On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:55:35 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:30:59 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my personal
>>>>>>>>>objections to the term can finally stop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah sure;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I ate some fish. You can't even call me vegetarian anymore
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't call you anything
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's as it should be
>>>>
>>>>I see
>>>
>>>Good. Now **** off.
>
>Who's shagging your wife this week, Nash?

If childish remarks are all you have to offer in return
to my criticism of your ever-changing stances and
arguments here, then it doesn't say much for your
request that we accept your current stance and
argument, does it? Snipping the evidence of your
lies away, leaving a childish dodge in place of what
I wrote only proves it to be true evidence, so it suits
me fine when you do it. Good luck with your new
anti-vegan stance, but what is this new stance and
the arguments you now put forward on Jon's behalf
worth when we consider the efforts you made while
trying to fool people with your earlier pro-vegan stance?
You're asking that we forget your earlier stance and
arguments in favour of your new ones, yet you've never
been able to explain either stance correctly, so how do
we know we're not simply dealing with an imbecile that
doesn't know left from right? You're just a heckler.