Ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

Ipse dixit wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...


Ipse dixit wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere
choice of quote confirms it's you.


These constant

**** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it.

**** off and die, asshole.


These constant

**** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it.

**** off and die, asshole.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are
wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game
plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the
purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree
with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has
written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a
perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your
recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy.
It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's
posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the
many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time,
according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in
alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years

I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself.

Ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

These constant

**** off and die, Dreck.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:37 GMT, "Ipse dixit"
wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...
Ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

Ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere
choice of quote confirms it's you.


These constant

**** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it.

**** off and die, asshole.

These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are
wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game
plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the
purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree
with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has
written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a
perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your
recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy.
It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's
posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the
many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time,
according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in
alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years

I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself.


John Ball once wrote to me and confessed he was a bisexual, which was
fine, he praised me on my sense of humour, charm and wit and claimed
he only used so many false names as "a gag" then he proceeded to try
and get me into bed, saying he had always yearned after my powerful
loins. I can only assume he has been spurned by derek, hell hath no
fury like a poison dwarf scorned.

He also claimed to be hung like a horse, when I explained he was no
taller than a pit pony himself, he claimed "proportionately hung like
a horse" but it still meant his dick was bigger than he was, perhaps
he meant dick eatter was bigger? anyway I spurned his advance.

Sorry Jon, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, I had to tell, it was eating away at
me, the shame.





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




'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.

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:00:00 GMT, Bill wrote:

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

These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are
wearing a bit thin

Shut up Derek, you're obviously Ipse Dixit. Now are we to believe that this
newcomer is sometimes *lending* you his news server and pseudonym? What a
joke.

Ipse dixit wrote:
snip

Dreck, take all your little "friends" over he
http://tinyurl.com/kf4w

"LordSnooty" wrote in message news
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:37 GMT, "Ipse dixit"
wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...
Ipse dixit wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...
Ipse dixit wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere
choice of quote confirms it's you.

These constant

**** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it.

**** off and die, asshole.

These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are
wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game
plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the
purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree
with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has
written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a
perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your
recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy.
It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's
posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the
many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time,
according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in
alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years

I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself.


John Ball once wrote to me and confessed he was a bisexual,

"I was, once."
Jonathan Ball 2002-04-20

which was
fine, he praised me on my sense of humour, charm and wit and claimed
he only used so many false names as "a gag" then he proceeded to try
and get me into bed, saying he had always yearned after my powerful
loins.

If I remember correctly, and boy what a memory I have, it
was your "creamy yet amusingly hirsute buns" that he
was after, actually.
"I desperately want to slide my skinny tool betwixt your
creamy yet amusingly hirsute buns."
Jonathan Ball 2003-06-11

I can only assume he has been spurned by derek, hell hath no
fury like a poison dwarf scorned.

Again, if memory serves, I remember something similar to
that from an old pal-o-mine.
"Hell hath no fury like a bitch scorned "
From: JudGeDreD )
Date: 2002-07-30 09

He also claimed to be hung like a horse, when I explained he was no
taller than a pit pony himself, he claimed "proportionately hung like
a horse" but it still meant his dick was bigger than he was, perhaps
he meant dick eatter was bigger? anyway I spurned his advance.

I didn't take you for a prick teaser, you dirty flirt.

Sorry Jon, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, I had to tell, it was eating away at
me, the shame.

It's not your fault: you were being groomed by a experienced
net perv. Contact his ISP right away.



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




'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.

Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" wrote

"Jonathan Ball" wrote

Derek wrote:

Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
concrete to stop killing them? None.

Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
concrete to start killing them? None.
There's the long and the short of it.

The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and
off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of
animals.

Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the
collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the
fallacy;

Non causa pro causa

Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying for
the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that the
goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a link
between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing.

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" wrote

"Jonathan Ball" wrote

Derek wrote:

Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
concrete to stop killing them? None.

Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
concrete to start killing them? None.
There's the long and the short of it.

The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and
off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of
animals.

Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the
collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the
fallacy;

Non causa pro causa

Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying for
the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that the
goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a link
between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing.

Er, you've just shown that there isn't.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:37 GMT, "Ipse dixit"
wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...
Ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

Ipse dixit wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message nk.net...

**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere
choice of quote confirms it's you.


These constant

**** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it.

**** off and die, asshole.

These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are
wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game
plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the
purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree
with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has
written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a
perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your
recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy.
It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's
posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the
many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time,
according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in
alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years

I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym
for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if
Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader
and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or
may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in
being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than
welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself.


John Ball once wrote to me and confessed he was a bisexual, which was
fine, he praised me on my sense of humour, charm and wit and claimed
he only used so many false names as "a gag" then he proceeded to try
and get me into bed, saying he had always yearned after my powerful
loins. I can only assume he has been spurned by derek, hell hath no
fury like a poison dwarf scorned.

He also claimed to be hung like a horse, when I explained he was no
taller than a pit pony himself, he claimed "proportionately hung like
a horse" but it still meant his dick was bigger than he was, perhaps
he meant dick eatter was bigger? anyway I spurned his advance.

Sorry Jon, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect /
Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, I had to tell, it was eating away at
me, the shame.





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




'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.

"Ipse dixit" wrote in message
...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" wrote

"Jonathan Ball" wrote

Derek wrote:

Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
concrete to stop killing them? None.

Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
concrete to start killing them? None.
There's the long and the short of it.

The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and
off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of
animals.

Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the
collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the
fallacy;

Non causa pro causa

Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying
for
the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that
the
goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a
link
between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing.

Er, you've just shown that there isn't.

Er, then how come you're sitting in the slammer for it?

Bill wrote:

snip

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

This is true, generally. I do know in some specific instances
(e.g., I know that tomatoes came off my patio-bush, or
squash from my neighbor's backyard garden, or oranges from my
neighbor down the block's tree).

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

Actually, unless it is meat, or unless you kill the animals
yourself, you do NOT know; you only know there is a certain
degree of probability. That is why meat is a certainty and
CDs are only a probability.

snip
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.

I have done things to reduce.

snip
she's waiting for the unethical production and distribution methods
to disappear on their own, with no concrete action from her.

Not true, as I have made clear several times.

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.

Neither of us are.

She knows how not to do so; so
do you, Derek.

Actually, I do not know how to stop CDs, since I do NOT
cause them directly, and I can do nothing to stop them.

The Anti side, in its consistent strategy of personal
attack, confuses ( deliberately or not) two separate
things: causation and what you are calling "complicity,"
which I think is too strong a term. The purchaser of
any product does not _cause_ the producer to produce it,
and certainly does not cause the producer to use any
particular methods of producing it.

To take the example of purchasing stolen goods: the
purchaser does not cause the thief to steal, nor is he
complicit in the theft; he merely provides a market.
If the purchaser really _caused_ the thief to steal,
then every person in a community where purchasers of
stolen goods buy stolen goods would become a thief.
If addicts _caused_ people to become drug dealers, then
every person in a neighborhood where there are addicts
would become a drug dealer. Yet we know that even in
inner-city areas where there are many addicts to buy,
large numbers of people do not become drug dealers. It
is the choice of the producer to produce, and his choice
to use specific methods of production.

snip
her equally self-serving decision to
eat the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can get.

You have no evidence for this claim; I choose among existing
sources of vegetables; I do not choose, necessarily, the
cheapest or the most easily obtainable. I doubt Derek does
either.

snip
for the same reason that the buyer of stolen
property is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the
original crime doesn't happen.

This is not necessarily true. A thief may steal things for his
own use or consumption, not for sale. A purchaser is not
_necessary_ for robbery.

snip

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

That is what he would like you to assume, but it is not
necessarily true. I know it is not true in my case.

Rat

"Rat & Swan" wrote


Bill wrote:

snip

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

This is true, generally. I do know in some specific instances
(e.g., I know that tomatoes came off my patio-bush, or
squash from my neighbor's backyard garden, or oranges from my
neighbor down the block's tree).

Then one chooses those using utilitarian calcuations.

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

Actually, unless it is meat, or unless you kill the animals
yourself, you do NOT know; you only know there is a certain
degree of probability. That is why meat is a certainty and
CDs are only a probability.

Certainty and probability are both sufficient to establish a link between
the consumer and the source.

snip
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.

I have done things to reduce.

So have many meat-eaters.

snip
she's waiting for the unethical production and distribution methods
to disappear on their own, with no concrete action from her.

Not true, as I have made clear several times.

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.

Neither of us are.

Your participation is instrumental, in the "real world". Your consumer
dollars "drive" the process.

She knows how not to do so; so
do you, Derek.

Actually, I do not know how to stop CDs, since I do NOT
cause them directly, and I can do nothing to stop them.

Your responsibility is not to "stop cds" any more than it's to stop
livestock production. Your job is to be true to your ethical position, to
remove your involvment with cds, just as you have removed your involvment
with the meat industry.

The Anti side, in its consistent strategy of personal
attack,

It's not a personal attack on my part, it's an attack on the validity and
consistency of the ethical claims made by vegans, and on the poor logic and
types of arguments used.

confuses ( deliberately or not) two separate
things: causation and what you are calling "complicity,"
which I think is too strong a term. The purchaser of
any product does not _cause_ the producer to produce it,
and certainly does not cause the producer to use any
particular methods of producing it.

It doesn't matter, you are knowingly supporting a particular deadly process
when you (vegans in general) have the option to do much more to bring
yourself into accordance with your claimed belief that animals have
fundamental rights. You fail to take the opportunities to do these things,
you take partial measures and declare that those measures are both necessary
and sufficient to create an ethical position. That's an unsupportable
conclusion.

To take the example of purchasing stolen goods: the
purchaser does not cause the thief to steal,

Yes he does, absent buyers, thieves would have no reason to steal. Car
stereos can't buy drugs, unless the dealer is a dealer AND a buyer.

nor is he
complicit in the theft; he merely provides a market.

That is considered complicity under every legal system in the civilized
world.

If the purchaser really _caused_ the thief to steal,
then every person in a community where purchasers of
stolen goods buy stolen goods would become a thief.

Why?

If addicts _caused_ people to become drug dealers, then
every person in a neighborhood where there are addicts
would become a drug dealer.

Why? Explain this reasoning.

Yet we know that even in
inner-city areas where there are many addicts to buy,
large numbers of people do not become drug dealers. It
is the choice of the producer to produce, and his choice
to use specific methods of production.

Buyers of stolen goods usually know from the circumstances and price that
those are stolen goods. They have the option to pay more and buy legal
goods, but they choose to act in their own self-interest by patronizing a
thief. This act connects the act of robbery to them, and makes them a
criminal also. They are, ethically speaking, no better than the thief.

snip
for the same reason that the buyer of stolen
property is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the
original crime doesn't happen.

This is not necessarily true. A thief may steal things for his
own use or consumption, not for sale. A purchaser is not
_necessary_ for robbery.

Necessity is a red herring. Where a purchaser exists, and that purchaser
has reason to believe those goods were stolen, they become part of the
crime. In this analogy if the goods are sitting on a store shelf, priced
retail, the purchaser has every reason to believe they are legitimate. The
fact that they are bought in a back alley for 60% discount is what connects
the buyer to the crime.

For the umpteenth time; extend your line wrap, you
scruffy, sloppy slob, or at least use your "Enter" key
to drop down a line.

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"Ipse dixit" wrote in message ...
"Dutch" wrote in message ...
Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" wrote
"Jonathan Ball" wrote
Derek wrote:

Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything*
concrete to stop killing them? None.

Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything*
concrete to start killing them? None.
There's the long and the short of it.

The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and
off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of
animals.

Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the
collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the
fallacy;

Non causa pro causa

Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying
for
the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that
the
goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a
link
between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing.

Er, you've just shown that there isn't.

Er, then how come you're sitting in the slammer for it?

Errrrrr, what?

Ipse dreck wrote:
For the umpteenth time; extend your line wrap, you
scruffy, sloppy slob, or at least use your "Enter" key
to drop down a line.

Why don't you just stop your little charade instead?