On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > talent.
>
> > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > talent or not.
>
> > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > As I say,
>
> No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.

Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
worthless and I was a waste of educational resources. Now you're
saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students. You have no way of
knowing anything about that either, but I don't necessarily wish to
contradict you there. That is still quite consistent with me being an
extremely talented mathematician. There's no shame in not being Fields
Medal material. I have done original and interesting research. That is
a substantial achievement which only a few people can do. Certainly
you are nowhere near capable of it, nor are you competent to judge the
quality of mathematical research.

> You
> wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>

I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work. I'm working in a
telemarketing centre, because I need the money. The computer
automatically makes the calls for me, and I write the posts in between
calls (while still maintaining a high performance level at work). So
I'm not really squandering any opportunities for research while I'm
here.

I spend almost all of my spare time engaged in study and research. I
have other interests too which I spend some time on. The bottom line
is that I have done good research, and I have recently come up with
new ideas which I also intend to publish. I am being mathematically
productive. The fact that I spend some time posting here gives you no
rational grounds at all for thinking that I am a mediocre researcher.
You think it does, but it's a joke, it's just your pathological need
to hold derogatory views about other people. I'm a good researcher,
and you have no rational grounds for thinking otherwise, and your
attempts to put me down are very amusing. Keep it up.

> > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > outside your expertise.
>
> > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>

This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge. However,
your confidence in your ability to make judgements about my
mathematical talent is even more amusing.

> > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > get that one.
>
> It's a certainly that you won't.

You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter. It's not
certain at all. No-one has any reasonable way of knowing, least of all
you. But I grant you I would be very surprised if I managed to achieve
at that level. However, there's absolutely no shame in not being
Fields Medal material. My supervisor, Michael Cowling, is a world-
class mathematician, and he didn't get the Fields Medal. I might very
well rise to his level of achievement. Only time will tell.

The simple fact that I have done original and interesting research is
a significant achievement. Only a few people are capable of that. You
could never dream of being able to do it. Your attempts to put me down
are really quite pitiful. I suspect it is to compensate for a sense of
your own inadequacy. What achievements have *you* had? You want to let
me read your Ph.D. thesis? And the examiner's report? How many papers
did you publish? How many citations did you get?

> You'll be some dull plodding
> assistant professor at best.
>

Again, you have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
You're holding forth on matters that you know nothing about, because
you have a pathological need to hold derogatory views about other
people. I happen to know that I have already had significant
mathematical achievements and my potential for further achievement is
quite high, so I find all this very amusing.

Anyway, what about you? What level of academic achievement would you
be capable of in economics? What makes you so much better than me?

> > I am a talented mathematician.
>
> Probably not.

Well, make up your mind. First you confidently said that my Ph.D. was
"worthless" and that I was a "waste of educational resources", and
just now you said I was only going to be some "dull plodding assistant
professor". Now you say that it's only "probable" that I am not a
talented mathematician. Do you know for sure, or don't you? Why don't
you just acknowledge the obvious fact that you know absolutely nothing
about the matter one way or the other? It's just your childish,
pathological need to put other people down that is generating your
confidence in your totally groundless speculations. I am in a much
better position to know something about the matter than you and I find
your drivel very amusing. I couldn't possibly care less about your
opinion. You are obviously totally incompetent to pass judgement on
the matter.

On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > > talent.
>
> > > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > > talent or not.
>
> > > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > > As I say,
>
> > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.

Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.


> Now you're
> saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.

And that's true.


> > You
> > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.

So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
You're unethical in the extreme.


> I'm working in a
> telemarketing centre, because I need the money.

So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!



> I spend almost all of my spare

!!!!!!!!!


> time engaged in study and research.

Isn't that special.


> > > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > > outside your expertise.
>
> > > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.

I am, and I am correct.


> > > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > > get that one.
>
> > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.

It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.


> > You'll be some dull plodding
> > assistant professor at best.
>
> Again,

Always.


> > > I am a talented mathematician.
>
> > Probably not.
>
> Well, make up your mind. First you confidently said that my Ph.D. was
> "worthless" and that I was a "waste of educational resources", and
> just now you said I was only going to be some "dull plodding assistant
> professor". Now you say that it's only "probable" that I am not a
> talented mathematician.

On Jun 13, 7:11 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > then.
>
> > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
> > > you impersonated pearl
>
> > Never did it.
>
> Yes, you did.

I don't think so.


> > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,

No.

On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:11 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 11:48 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > > then.
>
> > > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > > By the way, your calling me immature is another priceless gem. When
> > > > you impersonated pearl
>
> > > Never did it.
>
> > Yes, you did.
>
> I don't think so.
>

Interesting. Apparently you fail to remember your bizarre behaviour. I
do sometimes wonder whether you might have some sort of psychiatric
condition.

Here you go.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...0?dmode=source

> > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> No.

Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
less. You snipped the main point, that all your nonsense about people
being "queer" indicates the maturity level of a twelve-year-old.
Adults regard homosexuality as just being a part of life, nothing to
get excited about.

On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on
>
> > It is axiomatic.
>
> No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.

Wrong.


> > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > then.
>
> > > You know, when I was psychotic
>
> > Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>
> I have not been psychotic for over four years.

Bullshit.


> > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > Apparently the way I look is
>
> > A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>
> And I'm immature

Right.


> > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > > > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > > > > he thinks
> > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > > > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > > > > A very obvious fact,
>
> > > > Not a fact.
>
> > > > > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > > > > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> > > > It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> > > > arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> > > Yawn.
>
> > Yeah, sure.
>
> > > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > > white ones.
>
> > > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> > No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> > > > egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> > > > permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> > > > *prohibited*.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> > of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> > of moral prohibition.
>
> What extraordinary drivel.

No, rupie.


> > My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> > dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> > morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> > permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>
> Well, to me it obviously does,

rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.

If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
permitted. The very concept is absurd in such a case.


> > That's your false bifurcation.
> > It is false.
>
> > > > That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> > > > if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> > > > at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > > If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> > > > lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> > > Well, I do.
>
> > Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>
> No, because I

YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.


> > > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> > NO, you stupid plodding ****.

On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > No.
>
> Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> less. You snipped the main point,

The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.

On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > > > talent.
>
> > > > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > > > talent or not.
>
> > > > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > > > As I say,
>
> > > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> > Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> > worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.
>
> Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.
>

Well, I suppose that depends on your views about the value of
mathematical research. If you mean in terms of its actual contribution
to the productivity of the economy, probably not, no, but you'd have
to say the same about almost all research in pure mathematics. However
a lot of people take the view that investing in pure mathematics
research is nevertheless worthwhile on the whole, even from just the
narrowly economic point of view, because large parts of it are
indispensible for scientific progress and you never know which parts
are going to prove useful.

My thesis is good. Almost everyone in Australia gets some government
assistance for their Ph.D.. If it's worthwhile in typical cases, it
was worthwhile in my case.

How did you fund your Ph.D.?

> > Now you're
> > saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> > more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.
>
> And that's true.
>

If it were, there would be no shame in that. However, you don't know
anything about the matter one way or the other. As to what I know
about it, yes, it probably is reasonable to say that it's fairly
probable I won't ever get a Fields Medal, and I don't have a very
clear idea of exactly how well I compare with most other Ph.D.
students, but I'm fairly confident my thesis is an unusually good
piece of work. Your opinion is worthless, my opinion is somewhat
better-informed, but really, it's the examiners we should listen to.
I'll let you know what they say if you like.

I have a desire to be a good mathematician, and I'm fairly confident
that I am one, exactly how good I don't know yet. Your opinion about
the matter is utterly worthless, and your claiming authority to
speculate about the matter is a joke.

> > > You
> > > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> > I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.
>
> So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
> You're unethical in the extreme.
>

Not at all. My Internet activity at work is not affecting my
productivity at work in the least. I write the posts while the
computer is searching the database for the next call. My performance
at work is excellent. I have one of the best hit rates out of anyone
here. My employer is very pleased with me.

> > I'm working in a
> > telemarketing centre, because I need the money.
>
> So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
> sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!
>

Ball, I only handed it in a couple of months ago. It takes time to
find the kind of work you want. In the meantime, I need money. My
Ph.D. hasn't even been examined yet, so no-one is in a position to say
that it is worthless, and how well I fare in the non-academic job
market has no bearing on the issue.

I certainly have no interest in how the employment I manage to find
affects your view of me.

> > I spend almost all of my spare
>
> !!!!!!!!!
>
> > time engaged in study and research.
>
> Isn't that special.
>

You're such a joke, Ball. I'm a productive mathematician. Your trying
to put me down for posting to newsgroups or engaging in paid
employment is a joke. I'll continue to study and think about advanced
mathematics for the rest of my life, no matter what job I take. I've
had significant achievements, and I'll have more. You don't know
anything about the matter. My contributions to mathematics to date are
at least as worthwhile as whatever you did in economics, and I'll have
many more academic achievements, whereas you will have none.

> > > > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > > > outside your expertise.
>
> > > > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> > > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> > This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.
>
> I am, and I am correct.
>

'Fraid not.

> > > > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > > > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > > > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > > > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > > > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > > > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > > > get that one.
>
> > > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> > You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
>
> It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.
>

The only piece of decent evidence you have regarding that matter is my
own estimate of the probability. You don't have any other reliable
evidence that bears on the matter. There is no shame in not winning
the Fields medal. You will never win the Nobel Prize in economics,
either.

> > > You'll be some dull plodding
> > > assistant professor at best.
>
> > Again,
>
> Always.
>

??

On Jun 14, 1:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on
>
> > > It is axiomatic.
>
> > No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > > then.
>
> > > > You know, when I was psychotic
>
> > > Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>
> > I have not been psychotic for over four years.
>
> Bullshit.
>

Why, exactly, Ball, do you not believe me? Have you deluded yourself
into thinking that you're competent to diagnose psychiatric symptoms
in me?

> > > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > > Apparently the way I look is
>
> > > A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>
> > And I'm immature
>
> Right.
>

Ball, you constantly act like a twelve-year-old. Your calling me
immature is absurd.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > > > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > > > > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > > > > > he thinks
> > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > > > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > > > > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > > > > > A very obvious fact,
>
> > > > > Not a fact.
>
> > > > > > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > > > > > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> > > > > It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> > > > > arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> > > > Yawn.
>
> > > Yeah, sure.
>
> > > > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > > > white ones.
>
> > > > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> > > No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> > > > > egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> > > > > permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> > > > > *prohibited*.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> > > of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> > > of moral prohibition.
>
> > What extraordinary drivel.
>
> No, rupie.
>
> > > My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> > > dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> > > morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> > > permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>
> > Well, to me it obviously does,
>
> rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.
>
> If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
> preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
> permitted.

Wrong. Everything is either morally permitted or morally prohibited.
Anyone competent in English knows that. You're distorting language.

> The very concept is absurd in such a case.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > That's your false bifurcation.
> > > It is false.
>
> > > > > That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> > > > > if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> > > > > at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > > > If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> > > > > lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> > > > Well, I do.
>
> > > Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>
> > No, because I
>
> YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.
>
>
>
> > > > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > > > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> > > NO, you stupid plodding ****.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > No.
>
> > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.

Why would any adult care one way or the other, you silly twelve-year-
old child?

On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> > The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> > kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>
> Why would any adult care one way or the other,

Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?

On Jun 13, 8:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > > > > talent.
>
> > > > > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > > > > talent or not.
>
> > > > > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > > > > As I say,
>
> > > > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > > > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> > > Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> > > worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.
>
> > Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.
>
> Well, I suppose that depends on your views about the value of
> mathematical research.

No. If you're spending your "professional" time bothering people as a
<snicker> telemarketer, then your Ph.D. obviously was a waste for the
taxpayer.


> > > Now you're
> > > saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> > > more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.
>
> > And that's true.
>
> If it were

It is.


> > > > You
> > > > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> > > I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.
>
> > So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
> > You're unethical in the extreme.
>
> Not at all.

Completely.


> > > I'm working in a
> > > telemarketing centre, because I need the money.
>
> > So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
> > sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!
>
> I only handed it in a couple of months ago.

Might as well have been five years.


> > > I spend almost all of my spare
>
> > !!!!!!!!!
>
> > > time engaged in study and research.
>
> > Isn't that special.
>
> You're such a joke. I'm a productive mathematician.

You're a worthless, dinner-interrupting telemarketer - i.e., scum.
People hate your guts.


> > > > > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > > > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > > > > outside your expertise.
>
> > > > > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> > > > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> > > This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.
>
> > I am, and I am correct.
>
> 'Fraid not.

I am correct.


> > > > > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > > > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > > > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > > > > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > > > > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > > > > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > > > > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > > > > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > > > > get that one.
>
> > > > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> > > You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
>
> > It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.
>
> The only piece of decent evidence you have regarding that matter is

The fact that you're here.


> > > > You'll be some dull plodding
> > > > assistant professor at best.
>
> > > Again,
>
> > Always.

On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > > > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> > > The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> > > kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>
> > Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>
> Why do you care why they care, ass-suck?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't care in the least. However, when you constantly act like a
twelve-year-old child but nevertheless take it upon yourself to call
me immature, I point out the situation.

On Jun 13, 8:57 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > > Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on
>
> > > > It is axiomatic.
>
> > > No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > > > then.
>
> > > > > You know, when I was psychotic
>
> > > > Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>
> > > I have not been psychotic for over four years.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> Why, exactly

Because you exhibit psychosis all the time.


> > > > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > > > Apparently the way I look is
>
> > > > A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>
> > > And I'm immature
>
> > Right.
>
> you constantly act like a twelve-year-old.

No.


> > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > > > > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > > > > > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > > > > > > he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > > > > > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > > > > > > A very obvious fact,
>
> > > > > > Not a fact.
>
> > > > > > > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > > > > > > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> > > > > > It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> > > > > > arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > Yawn.
>
> > > > Yeah, sure.
>
> > > > > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > > > > white ones.
>
> > > > > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> > > > No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> > > > > > egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> > > > > > permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> > > > > > *prohibited*.
>
> > > > > Why?
>
> > > > THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> > > > of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> > > > of moral prohibition.
>
> > > What extraordinary drivel.
>
> > No, rupie.
>
> > > > My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> > > > dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> > > > morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> > > > permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>
> > > Well, to me it obviously does,
>
> > rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.
>
> > If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
> > preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
> > permitted.
>
> Wrong.

No, right.


> Everything is either morally permitted or morally prohibited.

FALSE. That's your ****witted false bifurcation again. It's a
logical fallacy. This is obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary
awareness of logic and plain language.


> > The very concept is absurd in such a case.
>
> > > > That's your false bifurcation.
> > > > It is false.
>
> > > > > > That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> > > > > > if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> > > > > > at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.
>
> > > > > Why?
>
> > > > Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > > > > If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> > > > > > lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> > > > > Well, I do.
>
> > > > Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > No, because I
>
> > YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > > > > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> > > > NO, you stupid plodding ****

On Jun 13, 9:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > > > > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> > > > The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> > > > kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>
> > > Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>
> > Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>
> I don't care in the least.

That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
****witted question.

On Jun 14, 2:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:57 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 1:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > > > Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on
>
> > > > > It is axiomatic.
>
> > > > No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.
>
> > > Wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > > > > then.
>
> > > > > > You know, when I was psychotic
>
> > > > > Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>
> > > > I have not been psychotic for over four years.
>
> > > Bullshit.
>
> > Why, exactly
>
> Because you exhibit psychosis all the time.
>

No, Ball, I don't. You show far more characteristics of a psychotic
person than I currently do. I wouldn't go so far as to say you've got
a psychosis, but your desperate need to find any pretext for holding a
derogatory opinion about somebody leads you to very distorted thinking
about reality. For example, you believe you are competent to diagnose
psychiatric symptoms in people, or competent to judge the quality of
someone's mathematical research, and so forth. Basically, you
constantly think you've got a clue about things when you clearly
don't. You think you're making incisive criticisms of people, when in
the eyes of any rational person you're just making yourself look like
a clown.

You have much more cause to worry about your mental health than I do.

> > > > > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > > > > Apparently the way I look is
>
> > > > > A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>
> > > > And I'm immature
>
> > > Right.
>
> > you constantly act like a twelve-year-old.
>
> No.
>

It's plain for all to see, Ball, and empty denial won't change the
fact.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > > > > > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > > > > > > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > > > > > > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > > > > > > > A very obvious fact,
>
> > > > > > > Not a fact.
>
> > > > > > > > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > > > > > > > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> > > > > > > It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> > > > > > > arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > Yawn.
>
> > > > > Yeah, sure.
>
> > > > > > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > > > > > white ones.
>
> > > > > > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> > > > > No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> > > > > > > egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> > > > > > > permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> > > > > > > *prohibited*.
>
> > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> > > > > of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> > > > > of moral prohibition.
>
> > > > What extraordinary drivel.
>
> > > No, rupie.
>
> > > > > My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> > > > > dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> > > > > morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> > > > > permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>
> > > > Well, to me it obviously does,
>
> > > rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.
>
> > > If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
> > > preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
> > > permitted.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, right.
>
> > Everything is either morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>
> FALSE. That's your ****witted false bifurcation again. It's a
> logical fallacy. This is obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary
> awareness of logic and plain language.
>

Yes, well, that's the dispute between us. I think it's obvious to
anyone who understands English that I'm right, and you think it's
obvious to anyone who understands English that you're right. So there
you go. But in any event, it's a trivial semantic dispute, it doesn't
bear on any issue of substance.

>
>
> > > The very concept is absurd in such a case.
>
> > > > > That's your false bifurcation.
> > > > > It is false.
>
> > > > > > > That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> > > > > > > if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> > > > > > > at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.
>
> > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > > > > > If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> > > > > > > lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> > > > > > Well, I do.
>
> > > > > Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > No, because I
>
> > > YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > > > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > > > > > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> > > > > NO, you stupid plodding ****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > > > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > > > > > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> > > > > The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> > > > > kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>
> > > > Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>
> > > Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>
> > I don't care in the least.
>
> That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
> ****witted question.

It was a rhetorical question to highlight what a stupid pathetic child
you are. It's not bullshit, and anyone with a grip on reality would
realize that.

On Jun 13, 9:36 pm, stupid boy **** rupert lied:
> On Jun 14, 2:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:57 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > > > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > > > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on
>
> > > > > > It is axiomatic.
>
> > > > > No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.
>
> > > > Wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > > > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > > > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > > > > > then.
>
> > > > > > > You know, when I was psychotic
>
> > > > > > Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>
> > > > > I have not been psychotic for over four years.
>
> > > > Bullshit.
>
> > > Why, exactly
>
> > Because you exhibit psychosis all the time.
>
> No, I don't.

Yes, you do.


> > > > > > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > > > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > > > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > > > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > > > > > Apparently the way I look is
>
> > > > > > A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>
> > > > > And I'm immature
>
> > > > Right.
>
> > > you constantly act like a twelve-year-old.
>
> > No.
>
> It's plain for all to see

No.


> > > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > > > > > > > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > > > > > > > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > > > > > > > > A very obvious fact,
>
> > > > > > > > Not a fact.
>
> > > > > > > > > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > > > > > > > > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> > > > > > > > It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> > > > > > > > arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > Yawn.
>
> > > > > > Yeah, sure.
>
> > > > > > > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > > > > > > white ones.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> > > > > > No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > > The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> > > > > > > > egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> > > > > > > > permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> > > > > > > > *prohibited*.
>
> > > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> > > > > > of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> > > > > > of moral prohibition.
>
> > > > > What extraordinary drivel.
>
> > > > No, rupie.
>
> > > > > > My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> > > > > > dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> > > > > > morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> > > > > > permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>
> > > > > Well, to me it obviously does,
>
> > > > rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.
>
> > > > If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
> > > > preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
> > > > permitted.
>
> > > Wrong.
>
> > No, right.
>
> > > Everything is either morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>
> > FALSE. That's your ****witted false bifurcation again. It's a
> > logical fallacy. This is obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary
> > awareness of logic and plain language.
>
> Yes, well, that's the dispute between us.

There is no dispute. You're wrong. You're engaging in a logical
fallacy, false bifurcation.


> > > > The very concept is absurd in such a case.
>
> > > > > > That's your false bifurcation.
> > > > > > It is false.
>
> > > > > > > > That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> > > > > > > > if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> > > > > > > > at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.
>
> > > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > > > > > > If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> > > > > > > > lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> > > > > > > Well, I do.
>
> > > > > > Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > > No, because I
>
> > > > YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > > > > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > > > > > > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> > > > > > NO, you stupid plodding ****

On Jun 13, 9:39 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 9:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > > > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > > > > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > > > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > > > > > > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> > > > > > The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> > > > > > kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>
> > > > > Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>
> > > > Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>
> > > I don't care in the least.
>
> > That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
> > ****witted question.
>
> It was a rhetorical question

Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.

On Jun 14, 2:16 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > > > > > talent.
>
> > > > > > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > > > > > talent or not.
>
> > > > > > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > > > > > As I say,
>
> > > > > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > > > > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> > > > Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> > > > worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.
>
> > > Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.
>
> > Well, I suppose that depends on your views about the value of
> > mathematical research.
>
> No. If you're spending your "professional" time bothering people as a
> <snicker> telemarketer, then your Ph.D. obviously was a waste for the
> taxpayer.
>

Incidentally, we are not bothering people. We are calling people
regarding an exhibition to which we sent them an invitation. A lot of
them are interested, and hardly anyone is annoyed by the call.

Anyway, Ball, I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. It just means
this is the best job that I've managed to find within two months of
job search. And this fact has no bearing at all on the quality of my
work. Obviously telemarketing is not the best I can do, I'm doing it
temporarily. I have a good chance of finding work as an academic or a
quantitative analyst, and I have many other options. Anyway, what do
you do that's so valuable to society?

And you didn't answer my question: how did you fund your Ph.D.? Did
you steal money from the taxpayers? Did they get their money's worth?

> > > > Now you're
> > > > saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> > > > more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.
>
> > > And that's true.
>
> > If it were
>
> It is.
>

You don't have a clue one way or the other, you silly clown. Anyway,
as I said if it were true it would be no cause for shame. My
mathematical achievements are undeniably something to be proud of. You
don't have the capacity for such achievement, yet you're trying to put
me down. It's pathetic, but it's also quite comical.

> > > > > You
> > > > > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> > > > I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.
>
> > > So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
> > > You're unethical in the extreme.
>
> > Not at all.
>
> Completely.
>

I am more ethical than you in just about every aspect of life. I am
not being unethical towards my employer in the least. He is aware of
my Internet activity and is very pleased with my work.

> > > > I'm working in a
> > > > telemarketing centre, because I need the money.
>
> > > So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
> > > sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!
>
> > I only handed it in a couple of months ago.
>
> Might as well have been five years.
>

As usual, your opinion about the matter is utterly worthless. Of
course I'm going to find a good job within the next year. Anyway,
whether I do or not has no bearing on the quality of my work, unless I
try to find an academic job.

> > > > I spend almost all of my spare
>
> > > !!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > time engaged in study and research.
>
> > > Isn't that special.
>
> > You're such a joke. I'm a productive mathematician.
>
> You're a worthless, dinner-interrupting telemarketer - i.e., scum.
> People hate your guts.
>

No. We're not doing cold-calling to private homes, it's to businesses
with whom we have an established relationship. I couldn't care less
about your opinion of this particular aspect of what I'm doing at the
moment. I'm doing lots of different things. What do you do, what have
you achieved, that's so extraordinarily valuable?

> > > > > > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > > > > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > > > > > outside your expertise.
>
> > > > > > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> > > > > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> > > > This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.
>
> > > I am, and I am correct.
>
> > 'Fraid not.
>
> I am correct.
>

You think you are, but many people I know who would clearly be in a
better position to judge than you think differently.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > > > > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > > > > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > > > > > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > > > > > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > > > > > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > > > > > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > > > > > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > > > > > get that one.
>
> > > > > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> > > > You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
>
> > > It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.
>
> > The only piece of decent evidence you have regarding that matter is
>
> The fact that you're here.
>

That has no bearing on the matter at all.

>
>
> > > > > You'll be some dull plodding
> > > > > assistant professor at best.
>
> > > > Again,
>
> > > Always.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 14, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:36 pm, stupid boy **** rupert lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 2:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 8:57 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 1:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 7:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 4:38 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 9:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:21 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's not false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > > > > > > Of course it is, rupie. You do it again:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Either something is morally permitted or it isn't.
>
> > > > > > > > > WRONG, rupie. If there is no moral dimension to it, rupie, it is
> > > > > > > > > NEITHER.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's the basic premise your whole argument rests on
>
> > > > > > > It is axiomatic.
>
> > > > > > No, it's complete and obvious nonsense.
>
> > > > > Wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that you either think something
> > > > > > > > > > > > is morally permitted or you don't.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > No, that's FALSE, rupie - that's the false bifurcation. BOTH of those
> > > > > > > > > > > assume that there is a moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > No, they do not.
>
> > > > > > > > > YES, rupie, they do.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You're far too stupid for this, rupie. Boy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid
>
> > > > > > > > > So - you're far too stupid, and far too fearful. Get the **** out,
> > > > > > > > > then.
>
> > > > > > > > You know, when I was psychotic
>
> > > > > > > Not "was", you psychotic wreck.
>
> > > > > > I have not been psychotic for over four years.
>
> > > > > Bullshit.
>
> > > > Why, exactly
>
> > > Because you exhibit psychosis all the time.
>
> > No, I don't.
>
> Yes, you do.
>

This is a delusion.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > And I'm not a boy, I'm a 31-year-old man.
>
> > > > > > > > > You're a BOY, rupie - a green, naive, isolated, inexperienced,
> > > > > > > > > immature BOY. I've seen your photo on your website. It screams
> > > > > > > > > "delicate BOY".
>
> > > > > > > > Apparently the way I look is
>
> > > > > > > A delicate flower of a boy. That's what you *are*, too.
>
> > > > > > And I'm immature
>
> > > > > Right.
>
> > > > you constantly act like a twelve-year-old.
>
> > > No.
>
> > It's plain for all to see
>
> No.
>

This is an example of it.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted;
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > So he's an ethical vegetarian?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > See below, ****drip.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't contradict the obvious fact
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Not a fact at all, let alone "obvious". That was a shit try, rupie.
>
> > > > > > > > > > A very obvious fact,
>
> > > > > > > > > Not a fact.
>
> > > > > > > > > > This is such a silly conversation. My contentions are perfectly
> > > > > > > > > > obvious to anyone who can understand English.
>
> > > > > > > > > It certainly is. You're dead wrong, but in your youthful and towering
> > > > > > > > > arrogance, you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > Yawn.
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, sure.
>
> > > > > > > > > rupie, it cannot be "morally permitted" for me to prefer blue cars to
> > > > > > > > > white ones.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, it can and clearly is.
>
> > > > > > > No, rupie. You reacted too soon, you stupid ****.
>
> > > > > > > > > The *reason* it cannot be, rupie, you arrogant
> > > > > > > > > egotistical youthful ****, is that if it could conceivably be morally
> > > > > > > > > permitted, then it MUST be conceivable that it might be morally
> > > > > > > > > *prohibited*.
>
> > > > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > > THINK for a change, rupie, you blabbering fool. If something admits
> > > > > > > of moral permission in the first place, then it necessarily must admit
> > > > > > > of moral prohibition.
>
> > > > > > What extraordinary drivel.
>
> > > > > No, rupie.
>
> > > > > > > My choice of color in cars clearly has no moral
> > > > > > > dimension, so it *cannot* be morally prohibited, meaning it cannot be
> > > > > > > morally permitted. The absence of prohibition does *NOT* mean
> > > > > > > permission, you stupid reeking ****.
>
> > > > > > Well, to me it obviously does,
>
> > > > > rupie, you stupid **** boy, you don't get to make up your own logic.
>
> > > > > If something has no underlying moral dimension, such as color
> > > > > preference, then it can be neither morally prohibited nor morally
> > > > > permitted.
>
> > > > Wrong.
>
> > > No, right.
>
> > > > Everything is either morally permitted or morally prohibited.
>
> > > FALSE. That's your ****witted false bifurcation again. It's a
> > > logical fallacy. This is obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary
> > > awareness of logic and plain language.
>
> > Yes, well, that's the dispute between us.
>
> There is no dispute.

Ridiculous.

> You're wrong. You're engaging in a logical
> fallacy, false bifurcation.
>

You think I'm wrong, Ball, but I think your opinions about the matter
are quite patently ludicrous, and I strongly suspect that most
intelligent people would agree with me about the matter. In any event,
you are certainly doing nothing by the way of making any sort of
argument, and in any case it is a trivial semantic dispute of no
particular consequence.

>
>
> > > > > The very concept is absurd in such a case.
>
> > > > > > > That's your false bifurcation.
> > > > > > > It is false.
>
> > > > > > > > > That is, there must be a moral issue underlying it, and
> > > > > > > > > if there is such an issue, then it must be examined, and it has to be
> > > > > > > > > at least possible that the issue could be resolved either way.
>
> > > > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > > > Because of the intrinsic nature of moral questions, you ****ing dope.
>
> > > > > > > > > If there is no moral issue at all, then we do not conclude, based on the
> > > > > > > > > lack of moral prohibition, that the thing is morally permitted.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, I do.
>
> > > > > > > Because you're given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > > > No, because I
>
> > > > > YES, because you're stupid, arrogant and given to false bifurcations.
>
> > > > > > > > As far as I'm concerned, saying something is morally
> > > > > > > > permitted simply *means* that there is a lack of moral prohibition,
>
> > > > > > > NO, you stupid plodding ****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 14, 2:41 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:39 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 2:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 13, 9:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 2:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 13, 8:59 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 1:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 13, 8:22 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > and fabricated a story about David Harrison
> > > > > > > > > > > > having *** sex on a houseboat,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Not a fabrication. He did.
>
> > > > > > > > > > This is probably just another ridiculous fantasy of yours,
>
> > > > > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, I hardly find that convincing, but in any case I couldn't care
> > > > > > > > less. You snipped the main point,
>
> > > > > > > The main point is that ****wit David Harrison was indeed soliciting
> > > > > > > kinky *** sex on his filthy houseboat.
>
> > > > > > Why would any adult care one way or the other,
>
> > > > > Why do you care why they care, ass-suck
>
> > > > I don't care in the least.
>
> > > That's obviously bullshit, rupie, or else you wouldn't have posed your
> > > ****witted question.
>
> > It was a rhetorical question
>
> Bullshit, you pathetic limp dick.

Anyone with the slightest grip on reality could see that it was a
rhetorical question.

On Jun 13, 10:08 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2:16 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:01 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > > > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > > > > > > talent.
>
> > > > > > > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > > > > > > talent or not.
>
> > > > > > > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > > > > > > As I say,
>
> > > > > > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > > > > > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> > > > > Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> > > > > worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.
>
> > > > Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.
>
> > > Well, I suppose that depends on your views about the value of
> > > mathematical research.
>
> > No. If you're spending your "professional" time bothering people as a
> > <snicker> telemarketer, then your Ph.D. obviously was a waste for the
> > taxpayer.
>
> Incidentally, we are not bothering people.

You are. Telemarketing = bothering people.


> Anyway, I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. It just means
> this is the best job that I've managed to find within two months of
> job search.

With a Ph.D. in maths. Priceless!


> > > > > Now you're
> > > > > saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> > > > > more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.
>
> > > > And that's true.
>
> > > If it were
>
> > It is.
>
> You don't have a clue one way or the other

One way or ANother, you semi-literate slag.

But I do have a clue - in fact, much more than that.


> > > > > > You
> > > > > > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> > > > > I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.
>
> > > > So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
> > > > You're unethical in the extreme.
>
> > > Not at all.
>
> > Completely.
>
> I am more ethical than you

You are wholly unethical, not least because you lie about your lack of
ethics.


> > > > > I'm working in a
> > > > > telemarketing centre, because I need the money.
>
> > > > So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
> > > > sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!
>
> > > I only handed it in a couple of months ago.
>
> > Might as well have been five years.
>
> As usual

!!!


> > > > > I spend almost all of my spare
>
> > > > !!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > time engaged in study and research.
>
> > > > Isn't that special.
>
> > > You're such a joke. I'm a productive mathematician.
>
> > You're a worthless, dinner-interrupting telemarketer - i.e., scum.
> > People hate your guts.
>
> No.

Yes.


> > > > > > > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > > > > > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > > > > > > outside your expertise.
>
> > > > > > > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> > > > > > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> > > > > This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.
>
> > > > I am, and I am correct.
>
> > > 'Fraid not.
>
> > I am correct.
>
> You think you are

I am.


> > > > > > > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > > > > > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > > > > > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > > > > > > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > > > > > > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > > > > > > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > > > > > > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > > > > > > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > > > > > > get that one.
>
> > > > > > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> > > > > You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
>
> > > > It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.
>
> > > The only piece of decent evidence you have regarding that matter is
>
> > The fact that you're here.
>
> That has no bearing on the matter at all.

It has all the bearing in the world. The fact that you spend a HUGE
amount of time here - you really are a wheezy windbag - instead of
doing research speaks volumes.


> > > > > > You'll be some dull plodding
> > > > > > assistant professor at best.
>
> > > > > Again,
>
> > > > Always.