View Single Post
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:14:00 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>>>First you're vegan,
>>>>>
>>>>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about
>>>>>food rather than animal rights.
>>>>
>>>>You declared yourself vegan because you claimed
>>>>
>>>>1) to "dislike flesh"
>>>
>>>That's correct, with the exception of fish.

>>
>> You didn't mention that exception when making
>> your statement about your dislike for flesh.

>
>Was I supposed to enumerate every single like or dislike in every single
>post I ever made, tosser?


Yes, you were, especially when making categorical
statements concerning your dislike for flesh, which,
believe it or not, includes fish, liar suspect. You lied
when making that statement, so I've every reason
to believe you've lied since making it as well. You're
an habitual liar. Let's take your quotes concerning
hunting, for yet another example of many;

"*I* don't hunt."
usual suspect Jul 1 2003 http://tinyurl.com/e45k7

But then, just 4 days later you inadvertently confess
that you DO hunt after all;

"I know from my own hunting as well as from that
of family members and friends that nobody wants
to put a deer or rabbit or any other creature in pain."
usual suspect Jul 5 2003 http://tinyurl.com/c4h4d

You're an habitual liar.

>>>>2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is
>>>> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the
>>>> whole world"
>>>>3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or
>>>> enjoyment"
>>>
>>>I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets

>>
>> Then you

>
>The past is irrelevant.


Only according to those with a past they would wish
to go away and forget about: you, for example. Your
past quotes reveal that you've lied about your dislike
for flesh. They also show that you have no grounds
to launch your pathetic tirades against vegans here
who abstain from meat, because like you, the majority
of them abstain from meat for the very same reasons
you gave, hypocrite.

>>>My position now is consistent

>>
>> Your position is

>
>based on a learning process.


Confusion, more like.

<unsnip>

"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

When you've finally made up your mind where your
own position is regarding veganism, you might have
some say here, but while you continue to attack
vegans that aren't as confused as you are regarding
their position, your feeble attacks can only be seen
as a swipe against those who've bettered you by
abiding by their stated principles. Your utter hatred
toward those you've tried but failed to aspire to is
ugly and so transparent.

>>>>Also, in answer to Bart who asked you whether
>>>>our dominion over animals includes eating and
>>>>slaughtering them for food, you answered no by
>>>>quoting Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version)
>>>>
>>>> [start Bart to you]
>>>> > So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
>>>> > over the animal kingdom.
>>>> [you]
>>>> Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
>>>> answer is found immediately following one of the verses
>>>> you quoted:
>>>>
>>>> Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
>>>> said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
>>>> which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
>>>> fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
>>>> beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
>>>> that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
>>>> every green herb for food"; and it was so.
>>>> [end]
>>>> usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8
>>>
>>>Upon further study, I ceded that the account of Noah following the flood
>>>mitigated that isolated passage.

>>
>> You were already aware

>
>More aware than you'll ever be, blue-foot.


And yet, even when armed with all your so-called
awareness and understanding of the bible you
still chose Genesis 1:29-30 to indicate that our
said dominion over animals doesn't include
slaughtering them for food.

>>>>As for your later assertion, that you've NEVER held
>>>>a belief in the proposition of animal rights, read on and
>>>>see where you claim NOT to know that answer.
>>>>
>>>> "Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
>>>> by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
>>>> far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
>>>> protection under the law. But are they endowed with
>>>> any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
>>>> usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12
>>>
>>>It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume
>>>the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights

>>
>> Then you have

>
>The Bible is incongruent with AR, but consistent with AW.


The bible can be interpreted to mean whatever the
liar using it wishes it to mean, as you've proved quite
effectively in this one thread alone. Take another pet
subject I have, for example: personal responsibility.
When considering the expression "children carry the
sins of their fathers" Deut. 5:9 says, "You shall not
bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD
your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for
the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation
of those who hate me...", but Deut. 24:16 completely
contradicts that message (God's word) with, "Fathers
shall not be put to death for their children, nor children
put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own
sin."

The bible is a lie and used by liars like yourself to get
them out of tight corners or into people's pockets.

>>>>You're a
>>>
>>>You're a cuckold:
>>> I am sure he will tell you that I have shagged his wife and its
>>> true I will admit that.
>>> David "Judas" Nash - http://tinyurl.com/n292

>>
>> You throw that up at every opportunity

>
>It's true.


Study my twin's statement again. Why was he so
certain that I would tell the truth over something
which would surely cause myself and my wife so
much public embarrassment when it would have
been so easy for me just to deny it? What was my
twin so sure about when making that statement if
NOT my commitment to honesty?

Also, you might want to take note of something
he wrote regarding you.

"Over the last couple of years I have been using
this news group to vent my anger at my twin
brother Derek. I have repeatedly posted stories
about how Derek has committed cruelty to animals
and his own family. It has been a bitter war and I
have enjoyed watching the results as people like Jon
Ball and Usual Suspects have become ensnared."
http://tinyurl.com/ccnt8

He ensnared you, and you're still just as ensnared
as ever you were. I get the last laugh.

>So is your wanking which you've admitted.


That's another lie. I've not admitted to anything
like that, and I'll prove it by bringing the whole
quote here and the context in which I wrote it.
Read on.

> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
> Derek "Wanksalot" Nash - http://tinyurl.com/nu3s


Using that link you supplied, the context isn't about
wanking, let alone an announcement from me that I
jerk off in the same way you jerk off while watching
male wrestlers grapple.

[start me]
> > You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being
> > what they are and not very fussy... <snip>

[you]
> wtf do you know about American girls?

[me]
I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
watch it every time the wife goes shopping. What else is
there to learn about them?
[end]

As we can see, when the whole quote is put before
us, there's no reference made there about wanking,
usual liar. My statement was in response to a question
concerning my knowledge of American women's
tastes in men; they aren't fussy.

>Why did you lie about black olives, you fat orthorexic ex-greasemonkey?
>
> I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but
> stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or
> something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to
> maintain my ethical standard.
> -- Derek "Squid Ink" Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3


There's no lie in there. Since learning how black olives
are sold in a medium containing squid ink I've stopped
eating them to maintain my ethical standard; something
you've proven incapable of doing, back-slider.

>What is it about your ethical standards that allows you to share your
>wife with your twin?


He took what he knew to be mine, as always, but
instead of wrecking something, like he planned to, he
didn't count on my wife's determination to make our
marriage succeed for another twenty years; again,
something you'll never accomplish.