C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>I object to your vitriol
>>
>>Which I typically reserve for the right situation, such as when someone is
>>ridiculously pigheaded, willfully ignorant, or blatantly deceitful.
>
> You are NOT reserved.

Ask shevek. Ask Michael B.

> It doesn't take much to set you off.

Actually, it doesn't take much MORE to set me off because I've been
dealing with you for a while now. I cut plenty of other plenty of slack.
Go back to the archives and note how I gave Skanky a second chance to
deal with the issues she raised about me. Instead, she took my
generosity and turned it into rope with which she's hung herself.

>>>and your tendency to take positions that are far to the contrary -
>>>wherever contrary may be.
>>
>>Such as...? Maybe you mean something like this:
>>There are some common misconceptions about being vegetarian.
>>Among the most common is that being vegetarian saves all animal
>>lives. Animals will die to put food on your table whether you
>>are vegetarian or not - even if you are vegan. It's unavoidable
>>unless you go to extreme measures that are not usually practical
>>in today's culture. You might save the lives of some animals:
>>cows, chickens, turkeys, fish, pigs, etc., but other animals
>>will die as a result of agricultural practices, transportation,
>>packaging, warehousing, and for many other reasons. Most people
>>don't think about the other animal casualties because they
>>aren't featured in a meal.
>>
>>Of course, I didn't write that (though I've made those very points many
>>times myself only to be subjected to your objections). You posted that two
>>days ago in rfvc.
>
> What's your point? I wrote it and I agree with it. It proves your comment
> yesterday WRONG that I defend "veg-n dogma". If you go back and look at our
> clashes in the past (which you so like to do), I don't object to your
> positions as much as I object to your style.

Your objections have all been knee-jerk: I express why someone is wrong
and you fly off the handle and call me mean-spirited. You say I'm
unconventional and when pressed for details you whiff and suggest
something about politics (which, to be honest, shows that I'm in the
mainstream: my party controls the White House, both houses of Congress,
and more governorships and state legislatures than it did 20 years ago).

> You like to argue for the sake
> of argueing

No, I don't.

> and you do so in a very aggressive and mean-spirited manner.

Nahhh. You're exaggerating.

> Look,

No. You look. Go read the posts I made to Skanky starting on the third
of December in response to her wild accusations about me. She replied by
suggesting that her malice was warranted because of what she'd read me
write to others. I noted to her in response that
In nearly every instance, it's with someone with whom I've had
dealings which preceded your recent appearance in this group.

SHE sought to inflame ME. I didn't flame her. That came later after I'd
given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances to repent. I gave you the
same offer of an olive branch. You've declined it. You get what you
deserve, Jim, whether it's a ****ed off girlfriend who wonders why
you're such an asshole or a usenet adversary who knows why you're one.