On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 3:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Aug 1, 11:06 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 31, 3:29 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 1, 8:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Aug 1, 7:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 1:09 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 4:34 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More proof that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposition of equal moral considerability of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally be criticized on that basis.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just following your lead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without having read a single word of it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you assume that which you are required to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know you can't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't seem to support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, this is your response to my talk?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being
> >>>>>>>>>>>> due equal consideration?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> I directed you to a document in the Files section of my Yahoo group.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Have you actually managed to download it yet? Or are you unable to
> >>>>>>>>>>> download it without joining my Yahoo group and do you want me to put
> >>>>>>>>>>> it up on my webpage?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>> I've put it on my webpage for you. How could I refuse, when you asked
> >>>>>>>>>> so nicely?
> >>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/animal%20rights%20talk.doc
> >>>>>>>>> What laughable bullshit!
> >>>>>>>>> Here I want to discuss a short argument for this
> >>>>>>>>> conclusion which would probably be accepted as
> >>>>>>>>> sound, with perhaps some qualifications, by almost
> >>>>>>>>> all philosophers who hold the view that using
> >>>>>>>>> animals in scientific research is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>> In other words, people who have *ALREADY* reached the
> >>>>>>>>> very conclusion you're attempting to prove! HA HA HA
> >>>>>>>>> HA HA! You ****ing DILETTANTE fruit! "Philosopher" my
> >>>>>>>>> ass...
> >>>>>>>> Is that your response, then?
> >>>>>>> Yes, you circular ****wit. You explicitly acknowledge that you are
> >>>>>>> assuming the very thing you are tasked with proving. What a ****ing
> >>>>>>> chump.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>> Jolly good. Let me just say that I cannot believe what a joke you are.
> >>>>>> The idea that any respectable university ever gave you a Ph.D. is
> >>>>>> quite absurd. I will publish your response on my webpage along with my
> >>>>>> reply.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> It's up there. Your move.
> >>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
> >>>> Take the name off your page, fruit.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Let me get this straight,
> >> Take it down, rupie. I know how to get that page
> >> ****ed up but good if you don't. Take it down. No one
> >> authorized you to put anyone's name on your page. Take
> >> it down.
>
> > God help me, what a coward.
>
> Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
> personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
You know, I've seen another website which gives quotes from you and
refers to you as "talk.politics.animals regular Jonathan Ball".
Perhaps that was back in the days where you didn't care who knew your
full name. Why exactly do you care who knows your full name, anyway?
Do you want to keep your activity here secret from some people?
And what about Lesley's website? That's got your full name and your
photo. Did you harangue her in this way?
It's common knowledge on this newsgroup that your name is Jonathan
Ball. It's publicly available information. What exactly is your
concern?
Anyway, you certainly didn't go about this in a very sensible way, did
you? First you try to give me orders, then you threaten illegal
activity. I think your negotation skills need improving.
Try asking me nicely, Ball, and we'll see how we go.