly bad style, as
you originally said as Dreck?

**** off, loser.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:49:11 GMT, Bill wrote:

Derek wrote:

"Bill/ Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc." wrote

How many times

Are you going to post under a new ****witted pseudonym
- "jane", "ipse dixt", whatever-the-**** - and pretend
it isn't you, when you say exactly the same things, in
the same language, in the same glaringly bad style, as
you originally said as Dreck?

Word for word jonny no balls, i mean usual suspect I mean oops, you
are he!

Prat.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

"tortrix" wrote
"Dutch" wrote

That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the
mind.

Proof?

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/h...-marijuana.htm
http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/download44.html

Marijuana adversely affects sleep patterns, social and cognitive functioning
on many levels, and causes severe lung damage, just for STARTERS.

Odd how you question and demand proof for the obvious fact that
an enormous percentage of trees on this planet have been cut down
for cattle grazing all for needless meat-eating by humans.

What a bunch of crap.

What's odd is how so many lazy dimwits like you can toss away their very
humanity in favour of cheap rushes like those obtained from drugs and
self-serving "causes".

"Derek" wrote ..
Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by
alternating between half a dozen different posters
wrote

Bullshit, unlike you, he has never tried to pretend that his aliases are
anyone else.

[..]

Ditch the stupid "ipse dixit" pseudonym, ****head, and
just post under your own name. You're no better at
that disguise than you were with "jane".

How many times are you going to make a complete
fool of yourself by claiming everyone who gives you
a hard time to be me, loser. You're pathetic. The last
opponent, "Immortalist" you tried evading in this way
made you look a right idiot, and you knew it as well.

His posts have your greasy fingerprints all over them Dreck. You've never
fooled anyone with your attempts to invent people to agree with you.

Dutch wrote:
Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by
alternating between half a dozen different posters
wrote

Bullshit, unlike you, he has never tried to pretend that his aliases are
anyone else.

Jpn's also never responded to his own posts, much less traded e-mail
addresses in them (lmao):

http://tinyurl.com/u7xx

snip

usual suspect wrote:
Jpn's...

Jon's even (sorry Mr Ball)