On 7 Aug 2006 18:00:46 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >
>> >> >True
>> >>
>> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>> >
>> >I didn't imply that.
>>
>> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
>> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
>> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
>> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.

Well, lair?

>> >It was my attempt at interpreting your position.
>>
>> No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.
>
>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
>position.

You have no option but to, liar, because it's clear that you are
trying to misinterpret my position so you can knock that false
position easily and then declare a defeat over my real position.

>Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.

Liars don't act in good faith, Rupe.

>> I rejected
>> your claim by replying, "Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful
>> treatment" arises in many areas as well in a sexual context."
>
>It wasn't a claim, it was a question.

No, it wasn't a question;

"What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
arises in a sexual context and no other."

That sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two facts;
the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."

Here's another example following the same line;

"What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week."

This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.

Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?

>> >> Listen here, Karen Winter, you disgusting pervert.
>> >
>> >Try and stay civil.
>>
>> She is a disgusting pervert, and saying so is my prerogative.
>
>What is a pervert

Karen Winter.

>> Her perverted views on sex with children is well documented
>> and lead to her being kicked out of her parish.
>
>Holding an ethical view can make you a pervert, can it?

Our views are what make us what we are, Rupe. Hope that
helps.

>> Her support for
>> the perversion of zoophilia is also on record and before us right
>> now, and that's why I can say without any hesitation that she's
>> a disgusting pervert.
>
>So, you're happy with calling people disgusting perverts simply for
>expressing ethical views.

Yes, because our views are what make us what we are.

>Well, sure, that's your perogative

Yes, it is.

> but if
>you're going to continue doing it I don't think you're worth having a
>conversation with.

Not if you're a pervert, no, because I always defeat them
and make them wish they'd never walked up to the mark.