"Derek" > wrote
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:40:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> usual suspect posing as chico chupacabra > wrote:

He's not posing, "poseur", that's your specialty.

>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>><...>
>>>>> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had
>>>>> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before
>>>>> their alleged legal right was put in place.
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur
>>>
>>> The conclusion follows from the premises and is
>>> therefore not a non sequitur.
>>
>>No it doesn't follow
>
> It does follow,

No it doesn't, it's taking the comments out of context. I'll respond once
again since you seem to have Dave sucked in this time.

> and snipping the evidence supporting my
> claim away every time only shows that you know it.

Non-sequitur, snipping your crap shows my disdain for it.

> <re-restore>
> Dutch is of the opinion that;
>
> "Every legal right is preceded by a moral right."
> Dutch Jun 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/faeju

Under normal circumstances, that does not apply to legal rights obtain
illegitmately, such as by gangs of thugs who take over a legislature by
force and intimidation.

> and
>
> "Where legal rights exist moral rights always
> precede them."
> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx

Same as above, I should have avoided the word "always" considering dishonest
sophists like you abound here.

> So far so good, arguably,

Weasel word, it's either good or it's not.

but he's also of the
> opinion that;
>
> "They (Nazis) had the legal right to abuse the Jews
> because they rewrote the laws"
> Dutch Mar 21 2006 http://tinyurl.com/gn8lx

They did, but they obtained that legal right illegitimately by intimidation
and murder, not through the process of consensus and evolution.

> That being so, according to Dutch's view, Nazis had
> the moral right to experiment on Jews long before
> their alleged legal right was put in place.

Non-sequitur, and absurd. I hope this has helped to clear up your confusion.
And you will understand when I don't humour you further by replying to this
same silly accusation.

> <end re-restore>
>
>>> Why are you trying to conceal your identity and getting others
>>> such as Jonathan to lie on your behalf? Could it be because
>>> I saw to it that your older identity as 'usual suspect' had no
>>> argument against the vegan here? Yep, I reckon so.
>>
>>He freely admitted he was aka usual suspect several times in the past
>>couple
>>of days.
>
> Then why didn't he correct Jon in this exchange (below)
> between him and Pearl, before Jon made a fool of himself?

Jon did no such thing, file that under another of your delusions.

> [start -Jon]
> > > > > Mr Chupacabra and his associate Mr Suspect have
> > > > > documented them all.
> > > >
> > > > False. 'chupacabra' is 'suspect', liar ball/leif/rudy/wilson/...
> > >
> > > Prove it, bitch
> >
> > You really are in an
>
> Thought so - no proof.

The proof is all there, you're the quote-miner, just check.

[end]
>
> I knew who he was,

He admitted who he was, moron, unlike your sock-puppets.

> and so did everyone else who knows
> his pathetic style of attack

I recognize yours too, that's why your *sleazy* attempts to pass off
sock-puppets always fail.

and meat-pushing onto the vegans
> he tried but failed to aspire to, but he left Jon to defend his
> bogus identity and work himself up into a right little lather.
> Nice one, 'usual suspect': you gave Pearl a right good laugh
> at Jon's expense.

Have you learned yet to stop trying to pass off sock-puppets?