Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:40 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 7:27 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 5, 7:21 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> {..]
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be right for you to kill a chicken who happened to be passing by
>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> because you felt hungry, no.
>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Isn't the hunger of a highly sentient being more important
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> life of a marginally sentient one?
>>>>>>>>> Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in other ways.
>>>>>>>> Why must I opt for those other ways when I prefer this way?
>>>>>>> Well, the reason why you must, *according to preference
>>>>>>> utilitarianism*, is clear. And my only purpose in this discussion has
>>>>>>> been to explain what preference utilitarianism says. I am not trying
>>>>>>> to defend it. That said, I think your choice of the more harmful meal
>>>>>>> needs a bit more justification than just your taste preferences.
>>>>>> Why? Nobody chooses the "least harmful meal" including you.
>>>>> What of it? How does that cast any doubt on what I said?
>>>> You said, "Not really, not when you can easily assuage your hunger in
>>>> other ways."
>>>> How am I obliged to choose other ways that are less preferable to me
>>>> when everyone chooses options that are less than ideal?
>>> Everyone choose options that are less than ideal, everyone also thinks
>>> that there are some limitations on the amount of harm you are allowed
>>> to cause. The question is where to draw the line.
>> Shouldn't your focus be on your own line, not mine?
>>
>> Not everyone thinks that they have figured out that 99% of the people in
>> the world have it wrong.
>>
>
> 99% of the people in the world haven't given any serious thought to
> this issue at all, and know little or nothing about the way animals
> are actually treated.

You're engaging in the worst kind of intellectual snobbery. You don't
know any more about how animals are actually treated than the average
person on the street. In fact you have a perception based on Animal
Rights propaganda that is likely less accurate.

> They just continue doing what they are doing out
> of habit, they're not interested in subjecting it to serious scrutiny.

More snobbery and pretension, if vegans want to scrutinize they need to
start with their own food, there's lots of death and suffering there to
keep them in hand wringing for a few years at least.

> Among people who have actually given the issue some serious thought,
> your position is one reasonable one to take, my position is another
> reasonable one to take, probably a position like mine is taken by
> about as many people as those who take a position like yours.

You're kidding yourself, not that I really know what your position is,
but from what I can deduce, you're part of the 1%.

> In any
> case, argumentum ad populum is a pretty weak way of defending your
> position.

I didn't use argumentum ad populum to support my position, I am telling
you a fact to put in your pocket for future reference, you form part of
a tiny minority. I realize you probably think that is irrelevant at
worst, probably a good thing, being rather elitist in nature, as you
previous statements confirm, but to a rational person it would give pause.

And incidentally, talking about "argumentums", look up "argument ad
baculum", you use it constantly.

>>>>>> And that also
>>>>>> misses the point that the chicken might be less harmful than other meals
>>>>>> which you might prefer I eat.
>>>>> Why would I prefer that you eat a more harmful meal?
>>>> Based on your previous statement you very plausibly might prefer that I
>>>> assuage my hunger by eating rice, beans, vegetables and fruit rather
>>>> than the free-range chicken breast I prefer, regardless of the total
>>>> harm resulting from the foods.
>>> No. The total harm resulting from the foods is the primary moral
>>> consideration.
>> Not according to veganism which preaches "no animal products" as the
>> rule, particularly no meat. Unless the promoters of veganism believe in
>> one thing and preach something else. Is that possible?? :^\
>>
>
> People who believe that a vegan diet is morally obligatory believe
> that the only way to minimize harm is to avoid all animal products.
> You have offered criticism of this view, and as you know I accept that
> it might be wrong, so I don't know why you are bringing up the views
> of some other people in the context of this discussion. It's a dispute
> about the facts, I really don't see why you are making such a big deal
> out of it. Most vegan diets that people actually follow *are* better
> than most non-vegan diets that people actually follow. As a general
> rule of thumb, going vegan is a pretty reasonable strategy. There are
> some other strategies which may be reasonable as well.

I'm not going argue this point, except to say that if all that was being
touted was veganism is "a pretty reasonable strategy" not many of us
would find anything to complain about. However, given that you strongly
advocate such ideas as "equal consideration" and "the argument from
marginal cases" I have some trouble taking your vow of moderation seriously.

>>>> This might be based on your focus on the
>>>> fact that the chicken is visible, it is killed directly and
>>>> deliberately, whereas the harm caused by the other food is more easily
>>>> ignored, justified, less definitive.
>>> No. What I think is that people should make every reasonable effort to
>>> minimize the total amount of harm caused. Some non-vegan diets might
>>> be consistent with this.
>> They certainly would be if I happen to define unreasonable to include
>> abstaining from all animal products. And I do..
>>
>
> Why? What's so unreasonable about it? Most people are able to be
> perfectly healthy and happy and eat lots of delicious food while being
> completely vegan.

I'm not them. I lived a vegetarian lifestyle for 18 years, it was very
good at first, pretty good for a long time, and not very good for the
last few years, and I had some difficulty quitting. My experience
reflects that of many others. I'm sure you have seen this website.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

>>>>>> Why are you so intent on convicting me of
>>>>>> immoral behaviour? What do you expect to gain by it?
>>>>> Why are you incapable of grasping the fact that I have never once
>>>>> accused you of immoral behaviour? I made a perfectly reasonable
>>>>> statement. Are you interested in talking about my views or aren't you?
>>>>> Will you please get over this absurd fixation on the supposed terrible
>>>>> wrong of others accusing you of immoral behaviour. I'm here to talk
>>>>> about ethics, not to help you evaluate your lifestyle. That's your
>>>>> business.
>>>> Sorry if I seem touchy, but when you say that I should not eat a chicken
>>>> because I have other options that is a pretty harsh indictment of the
>>>> choices I make.
>>> It seems likely that the chicken you buy will have been produced in
>>> ways that cause significantly more harm than is caused by the
>>> production of other foods, such as most plant-based food.
>> Does it now, show your evidence of this.
>>
>
> So you *do* want to talk about this? In other places in this post you
> say it's none of my business and you're not interested in discussing
> it.
>
> My judgement was based on what I know about the way most chicken is
> produced, and the level of crop input that most chicken requires. The
> chicken you buy may be different for all I know, but given your
> admission that you do buy factory-farmed meat when it's the only meat
> you can find, I found that somewhat unlikely.
>
> We can talk about it if you want to. You tell me what chicken you buy
> and we'll try to find out how it was produced and make some sort of
> estimate as to whether it causes more harm than most plant-based food.
> Maybe it will turn out it doesn't, it was just a guess on my part. We
> can try and work it out if you want to, if you're interested in
> discussing the issue. I can't say I'm utterly fascinated.

I don't really mind, but that would only be one part of the equation, we
need to choose some plant-based foods to go up against. Any suggestions?


>>> The benefit
>>> which you obtain from eating the chicken over and above the benefit
>>> you could obtain by eating less harmfully produced food seems fairly
>>> trivial.
>> Not to me it doesn't. With regards to diet it is distinctly non-trivial.
>>
>
> Very interesting.

Enjoyment of food is extremely important to me. If it were a matter of
one food being completely devoid of implication in animal death and the
other not, then there might be a basis to start rethinking, but when it
gets down to a counting game, then I know that it's a ruse, a ploy to
enforce a quasi-political agenda, not an attempt to spare animal suffering.


>>> So, is it justifiable? Well, you decide. I simply expressed
>>> the view that some justification was needed.
>> To whom? I don't know of any ruling body that is requiring that we
>> provide any such justification, provided we are acting within the law.
>>
>
> It's a view about the methodology of moral philosophy. I can't believe
> I had to explain that. Do you want to talk about ethics or don't you?

Yes, obviously I do. Why don't you start by justifying your choices, and
see where that leads us?


> If you don't think it's legitimate to suggest that any justification
> is required beyond what is required by the current law, then what are
> you doing in an ethics forum? For God's sake.
>
>>> Seems like a pretty
>>> reasonable view to me.
>> It seems a little on the nosy side to me.
>>
>
> You were the one who brought up the issue of whether eating a chicken
> is justifiable. In response I expressed the view that inflicting more
> harm than was necessary required some justification. That's a very
> reasonable view. If you find it an affront, if that strikes you as
> "nosy", then that's utterly absurd, and an animal ethics forum is not
> the place for you. The purpose of this forum is to discuss issues of
> animal ethics, without interpreting every view that is expressed as a
> personal attack.

Your point is taken, please start by justifying your diet and lifestyle
in the context of your stated beliefs, i.e. "equal consideration" and
"the argument from marginal cases".
>
>>> No doubt you have given serious consideration
>>> to the question of whether or not your behaviour is justified.
>> Maybe I have, but it's my business.
>
> Quite. Never suggested otherwise. I only wish we could stop talking
> about it and actually get on with discussing some animal ethics.

Good idea, I will wait for you to start off.


>> I'm not doing anything strange.
>>
>>> It's
>>> your business, not mine. I don't know what kind of chicken you buy and
>>> I don't know how much crop input is required for chicken production. I
>>> haven't formed a definitive opinion about your behaviour, which I
>>> don't know very much about anyway, and I can't really say I'm all that
>>> interested in the matter, I'm here to discuss animal ethics. If you
>>> find it offensive that anyone would dare to suggest that your
>>> behaviour might be morally questioned, then maybe an animal ethics
>>> forum isn't the place for you.
>> What better place to express the opinion that within the law what I eat
>> is nobody else's business but mine, unless I choose to discuss it?
>>
>
> That's not in question. However, usually when people come to an animal
> ethics forum they have a desire to discuss something to do with animal
> ethics. And you don't seem to be capable of doing that without getting
> offended that anyone would dare to criticize your diet, even though no-
> one actually has.

Not true, however when you state that I must give equal consideration to
animals and I must justify eating chicken you can't blame me for
inferring a criticism.


> Animal ethics forums are for people who think critically about the way
> we produce our food, who don't just assume that any choice within the
> law is okay, who are prepared to subject it to critical discussion.
> Most people are perfeclty happy to let you do whatever you want within
> the law. Some people have formed views which are critical of the
> status quo, and seek to persuade others of those views by reasoned
> discussion and participation in the political process. It's bizarre
> that you would seek out those people and tell them you're allowed to
> do whatever you want, as if society somehow seriously called that into
> question, as if you were somehow affronted by the views they'd
> formed.
>
> I've never expressed any interest in discussing your diet. Everytime I
> make a statement about animal ethics it comes back to you. You seem to
> *want* to discuss your diet. We can if you want. If you don't want to,
> then can we please stop relating every statement I make back to you?
> Just talk about the issues.

OK, you first.

>
>>> I really don't see how you can run an
>>> animal ethics forum on the basis that nobody is allowed to express
>>> opinions which entail that what other people are doing might be
>>> morally wrong.
>> You're allowed to express that opinion, and I'm allowed to tell you to
>> mind your own business if you don't accept my reasonable response, which
>> is to tell you that we all cause harm to animals.
>>
>
> Which is a stupid response. Just below we talk about people who
> support dogfighting. If they made such a response it would be stupid,
> I'm sure you agree.

I didn't think I needed to explain that when I say "we all cause harm to
animals" I did not mean torturing them in dog pits for entertainment, I
meant in the normal course of obtaining food and going respectfully
about our daily lives. Do I need to be more explicit? Free-range organic
chicken or wild salmon cause animal death; rice, bananas, peaches and
soya products cause animal deaths.

>>> You're prepared to morally condemn other people for
>>> supporting dogfighting, for example.
>> And they're free to tell me that my criticism is unwarranted if they dare.
>>
>
> Quite. And you are free to defend your diet if you choose to. Or,
> alternatively, you can choose not to make it an issue.

I don't quite get why I am the one defending my diet, YOU are the one
who claims to believe that animals should be accorded equal
consideration, it seems like YOU should be the one who's choices are
under the microscope, not mine, I believe that it is legitimate to kill
animals for purposes such as food production.


[..]

> It's not reasonable to get offended just because someone else accepts
> the ethical vegan position (or some approximation thereto). You're
> making this all about you, carrying on as though you're the victim of
> a personal attack just because other people have come to different
> conclusions than you.

I'm offended when someone, particularly a member of a marginal minority,
decides that I need to justify eating a chicken because THEY in their
wisdom have decided that I am violating some universal moral principle
by doing so. It's not really so much that I am offended, I am moved to
convince them that there is a way to pursue a personal ideal
respectfully within the confines of their own life, and that they will
ultimately be happier for it.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>> You know,
>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>> Very good.
>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>> can you tell me which
>>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
>>>>> Right.
>>>> Right.
>>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
>> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
>> psychosis.
>
> God help me, Rudy, you are

Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.

On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You know,
> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>> Very good.
> >>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>> can you tell me which
> >>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
> >>>>> Right.
> >>>> Right.
> >>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
> >> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
> >> psychosis.
>
> > God help me, Rudy, you are
>
> Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.

Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there, Ball?

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
> > ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>
> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> has-been.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
>>>>>>>>>> ...but not you.
>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
>>>>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
>>>>>>> Oh, I do.
>>>>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
>>>>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
>>>>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
>>>>> people view the world
>>>> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
>>>> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
>>>> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
>>>> from you.
>>> Yes, I am fully familiar with them,
>> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
>> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.
>
> I really find it extraordinarily amusing that

rupie, you don't find any part of this amusing. You've
repeated that lie several dozen times, and it's
risible. You're infuriated. Cut the shit, boy.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
>>
>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>> has-been.
>
> Your opinion really has value, doesn't it

Lots.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
>>>>> overall
>>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
>>>>> future time,
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us.
>>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to
>>>>> death for
>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> sentient being, like a chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
>>>>>>>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
>>>>> My
>>>>>>>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
>>>>>>>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
>>>>>>>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
>>>>>>>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
>>>>>>>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
>>>>>>> This is nonsense
>>>>>> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
>>>>> That's not an argument.
>>>> It's a observation based in fact.
>>> What facts?
>> Weights are assigned, ****wit, and they're arbitrary,
>> and manipulated to get to where you want to go.
>>
>
> Give some evidence for this contention.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal
>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
>>>>> moral
>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
>>>>> interests of all
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
>>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
>>>>> chicken?
>>>>>>>>>> It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
>>>>>>>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
>>>>> used in
>>>>>>>>> the phrase being defined.
>>>>>>>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
>>>>>>>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
>>>>>>> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
>>>>>> No. There's no such thing as morality in
>>>>>> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
>>>>>> blabbering about entities' preferences.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> Not an argument, and anyway false.
>>> You presented no argument
>> False.
>>
>
> Where's the argument?

Go back and look.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Very good.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>> can you tell me which
>>>>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>> Right.
>>>>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
>>>> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
>>>> psychosis.
>>> God help me, Rudy, you are
>> Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.
>
> Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there

No, fruit; bored and disgusted with your juvenile antics.

On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
>
> >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >> has-been.
>
> > Your opinion really has value, doesn't it
>
> Lots.

I see. It is now up on my webpage what your best effort was at
answering my talk was. And your opinion has lots of value, and you are
competent to criticize someone like Regan. You really are a funny
clown, Ball.

On Aug 1, 1:01 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
> >>>>> overall
> >>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
> >>>>> future time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to
> >>>>> death for
> >>>>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>>>> sentient being, like a chicken?
> >>>>>>>>>> Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
> >>>>>>>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
> >>>>> is not
> >>>>>>>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
> >>>>> My
> >>>>>>>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
> >>>>>>>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
> >>>>>>>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
> >>>>>>>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
> >>>>>>>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
> >>>>>>> This is nonsense
> >>>>>> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
> >>>>> That's not an argument.
> >>>> It's a observation based in fact.
> >>> What facts?
> >> Weights are assigned, ****wit, and they're arbitrary,
> >> and manipulated to get to where you want to go.
>
> > Give some evidence for this contention.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
> >>>>> moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
> >>>>> interests of all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
> >>>>> chicken?
> >>>>>>>>>> It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
> >>>>>>>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
> >>>>> used in
> >>>>>>>>> the phrase being defined.
> >>>>>>>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
> >>>>>>>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
> >>>>>>> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
> >>>>>> No. There's no such thing as morality in
> >>>>>> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
> >>>>>> blabbering about entities' preferences.
> >>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>> Not an argument, and anyway false.
> >>> You presented no argument
> >> False.
>
> > Where's the argument?
>
> Go back and look.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're such a joke. It's all there in the quotes, I don't need to go
back and look. You wrote "No. There's no such thing as morality in
utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by blabbering about
entities' preferences." And that's all you wrote. That's an assertion,
not an argument.

On Jul 31, 3:33 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Jul 31, 12:46 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
>
> > >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> > >> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> > >> has-been.
>
> > > Your opinion really has value, doesn't it
>
> > Lots.
>
> I see. It is now up on my webpage

Take the name off your webpage, fruit. Now.

On Aug 1, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Very good.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>> can you tell me which
> >>>>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
> >>>>>>> Right.
> >>>>>> Right.
> >>>>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
> >>>> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
> >>>> psychosis.
> >>> God help me, Rudy, you are
> >> Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.
>
> > Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there
>
> No, fruit; bored and disgusted with your juvenile antics.

God help me, that is rich. You think you're in a position to be
talking to people about juvenile antics? It is you who are providing
the comic material with your juvenile antics.

If you're so bored, why do you keep replying? You really shouldn't be
doing it to yourself anyway.

On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>>>>>> Oh, I do.
> >>>>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >>>>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >>>>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >>>>>> dishonest.
> >>>>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> >>>>> people view the world
> >>>> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> >>>> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> >>>> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> >>>> from you.
> >>> Yes, I am fully familiar with them,
> >> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
> >> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.
>
> > I really find it extraordinarily amusing that
>
> rupie, you don't find any part of this amusing.

You have *no idea* how much I laughed when I read that statement.
Thank you so much.

> You've
> repeated that lie several dozen times, and it's
> risible. You're infuriated. Cut the shit, boy.

Oh, thank you, Ball, thank you. Just wonderful.

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...but not you.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
>>>>>>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I do.
>>>>>>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
>>>>>>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
>>>>>>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
>>>>>>>> dishonest.
>>>>>>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
>>>>>>> people view the world
>>>>>> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
>>>>>> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
>>>>>> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
>>>>>> from you.
>>>>> Yes, I am fully familiar with them,
>>>> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
>>>> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.
>>> I really find it extraordinarily amusing that
>> rupie, you don't find any part of this amusing.
>
> You have *no idea* how much I laughed

You didn't laugh, fruit. Stop lying.


>> You've
>> repeated that lie several dozen times, and it's
>> risible. You're infuriated. Cut the shit, boy.
>
> Oh, thank you, Rudy, thank you.

You really are a bizarre fruit, rupie.

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>> can you tell me which
>>>>>>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
>>>>>> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
>>>>>> psychosis.
>>>>> God help me, Rudy, you are
>>>> Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.
>>> Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there
>> No, fruit; bored and disgusted with your juvenile antics.
>
> God help me,

**** off, rupie, you goofy fruit.

On Jul 31, 11:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> can you tell me which
> >>>>>>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
> >>>>>>>>> Right.
> >>>>>>>> Right.
> >>>>>>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
> >>>>>> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
> >>>>>> psychosis.
> >>>>> God help me, Rudy, you are
> >>>> Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.
> >>> Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there
> >> No, fruit; bored and disgusted with your juvenile antics.
>
> > God help me,
>
> **** off, rupie, you goofy fruit.



Anyone can tell when they've thoroughly kicked Goo's ass: he tells
them to "feck eff".

It's all he has left.

On Aug 1, 3:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 31, 3:43 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 12:32 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:40 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There, there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gee,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Very good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> can you tell me which
> >>>>>>>>>> You stupid bitchy little fruit.
> >>>>>>>>> Right.
> >>>>>>>> Right.
> >>>>>>> You're really desperately hoping I'll get bored
> >>>>>> I know you won't be, rupie. It's a symptom of your
> >>>>>> psychosis.
> >>>>> God help me, Rudy, you are
> >>>> Blow it out your pompous ass, rupie.
> >>> Could it be we're getting just a wee bit frustrated there
> >> No, fruit; bored and disgusted with your juvenile antics.
>
> > God help me,
>
> **** off, rupie, you goofy fruit.

Now, is that the way to talk to me when I've just done you a nice
favour? I've indulged your cowardly, pathetic desire to keep your
schoolyard antics here hidden from the adult world. See what a good
pal I am? Shouldn't you be saying "Thank you"?

On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>>>> Oh, I do.
> >>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >>>> dishonest.
> >>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> >>> people view the world
> >> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> >> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> >> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> >> from you.
>
> > Yes, I am fully familiar with them,
>
> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You've really got the wrong idea, Ball. I was royally amused. No
petulant foot-stamping. I wasn't frustrated in the least. I was just
asking you for more entertainment.

And you've been very generous providing entertainment lately.
Apparently, you're absolutely terrified at the prospect of your
behaviour here being publicized with your full name attached. I guess
you do have some idea about how sensible adults would view it, after
all, despite all your posturing. And I generously indulged this desire
of yours. Aren't I a good pal?

On Aug 1, 3:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>>>>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, I do.
> >>>>>>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >>>>>>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >>>>>>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >>>>>>>> dishonest.
> >>>>>>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> >>>>>>> people view the world
> >>>>>> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> >>>>>> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> >>>>>> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> >>>>>> from you.
> >>>>> Yes, I am fully familiar with them,
> >>>> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
> >>>> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.
> >>> I really find it extraordinarily amusing that
> >> rupie, you don't find any part of this amusing.
>
> > You have *no idea* how much I laughed
>
> You didn't laugh, fruit. Stop lying.
>

I practically split my sides. Why wouldn't I? Can it really be you
don't realize that?

And I suppose I didn't find the recent webpage incident amusing
either?

> >> You've
> >> repeated that lie several dozen times, and it's
> >> risible. You're infuriated. Cut the shit, boy.
>
> > Oh, thank you, Rudy, thank you.
>
> You really are a bizarre fruit, rupie.

I'm not the one who's terrified to have my conduct here publicized
next to my full name and photo.

I'm bored of this game of yours of changing the follow-ups. If you do
it again, I'll put the changes to my webpage back up again.

On Aug 1, 7:12 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 3:56 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Aug 1, 1:00 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Jul 31, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>> On Jul 30, 2:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sensible folk
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ...but not you.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> > >>>>>>>>>> Go back and read my posts.
> > >>>>>>>>> Oh, I do.
> > >>>>>>>> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> > >>>>>>>> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> > >>>>>>>> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> > >>>>>>>> dishonest.
> > >>>>>>> Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> > >>>>>>> people view the world
> > >>>>>> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> > >>>>>> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> > >>>>>> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> > >>>>>> from you.
> > >>>>> Yes, I am fully familiar with them,
> > >>>> So, your petulant stamping of your dainty foot in
> > >>>> demanding more was disingenuous and dishonest.
> > >>> I really find it extraordinarily amusing that
> > >> rupie, you don't find any part of this amusing.
>
> > > You have *no idea* how much I laughed
>
> > You didn't laugh, fruit. Stop lying.
>
> I practically split my sides. Why wouldn't I? Can it really be you
> don't realize that?
>
> And I suppose I didn't find the recent webpage incident amusing
> either?
>
> > >> You've
> > >> repeated that lie several dozen times, and it's
> > >> risible. You're infuriated. Cut the shit, boy.
>
> > > Oh, thank you, Rudy, thank you.
>
> > You really are a bizarre fruit, rupie.
>
> I'm not the one who's terrified to have my conduct here publicized
> next to my full name and photo.
>
> I'm bored of this game of yours of changing the follow-ups. If you do
> it again, I'll put the changes to my webpage back up again.




Uh..oh......I think you just made Goo poop in his panties!

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote .
>> lesley the lying HIV-spreading slut of Cork blabbered:
>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>> has-been.
>
> 'Bullies project

Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
of the collateral deaths issue.

Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:BvXsi.29050$fJ5.20442@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:

> >>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >> has-been.
> >
> > 'Bullies project
>
> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> of the collateral deaths issue.
>
> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.

You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> pearl wrote:
>
>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>>>> has-been.
>>> 'Bullies project
>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
>> of the collateral deaths issue.
>>
>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
>
> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.

I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.

Back to the topic..

Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
insulting and condescending.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> pearl wrote:
> >
> >>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >>>> has-been.
> >>> 'Bullies project
> >> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> >> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> >> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> >> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> >> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> >> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> >> of the collateral deaths issue.
> >>
> >> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
> >
> > You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>
> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.

And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.

> Back to the topic..
>
> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
> insulting and condescending.

What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
>>>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
>>>>>> has-been.
>>>>> 'Bullies project
>>>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
>>>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
>>>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
>>>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
>>>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
>>>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
>>>> of the collateral deaths issue.
>>>>
>>>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
>>> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
>> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
>
> And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
> crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.

What a sad, pathetic lot you are..

>> Back to the topic..
>>
>> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
>> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
>> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
>> insulting and condescending.
>
> What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?

Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Yn4ti.30018$fJ5.7804@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:ZJ3ti.29752$fJ5.24783@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>>>> ...speaks bullshit, as usual. Regan is a washed-up
> >>>>>> has-been.
> >>>>> 'Bullies project
> >>>> Regan's voice has the melodious tones of a cross between a preacher and
> >>>> a Johnny Cochrane type lawyer. In the followup video he is condescending
> >>>> as hell to the other speakers. How dare they express childish opinions
> >>>> that he has previously made mincemeat of in his books? Can't they read?
> >>>> How dare they not revere the great Animal Rights authors? His speech is
> >>>> long on emotive appeal and short on reason, no mention at all of course
> >>>> of the collateral deaths issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically he is pompous, rude and a bully.
> >>> You have no credibility, mr. balloon clown, and you're still projecting.
>>
> >> I'll remind you that you're the LAST person on earth that should be
> >> bringing up the subject of credibility ms tinfoil hat.
> >
> > And I'll remind you that every time you try that one on, you end up
> > crawling away with pie on your face. You are a proven liar, dutch.
>
> What a sad, pathetic lot you are..

Translation: "What a sad, pathetic person I am.."

> >> Back to the topic..
> >>
> >> Even in the hatchet-job of the video follow-up where all the against
> >> speakers are shown only a minute or so in total, a lot of valid points
> >> are raised which he never addresses in his conclusion, preferring to be
> >> insulting and condescending.
> >
> > What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?
>
> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.

What "valid points" doesn't he address, you projecting hypocrite?

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>
> What "valid points"

Watch the second video dimwit.

pearl wrote:

> What "valid points" doesn't he address

He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does. Do we place the
same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee? Steven Rose also makes this
point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence. Wetlesen's
essay moralstat99 is built on this principle. Regan spends half his
rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
little addressing their points. The people that uploaded the video, the
Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.

On Jul 22, 3:32 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> ricky's babysitter wrote:
> > I believe the description for someone who feels no guilt is
> > "psychopath".
>
> The description for someone who deals with their guilt by projecting it
> onto the rest of humanity is "vegan".



Utter tripe Douche and you know it.

BTW, thanks for the insight into your beautiful mind when you told us
murderers are good people.

On Jul 27, 1:05 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> >>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> >>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> >>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> >>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> >>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> >>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> >>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> >>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> >>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> >>> Er, no.
> >> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>
> > Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> > Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> >>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> >>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> >>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> >>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> >>>>>>>>> You really don't
> >>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> >>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> >>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> >>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> >>>>> Classic,
> >>>> And true.
> >>> Really?
> >> Yes.
>
> > Good ol'
>
> Stupid fruity ****wit.



Goo, do actually believe you are going to score points in a discussion
by calling the other party "a fruit"?

Is that the *only* thing you have to bring into any discussion?






- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 27, 6:59 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
>
> > > >>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> > > >>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> > > >>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> > > >>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> > > >>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> > > >>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> > > >>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> > > >>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> > > >>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> > > >>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> > > >>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> > > >>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> > > >>> Er, no.
> > > >> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
>
> > > > Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> > > > Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> > > >>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> > > >>>>>>>>> You really don't
> > > >>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> > > >>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> > > >>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> > > >>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> > > >>>>> Classic,
> > > >>>> And true.
> > > >>> Really?
> > > >> Yes.
>
> > > > Good ol'
>
> > > Stupid fruity ****wit.
>
> > Boring.
>
> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!



He's waiting for you to solve math problems using your dictionary.

Ha ha ha ha ha!




- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 28, 9:54 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert the lisping skirt-boy wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 4:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 27, 12:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 26, 3:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:18 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 15, 12:02 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 14, 11:49 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the paper I am working on at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://rupertmccallum.com/paper3.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...we describe anaxiomatizabletheory..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiomatizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You pompous fat ****.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear oh dear
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pound sand up your ass, rupie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got to admit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You must realize
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, if
> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>> There, there,
> >>>>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>>>> Gee,
> >>>>>> ****wit.
> >>>>> You know,
> >>>> ****wit. Stupid, fruity ****wit.
> >>> Very good.
> >> Yes. Yes, you stupid fruity ****wit.
>
> > can you tell me which
>
> You stupid bitchy little fruit.



WOW! ~jonnie~!

What a response. You are asked your university and you come back with
"fruit".

Can we infer that you conferred a PhD on yourself?





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 29, 9:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>> We know.
> >>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>> Sensible folk
> >> ...but not you.
>
> > Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
>
> Go back and read my posts.



The ones where you use a dictionary to attempt to solve a math
problem?



- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jul 29, 10:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2:22 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:53 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 29, 12:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 28, 10:59 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:05 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie lisped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 12:31 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fatuous shit-4-braincell rupie blabbered:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 4:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:30 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 12:21 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 4:54 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 12:45 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made it clear that you take the view that I am not entitled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to basic courtesy. At present, I choose not to engage with you while
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you continue to hold this view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient, no loss, you don't engage anyway, you evade,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not busy being condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me condescending is utterly absurd. You are much more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condescending than me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't know how to start being as condescending as you are. I would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never think of saying to someone that I am debating with that I am being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generous by helping them with their arguments like you said to rick. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be blunt, I may insult people when they get on my nerves, but I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not condescending.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you look up "condescension" in the dictionary, you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same smug, simpering picture that you see he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2xwqo6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, I've been biting my tongue on this one, but I have to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I'm a bit surprised that you feel you're in a position to try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put people down for the way they look.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the effete, simpering queer you appear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is an actual claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The picture speaks for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just answer the question
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There /is/ no question, skirt-boy: the picture
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portrays a fruity, delicate skirt-boy, and it speaks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you can tell from looking at my photo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your fruity photo.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you stop beating about the bush
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your photo is extremely fruity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jolly good. Well,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you beg to be called a fruit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Er, no.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERRRRRRRRRR...yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's focus on this claim clearly, Ball. By publishing my photo on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet, I am begging to be called a homosexual. Is that the story?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally there are a number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable questions in the quoted part above which I KNOW you have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adequate response to.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I do, because I have read enough of your responses to similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions to know how you will answer. You will brush the questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside with evasive, dismissive remarks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't know anything about my response until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to act like a decent human being.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A pact? You stop being condescending and evasive and I will attempt to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be more "polite".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been far more polite with skirt-boy than I have,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it hasn't got you anywhere. He's an arrogant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the antis here have been unreasonably rude to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have asked for it. It is perfectly reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not reasonable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is reasonable. You've asked for it, and your wish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been granted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite well, thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ask for the treatment you receive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your contemptible behaviour
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** off, squirt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your calling me "condescending" and "arrogant" is utterly farcical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no clue about how sensible people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have more than a 'clue', skirt-boy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do, rupie - much more than a clue, in fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a clue about how amusing that statement is to me?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't find it amusing, skirt-boy. You find it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infuriating. I can smell your rage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good ol'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid fruity ****wit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, rupie - sure. That's why you keep coming back isn't it -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're bored? Ha ha ha ha ha!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's fairly entertaining most of the time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're a masochist.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You think?
> >>>>>>>>>> We know.
> >>>>>>>>> Who are "we",
> >>>>>>>> Sensible folk. But not you.
> >>>>>>> Sensible folk
> >>>>>> ...but not you.
> >>>>> Tell us more about how sensible people view the world
> >>>> Go back and read my posts.
> >>> Oh, I do.
> >> Then you see that I already talk about how sensible
> >> people view the world, and your demand that I tell you
> >> more was disingenuous and, in your typical fashion,
> >> dishonest.
>
> > Yes, you make all sorts of interesting statements about how sensible
> > people view the world
>
> And so you are fully familiar with them, and your
> bitchy demand that I supply more was disingenuous and
> dishonest, which is what we have come always to expect
> from you.



Who is this "we" to keep mentioning?




- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ron wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:32 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> ricky's babysitter wrote:
>>> I believe the description for someone who feels no guilt is
>>> "psychopath".
>> The description for someone who deals with their guilt by projecting it
>> onto the rest of humanity is "vegan".
>
>
>
> Utter tripe Douche and you know it.

It's the truth, vegans think they elevate themselves on to a higher
moral plateau than the rest of us killers by avoiding animal products.
It's self-defense by projection. Deal with your bloody footprints
without bringing me into it.

> BTW, thanks for the insight into your beautiful mind when you told us
> murderers are good people.

That was Rupert.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:ahqti.31399$_d2.12296@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > What "valid points" doesn't he address
>
> He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
> no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does. Do we place the
> same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee? Steven Rose also makes this
> point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
> moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence. Wetlesen's
> essay moralstat99 is built on this principle. Regan spends half his
> rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
> little addressing their points. The people that uploaded the video, the
> Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
> towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.

Highly amused by the comparison between a chimp' and virus..
The intent of these videos is a focus on Tom Regan. There's a
great deal from both sides which isn't in the videos, the second
being just a very brief summing up. He says that the issues have
been addressed in the literature, and expresses astonishment that
none of these people had apparently read any of the AR literature
that they could put forward the arguments they did. Watch the
first video again. He states that what happens to sentient animals
matters to them as it does to us. That is what's morally relevant.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
> >> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
> >> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.

Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Ad...elated&search=

> > What "valid points"
>
> Watch the second video dimwit.

I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
"we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
"We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
> I see. It is now up on my webpage ...
URL?

Does it have stuff like:
http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt ??

> You really are a funny clown, Ball.
No; noBalls is a lonely, hateful, vulgar, self-destructive psychopath
who tries to get attention and waste sincere peoples' time by being vulgar
and insulting, for that is all he knows. He is just crying out for help.

"It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling." - noBalls

Laurie

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message >
> Take the name off your webpage, fruit. Now.

"Your sole purpose in life is to try to attack someone."
-- noBalls

Laurie

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>
> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker.

If you like rude, condescending blowhards. What colossal gall,
addressing those other speakers as if they were naughty students who
hadn't done their homework. Every one a highly respected person with
more credibility in their little fingers than Regan can ever aspire to.
He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.

Regan gets so much adulation from the converted, like you, that he
believes his own press clippings. He's so typical of ARAs, he make me puke.