Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #991 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 11:02 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
You cowardly son of a bitch. Every single question you raised was
addressed by me rationally and completely in the part you snipped away.
You can't deal with the argument so you throw up some ridiculous ruse of
an objection based on a misreading of the essay, then run for the hills
because *I* am supposedly not engaging in reasoned debate. You are an
utter and complete fraud.


You really are deluded, you know. Rightly or wrongly, I am extremely
unimpressed with the quality of your argumentation. I think that the
author of the essay would accept the criticisms of it that I am
making, and that your failure to appreciate the force of these
criticisms and address them adequately is due to your own limitations.


And I think you're a windbag who has a vastly overblown opinion of his
own competence.

That is what I think, rightly or wrongly. So I'm not being cowardly,
I'm just tiring of wasting time talking to you when I don't think that
you're engaging with the issues seriously and we aren't getting
anywhere. I may be wrong about that. But these speculations of yours
that I'm not engaging with the argument in "good faith" are delusion.
I really do believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have made some
forceful criticisms of the essay and that you aren't engaging with
them adequately. In fact I think that is true beyond reasonable doubt.
You really should try to stay in touch with reality, or you might end
up like Ball.


I sent an email to Jon Wetlesen describing your objection to the
rebuttal and inviting him to give his response or to weigh into the
discussion here. I hope he responds, maybe you'll listen to him. I give
up on you.


  #992 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 03:20 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 28, 7:26 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 1:04 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:33 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 26, 6:06 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:41 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
That's not the meaning of "discrimination" we're talking about here.
We're saying that, if you make different moral judgements about two
different cases, you're under an obligation to specify a morally
relevant difference between them.
How many times do I have to repeat this? The chief morally relevant
differences between humans and non-humans, in fact among all organisms, are
intelligence and sentience.
But this doesn't distinguish *all* humans from *all* nonhumans. How
many times do I have to repeat *that*?
You never even have to think it again, it has been dispelled by an
alternative way of approaching the whole subject of moral beings.
"THE MORAL STATUS OF BEINGS WHO ARE NOT PERSONS;
A CASUISTIC ARGUMENT "
Yes, I know you're impressed by that essay. I'm not impressed
You are incapable of being impressed by anything that dashes your
precious "argument from marginal cases".
I haven't seen anything that dashes it. If I did encounter a good
reply to it, I would be impressed.
You have, you weren't, predictable as all hell.
by that
part of it, as it stands. I don't find the explanation of the crucial
notion of "capacity" to be anything approaching adequate.
Nonsense, you're just stalling.
No, I'm not. There has been nothing resembling an adequate attempt at
defining the crucial notion of "capability". Without that, the
argument is a nonstarter.
At least you're using the right term in your stalling now.
"Capacity" is not even the word in
question, the word you are questioning is "capability", it refers to the
"inherent ability" (of free will, reason and a linguistic competence)
such as exists in infants, which is distinct from "operative ability" of
those things which exist in normal adults.
What is this "inherent ability" that infants have? You've got to
clarify the sense in which infants have an "inherent ability" to have
free will, reason, and linguistic competence. It's totally obscure.
It's not obscure. Human infants have the inherent capability to become a
moral agent and to exhibit the rest of the constellation of advanced
cognitive capabilities, free will, reason and linguistic competence.
You claim that every human infant with a brain has these capabilities?
Of course as with every organism, a few are born with serious
deficiencies, but they are the rare exception. It is sufficiently normal
for our species that it can be said to be a characteristic of our
species to have these capabilities.


The argument that individuals should be treated according to the
characteristics typical for their species is a different argument.
That's Carl Cohen's argument. It's not the argument in the essay we've
been talking about.


Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about.


Pfffft.

Cohen says that
species itself or "kind" is significant. Wetelesen says that it is the
"capabilities" that are significant, not an animal's species per se,


Yes, I know, this is exactly what I said....

and
if other species exhibited the abilities then they would be due the same
consideration.


Carl Cohen thinks that as well. The point is, Wetelesen accepts moral
individualism, Carl Cohen denies it. You're obviously not clear on
that distinction.

If you want to go with an approach that denies moral individualism,
that's fine, but it's not consistent with the approach taken in this
essay.

He even mentions that other species already deserve the
benefit of the doubt. The irony is that you claim to deny this approach,
yet your own approach of "relevantly similar" appears to be basically
the same thing.


My approach accepts moral individualism, like Wetelesen's. However,
unlike Wetelesen, I deny that there is any set of characteristics
common to all humans with a brain which no nonhumans have. Hence I
accept the argument from marginal cases.

That essay thinks that it can identify some
characteristics that almost all human individuals have but no nonhuman
animals have. That may be, but we haven't been given an adequate
explanation of what those characteristics are yet.


Yes you have, you're blind as a bat. I have repeated them a half dozen
times in this very post.



The same sense that baby eagles have the inherent ability to soar
hundreds of feet above the ground detect the slightest movement of a
mouse in the grass below. These are species-specific inherent capabilities.
Most eagles will develop the abilities you are talking about, and
there are various causal mechanisms for that. However, some baby
eagles will never develop such abilities, for various reasons, and to
get clear about whether these baby eagles still have the "capability"
to do it we need to get clear about what that *means*.
They are assumed to have the capabilities specific to their species, and
barring some birth deformity, accident, disease or other unusual event,
they will.


And why is that, exactly? Is it because the capability consists in
having certain types of genetic information in your cells, or some
such thing? Just try to give an explanation of what having the
capability actually consists in.


It consists of having the capabilities, that's all. Why can planes fly?
Why can birds fly? Why can humans reason? It's in their nature because
of the way they evolved.


This is all just babble. I can reason because of the structure of my
brain. Infants can't because their brain hasn't developed all that
structure yet, though there is some structure in common. You're saying
that the infant still somehow has the "capability" to reason.
Presumably you'd also say a broken plane still has the "capability" to
fly if it is some structure in common with a functioning plane, even
though it has some structural defects which prevent it from flying.
You've got to specify how much of the structure needs to be present.
This is why it's a matter for scientific investigation, not common
sense. It's a promissory note on a scientific research programme,
nothing more.

The key is that we are able to recognize which
beings have which capabilities because we know about them from
experience, and experience tells us that certain species have certain
capabilities and not others.


How? How does it tell us this? How does experience tell me that an
infant has the capability for reason? I don't even know what that
means. Does a fetus have the capability for reason? A zygote? A sperm-
egg pair? What about humans who will never develop cognitive
capacities beyond that of a dog? What makes it reasonable to say that
they have the "capability" for reason but a dog doesn't? Where is this
capability, in the genes, in the neural structure? How can this be
something that I can just observe from "everyday experience", as
opposed to a scientific hypothesis that needs to be substantiated by
research?

There's nothing in my everyday experience that tells me that a
permanently radically cognitively impaired human has any
"capabilities" that a nonhuman animal doesn't. There's nothing in
accepted science that tells me that either. Unless "capabilities" is a
code-word for "what's typical of the species". In that case, I don't
think you should confuse the issue by using the word "capabilities",
and I also think you're misinterpreting Wetelesen, I think you're
presenting Carl Cohen's argument using his words, mistakenly thinking
that it's his.

Those that do NOT possess the capabilities of their species
due to one of these unfortunate eventualities are anomalous, they don't
provide a basis to discard the rule which governs the species.


The author of that essay accepts moral individualism, which says that
individuals should be judged on the basis of their characteristics as
individuals, not on the basis of the characteristics of their species.


That's fine, that term is not found in the essay, however we are judging
individuals based on their individual capabilities,


Yes, whereas Cohen does not. This is the point I was making earlier
when you said I didn't know what I was talking about.

and discovering what
those capabilities are by referring to their species.


But why is species membership by itself a sufficient basis on which to
make the judgement? I can't think of a plausible account of anything
that should reasonably be called "capability" on which species
membership alone would be enough to make the judgement. I mean, you
might be saying, having the right DNA is enough, and we are justified
in assuming that members of the same species have the right DNA. It's
a pretty bizarre interpretion of "capability" if having the right DNA
is enough. I really don't see what's the big deal about having the
right DNA. And what about a Tay-Sachs infant? You might say, that's
just an inessential variation on the right DNA, they've still got
enough of the right DNA to have the "capabilities" in question. That's
a scientific hypothesis that has to be verified by research, not
something that can just be observed from everyday experience.

Just like we board
a plane when we want to fly, not a bus. We know by experience what the
capabilities of each are.


Yes, but if I find out that the plane is still being built, or that it
has serious structural defects in its engine which prevent it from
flying, I usually conclude that it didn't have the capabilities I was
after. How close to a functioning plane is "good enough"? What if all
the parts of the plane are lying disassembled on the floor, is the
capability still there? If I start to put them back together again, at
what point does the capability re-emerge? I have no idea how to go
about answering such questions, because I've been given no real clue
as to what having the "capability" amounts to.

In this respect, the author of that essay and I are in agreement. So
if the rebuttal of the argument from marginal cases is to succeed, he
must show that all humans (except perhaps those without brains) have
the "capabilities" in question. He would certainly accept this. Now, I
don't know how we would go about deciding which marginal humans have
the capabilities in question.


They all do. Marginal humans have the capabilities, but the capabilities
are hampered by a disability so the operative abilities do not all
develop.


What do you *mean* by this? I don't see how you could justify this
claim without giving some sort of account of exactly what went wrong
with their brain development. I don't see how the claim can be made
sense of without being tied to theories of brain development which are
a matter for scientific research, not everyday observation.

Since all humans by their inherent nature have the
capabilities, and no other species has them,


Well, it's very easy to say that. You apparently think this is
something that we can all immediately observe from everyday
experience. I have no idea what it means. You know Popper's
falsifiability criterion? For a hypothesis to say anything, it has to
be capable of being falsified. What future observations would lead you
to conculde that you were wrong about this? In particular, what future
observation would lead you to say "I was wrong, this human doesn't
have the capability in question"?

then deciding by species is
the only reasonable way to accomplish the task. We could interview every
chicken, mouse and cockroach, but that would be time consuming and we we
know already what the outcome will be.

This is because I don't understand what


having the capabilities in question consists in, I haven't been told.


It consists in having them, and the way we know if an individual *might*
have them is by checking to see if the individual belongs to a species
that has had ONE member which has exhibited them at least once in all of
recorded history.


As I say, I think this is a misinterpretation of Wetelesen. You seem
to be saying if one conspecific has the abilities, that is sufficient
for the capability to be present. I think that it is ridiculous to
call such a property a "capability" and I'm sure that's not what
Wetelesen means. Do you have the capability to understand the proof of
the independence of the continuum hypothesis, because I have the
ability to understand it? This is more like Carl Cohen's argument,
although I'm not sure he would regard one conspecific having the
abilities as being enough, he might want a majority of them to have
the abilities.

If so, then he does, if not, then he does not. It is
pure scientific reasoning. Lo and behold, aside from the occasional
malfunction, the operative abilities manifest or do not manifest, as the
case may be, every time. And no anomaly ever gives a non-human the
abilities. When that happens we will be forced to re-think.


Is it an a priori truth that all members of a given species have the
same capabilities? Or is that a hypothesis that we check by
investigation? If so, how would we go about verifying it? Why are you
so sure that it's true, how can you know?

I'll leave the rest in case you decide to respond.


Oh, look, I might respond later if you really want me to, but this is
pretty exhausting. My objections are the same as they've always been
and I think I've made them clear enough. I doubt anything new and
interesting is going to emerge if and when I respond to the rest.


  #993 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 03:22 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
You cowardly son of a bitch. Every single question you raised was
addressed by me rationally and completely in the part you snipped away.
You can't deal with the argument so you throw up some ridiculous ruse of
an objection based on a misreading of the essay, then run for the hills
because *I* am supposedly not engaging in reasoned debate. You are an
utter and complete fraud.


You really are deluded, you know. Rightly or wrongly, I am extremely
unimpressed with the quality of your argumentation. I think that the
author of the essay would accept the criticisms of it that I am
making, and that your failure to appreciate the force of these
criticisms and address them adequately is due to your own limitations.


And I think you're a windbag who has a vastly overblown opinion of his
own competence.

That is what I think, rightly or wrongly. So I'm not being cowardly,
I'm just tiring of wasting time talking to you when I don't think that
you're engaging with the issues seriously and we aren't getting
anywhere. I may be wrong about that. But these speculations of yours
that I'm not engaging with the argument in "good faith" are delusion.
I really do believe, rightly or wrongly, that I have made some
forceful criticisms of the essay and that you aren't engaging with
them adequately. In fact I think that is true beyond reasonable doubt.
You really should try to stay in touch with reality, or you might end
up like Ball.


I sent an email to Jon Wetlesen describing your objection to the
rebuttal and inviting him to give his response or to weigh into the
discussion here. I hope he responds, maybe you'll listen to him. I give
up on you.


Well, that would be great.

  #994 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 03:59 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.
  #995 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:07 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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? Funnily enough, I have similar thoughts about you.

Come on, Ball, let's be serious here. You really think your lame,
childish name-calling has any effect on me other than amusement?
You're making a clown out of yourself in public, and I'm enjoying
making fun of you. That's what's going on.

Let me guess. You're going to snip everything except "You think?"



  #996 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:11 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.
  #997 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:19 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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", Ball? Tell us all about this vast imaginary audience
that shares your warped view of reality.

How about when I was having fun with you when you tried to tell me
that "axiomatizable" wasn't a word? That was masochism on my part, was
it?

  #998 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:21 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.


Ball, can you tell me which university you did your Ph.D. at? I'd like
to know more about this university which awards a Ph.D. to a man who
thinks he can critique a mathematical paper by consulting an online
dictionary. Also, I'd like to confirm that you did actually receive a
Ph.D..

  #999 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:53 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.
  #1000 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-07-2007, 04:54 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.


  #1001 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 04:01 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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 who do sensible things like try to critique a
mathematical paper armed with an online dictionary and absolutely no
knowledge of mathematics, and who publicly humiliate themselves by
tossing out childish insults like "whore" and "queer", while deluding
themselves into thinking that they are scoring points and make the
other person seethe with rage as opposed to howl with laughter, and
who challenge people to meet a burden of proof, and then, when the
challenge is met, feign falling asleep, and who make up silly stories
about things like people soliciting *** sex on houseboats or being
destined to be a career telemarketer despite having a Ph.D. in maths,
and then fail to appreciate the irony in their mocking someone for
having a history of mental illness? Those kind of sensible people?
That's what "sensible" is, is it, Ball?

  #1002 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 04:04 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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. So apparently for some reason you thought this attempt at
repartee would be your best shot at a crushing response, as opposed to
proving to me that you have a Ph.D., which you easily could have done
if it were the case. Very interesting.

So, Ball, you're endlessly repeating the meaningless word "fruity"
whereas I'm making cogent meaningful points about what an incredibly
silly clown you are. Am I to take it you think that you're the one
who's got the upper hand, and I'm the one who's being masochistic?

  #1003 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:11 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
ges ges is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jul 26, 1:43 am, Rupert 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, Ball. There's no need to be a sore loser. You got the
idea that you could critique my paper by consulting an online
dictionary, and you made even more of an astounding clown of yourself
than usual, which was quite impressive. Accept it, and deal with it.
Learn to see the humour in it. It's good to be able to laugh at
yourself. And try to get something positive about the experience; try
not to be quite so mindless in trying to find excuses for putting
people down. That way you may make less of a clown of yourself in the
future.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




no one seems to be able to laugh at themselves.

that's why everyone's an asshole in the first place.


duh.


  #1004 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:39 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.
  #1005 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-07-2007, 05:40 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 07:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017