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
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:16 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 11:06 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:29 pm, Rupert wrote:


On Aug 1, 8:03 am, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:56 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 1:09 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:34 pm, Rupert wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:40 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 31, 12:29 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:38 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:52 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:56 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:10 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Guppy the Corpse Pumper wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:08 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:52 pm, shrubkiller wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:42 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
you lisping utilitarian fruit.
Why would anyone have to prove something which is SELF EVIDENT?
It is not self-evident. In fact, it is more likely self-evidently
false.
More proof that
The proposition of equal moral considerability of
animals (with humans) is self evidently false.
Well, surely if I can be criticized for making an assertion without
meeting by burden of proof, then this assertion of yours here can
equally be criticized on that basis.
I'm just following your lead.
I see. Well, that blabber of mine to which I directed you
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I mean, you did ask me to defend my position in your opening post. So
I direct you towards a considered attempt at a defence
Post the content here, skirt-boy. I'm not interested
in signing up for your fruit-display Yahoo group.- Hide quoted text -
I don't think you have to sign up to the Yahoo group to download the
file. Dutch did it and I don't think he signed up. It's too long to
put in a newsgroup message. Maybe I'll put it on my webpage.
So, anyway, by your own admission you dismissed my talk as "babble"
without having read a single word of it.
I know that you assume that which you are required to
prove.
Yes, yes. You know a lot, Rudy.
Right - I do. I do know that you still assume in your
little sermon that animals are entitled to equal moral
consideration, when that premise is the very thing you
are tasked to show. You haven't shown it, and we all
know you can't.
You asked me for an argument. I gave you one.
You didn't. You merely repeated the assertion you
can't seem to support.
Okay, this is your response to my talk?
What talk? The unsupported blabber about animals being
due equal consideration?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I directed you to a document in the Files section of my Yahoo group.
Have you actually managed to download it yet? Or are you unable to
download it without joining my Yahoo group and do you want me to put
it up on my webpage?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've put it on my webpage for you. How could I refuse, when you asked
so nicely?
http://rupertmccallum.com/animal%20rights%20talk.doc
What laughable bullshit!
Here I want to discuss a short argument for this
conclusion which would probably be accepted as
sound, with perhaps some qualifications, by almost
all philosophers who hold the view that using
animals in scientific research is wrong.
In other words, people who have *ALREADY* reached the
very conclusion you're attempting to prove! HA HA HA
HA HA! You ****ing DILETTANTE fruit! "Philosopher" my
ass...
Is that your response, then?
Yes, you circular ****wit. You explicitly acknowledge that you are
assuming the very thing you are tasked with proving. What a ****ing
chump.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Jolly good. Let me just say that I cannot believe what a joke you are.
The idea that any respectable university ever gave you a Ph.D. is
quite absurd. I will publish your response on my webpage along with my
reply.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's up there. Your move.
http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html
Take the name off your page, fruit.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Let me get this straight,


Take it down, rupie. I know how to get that page
****ed up but good if you don't. Take it down. No one
authorized you to put anyone's name on your page. Take
it down.



LOL!!!


Goo is shittin' his panties.

He's afraid even more people will learn what a goof he is.







- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -




  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:18 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 2:37 am, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:17:16 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert wrote:


[..]


Why?


Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.


Could you elaborate? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?


A moral one. Keep your arguments with him on Usenet, not on a web
page which includes photographs and details of his whereabouts. You
want to go down Lesley's spiteful little road?


Why don't you just get on your knees before Goober and give him a damn
good tongue lashing?


  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:26 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:

There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.



You swine turd.
You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth.
You are a canker, a pus leaking sore, a weeping open wound.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a
stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a curdled, staggering, buck-toothed, bow-legged, mutant dwarf
smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged
birth into a hostile world made even more hostile by your presence.

You are insensate, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the stupified,
puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then died of shame
in recognition of what they had done. They were a bit late.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing.
You are scum, the dregs of this earth.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set
you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the
queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even whores won't have
sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention,
and lost in a land that reality forgot.

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a puerile slack-jawed drooling meat slapper.

Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get
your dog to play with you. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You
would watch p*rn' all day if the other inmates would let you.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of puke. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
sorrow wherever you go.

You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in
clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You
still would not have a clue.

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
to access it ever so much more rapidly.

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous
desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the
snake?

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension
of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid
collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed.
Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit
more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence
of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the
laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an
epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me
again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your
ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant
trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I
have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well...
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a
creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a
bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and
count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary
skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted and that
everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget
that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these
things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then
I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to
be placing such a demand on you.

You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, grim,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
maniacal, illegitimate, harmful, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
lame, self-righteous, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, nasty,
disgusting, lewd, repulsive, disagreeable, spiteful, threatening,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, perverse,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, hateful, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, censorious, deceptive, dim,
stifling, dyspeptic, despicable, uncaring, weird, crazy, dishonest.,
secretive, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, malignant, demented,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, aggressive,
mind-numbing, abrassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
abusive, socially-retarded, vile, puerile, and Generally Not Good

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would
go away.
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:30 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

[..]

Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.

Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.


I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.

What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.


You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.


This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.
  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:36 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:

There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.


All of the following is perfectly descriptive of your 'pal', and as
everything else on that page, posted in response to his conduct.

You swine turd.
You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth.
You are a canker, a pus leaking sore, a weeping open wound.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little
worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a
stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a curdled, staggering, buck-toothed, bow-legged, mutant dwarf
smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged
birth into a hostile world made even more hostile by your presence.

You are insensate, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the stupified,
puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then died of shame
in recognition of what they had done. They were a bit late.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing.
You are scum, the dregs of this earth.

You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set
you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the
queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even whores won't have
sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention,
and lost in a land that reality forgot.

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
loathsome disease, a puerile slack-jawed drooling meat slapper.

Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get
your dog to play with you. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You
would watch p*rn' all day if the other inmates would let you.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of puke. You are
deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
sorrow wherever you go.

You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in
clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You
still would not have a clue.

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting
to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able
to access it ever so much more rapidly.

And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us?
What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous
desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the
snake?

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension
of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid
collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed.
Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit
more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year.
Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our
universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence
of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the
laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an
epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me
again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your
ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant
trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I
have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well...
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a
creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a
bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and
count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary
skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted and that
everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget
that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these
things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then
I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to
be placing such a demand on you.

You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, grim,
belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
maniacal, illegitimate, harmful, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
lame, self-righteous, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, nasty,
disgusting, lewd, repulsive, disagreeable, spiteful, threatening,
libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, perverse,
devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, hateful, paternalistic,
fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
suppressive, controlling, restrictive, censorious, deceptive, dim,
stifling, dyspeptic, despicable, uncaring, weird, crazy, dishonest.,
secretive, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, malignant, demented,
brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, aggressive,
mind-numbing, abrassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
abusive, socially-retarded, vile, puerile, and Generally Not Good

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are
degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would
go away.





  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:46 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
On Aug 1, 2:37 am, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:17:16 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:17 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:39 -0700, Rupert wrote:
[..]
Why?
Because he hasn't given you his permission. Take it down.
Could you elaborate? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?

A moral one. Keep your arguments with him on Usenet, not on a web
page which includes photographs and details of his whereabouts. You
want to go down Lesley's spiteful little road?


Why don't you just get on your knees before Goober and give him a damn
good tongue lashing?



Keep your homo fantasies to yourself.
  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 09:49 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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


God help me, what a coward.


Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post personal references
and photos on your site.

canoza must be mexican castor oil and snot mix.
  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:35 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 skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]


Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.


I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.


What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.


You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.


This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That, my good friend, is absolute rubbish. I thought it might be fun
to publish a debate with Jonathan Ball on my webpage. I said I was
going to, and I did. I gave him fair warning that his remarks would be
published. It did not occur to me that the publication of his full
name would be an issue. He then tried to give me orders and threatened
illegal activity, so I showed him exactly how much I care about his
desire to protect his reputation and exactly how much he can do about
it. If he had asked me nicely, of course it wouldn't have been a
problem. There is absolutely no legal or moral reason why Ball should
be allowed to behave the way he does anonymously. He wants me to help
him be anonymous as a *favour*? As a sign of good will? Give me a
break.

I have now taken down everything except the debate and Jonathan's full
name. I may put the other additions back if I feel like it. If Ball
wants to protect his reputation, maybe he should, shock horror, behave
a bit better in public? Yeah, that might be a good idea. Everything I
put up there was factual and already in the public domain. I have
absolutely no reason to feel the least bit embarrassed about this
incident and I couldn't care less what you think about it. People
making moral criticisms of me but not Ball is utterly absurd. And as
for the "intellectual high ground", it clearly has absolutely no
bearing on that. Ball irritated me by trying to give me orders, so I
made some factual statements about him in public. Nothing un-
intellectual or immoral about that.

  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:38 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 skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 9:31 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:50:32 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert wrote:


[..]


Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.


You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
with him they can go through Google archives and find them
in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.


I've taken down the photo and the extra page I added. That's what a
nice guy I am. As for the question of having his full name up there,
he'll have to develop his negotiating skills if he wants me to get rid
of that. Perhaps he'll come to realize that it could be much worse.


I really find it extraordinary that you feel entitled to take the
moral high ground with me in the light of your behaviour towards Karen
Winter.


I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
after being kicked out of her parish.


Give me a break. Of course Karen's no threat to children. I don't
think even you believe such rubbish. It was a petty act of spite on
your part and you're certainly in no position to be taking the moral
high ground with me over this incident.

  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:41 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 skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert wrote:


[..]


Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.


You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
with him they can go through Google archives and find them
in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.


Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
to expect the same privilege?


Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
course of action against threats like her.


Karen's no threat to children. You're in no position to call me a
"spiteful little prick". You really should apologize for that one.

Ball has fantasized about commiting violent acts in public. And come
to think of that I didn't put that one up on my webpage, bit of an
oversight there. Ball is much more likely to be a threat to others
than Karen is.

It doesn't matter whether Ball actually is a danger to society. If he
acts the way he does in public, he's got no cause for complaint when
people decide to make his behaviour a little easier to find out about.
And, frankly, it really wasn't such a big deal. Hardly anyone looks at
my webpage, I don't know what his problem was. It really was quite
amusing the way he got so scared about it. What a pitiful coward.



  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:43 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 skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]


Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.


I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.


What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.


You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.


This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
a break.

  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:19 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]
Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.
I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.
What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.
You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.

This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That, my good friend, is absolute rubbish. I thought it might be fun
to publish a debate with Jonathan Ball on my webpage. I said I was
going to, and I did. I gave him fair warning that his remarks would be
published. It did not occur to me that the publication of his full
name would be an issue. He then tried to give me orders and threatened
illegal activity, so I showed him exactly how much I care about his
desire to protect his reputation and exactly how much he can do about
it. If he had asked me nicely, of course it wouldn't have been a
problem. There is absolutely no legal or moral reason why Ball should
be allowed to behave the way he does anonymously. He wants me to help
him be anonymous as a *favour*? As a sign of good will? Give me a
break.

I have now taken down everything except the debate and Jonathan's full
name. I may put the other additions back if I feel like it. If Ball
wants to protect his reputation, maybe he should, shock horror, behave
a bit better in public? Yeah, that might be a good idea. Everything I
put up there was factual and already in the public domain. I have
absolutely no reason to feel the least bit embarrassed about this
incident and I couldn't care less what you think about it. People
making moral criticisms of me but not Ball is utterly absurd. And as
for the "intellectual high ground", it clearly has absolutely no
bearing on that. Ball irritated me by trying to give me orders, so I
made some factual statements about him in public. Nothing un-
intellectual or immoral about that.


Windbag. Your whole "argument" with him shows that you aren't focused on
real debate. You enjoy the muck. If you really occupied intellectual
high ground you would killfile him.

  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:21 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]
Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.
I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.
What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.
You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.

This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
a break.


I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.
  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 12:53 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 5:21 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]
Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.
I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.
What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.
You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Why don't you, just once, make some comment about Ball's moral
character, instead of being his good pal all the time? Sheesh. Give me
a break.


I see nothing wrong with his moral character. He's got a down and dirty
usenet posting style and makes no bones about it. If you can't take the
heat stay out of the kitchen, it's trivially easy to killfile someone.





Is that your way of saying "Goo is a goof"?


  #150 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-08-2007, 01:13 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 skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 9:19 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 2, 5:30 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 1, 5:47 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
[..]
Take it down, rupie. You are not authorized to post
personal references and photos on your site.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay, well do you want to talk this over from the legal point of view?
Initially all I did was post a short excerpt from one of your posts in
the context of your full name. It didn't occur to me that it would be
an issue.
Now that he has specifically requested that you not publish personal
information about him, you should just take it down.
I've taken down the later changes I made. As for taking down the
actual name, we'll see. It's kind of an interesting concept, Jonathan
Ball asking me for a favour. We'll see how his negotiating skills
develop.
What's more you
ought to stop responding to him, it's not doing any good, he's just
mocking you.
You've got the idea that I'd be better off not replying to him, well,
I'm having fun making fun of him for the moment, actually, so thanks
for the advice but I think I'll ignore it.
This unseemly exchange just shows that your claims to moral and
intellectual high ground are nothing more than a charade.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


That, my good friend, is absolute rubbish. I thought it might be fun
to publish a debate with Jonathan Ball on my webpage. I said I was
going to, and I did. I gave him fair warning that his remarks would be
published. It did not occur to me that the publication of his full
name would be an issue. He then tried to give me orders and threatened
illegal activity, so I showed him exactly how much I care about his
desire to protect his reputation and exactly how much he can do about
it. If he had asked me nicely, of course it wouldn't have been a
problem. There is absolutely no legal or moral reason why Ball should
be allowed to behave the way he does anonymously. He wants me to help
him be anonymous as a *favour*? As a sign of good will? Give me a
break.


I have now taken down everything except the debate and Jonathan's full
name. I may put the other additions back if I feel like it. If Ball
wants to protect his reputation, maybe he should, shock horror, behave
a bit better in public? Yeah, that might be a good idea. Everything I
put up there was factual and already in the public domain. I have
absolutely no reason to feel the least bit embarrassed about this
incident and I couldn't care less what you think about it. People
making moral criticisms of me but not Ball is utterly absurd. And as
for the "intellectual high ground", it clearly has absolutely no
bearing on that. Ball irritated me by trying to give me orders, so I
made some factual statements about him in public. Nothing un-
intellectual or immoral about that.


Windbag. Your whole "argument" with him shows that you aren't focused on
real debate. You enjoy the muck. If you really occupied intellectual
high ground you would killfile him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I really don't care what you think about my behaviour. Yes, I enjoy
making fun of Jonathan Ball, and I don't particularly care what anyone
else thinks about it. He's a funny clown. Do you really have the idea
that you're in any position to criticize? How about what you just said
to Pearl?

Where do you suppose the real debate is to be had? From you? Yes, I
grant you you're *somewhat* more edifying than Ball. It is a relief to
have a real conversation for once.

And, for God's sake, why don't you or Derek just once make some
comment about Ball himself? Ball has been slinging mud at me for
years. He's taunted me for having a history of mental illness, he's
made defamatory statements to the effect that my medication is all
that stops me from committing mass murder, and yet ironically has
himself fantasized about committing violence towards me, and on and
on. And when I start making fun of him, and publishing information
about him which he's already put into the public domain and which it
is within my legal rights to do so, people start criticizing me for
being lowbrow and not being "nice". Why, for God's sake, is there not
one word of criticism of Ball himself?

I couldn't care less what you think about my interactions with Ball.



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
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 08:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 06:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 10:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017