"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:05:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
wrote:
>
> >>>>> After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use
> >>>>>humane slaughter methods including stunning.
> >>>>
> >>>>You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and
> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel
than
> >>>>captivity.
> >>>
> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch.
> >>
> >>
> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY!
> >
> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese.
>
> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your
> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day.
> See you tomorrow, Jon.

Scurry away and gather yourself for another bout of ****ing up, the
inevitability of it is depressing. This latest campaign of brainless
equivocation has your signature all over it.

Here's some food for thought, I can only put it in front of you, I can't
make you eat.

Cruel:
1.. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
2.. Causing suffering; painful.
NOTE: Not only 1. but also 2.

It's perfectly correct for example to say "Nature can be cruel". Here are a
few links out of 456 where that phrase alone is correctly used.
http://home.tiscali.be/guild.discoverers/spirit.html
http://www.sensorium.org/sensingjapa.../mizu_pro.html
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/.../wadispage.htm
http://www.legitgov.org/essay_macelv...md_051003.html
http://www.governor.state.ok.us/disp...article_type=0
http://www.pressrepublican.com/outdo...072004out1.htm
"For the second year in a row I am watching white-tailed deer struggle
through the winter. I know these deer. I have seen them almost daily for
several years... Nature can be cruel."

It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was being cruel when he
broke the broom over his dog's back." Lightbulb coming on yet brick-head?

It *is* nice that your narrow-minded ignorance provides you with such
entertainment though, it probably saves taxpayer a hefty bill for
anti-depressants..