FoodBanter.com - skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)

- Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)

- - skirt-boy: burden of proof not met (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/130004-skirt-boy-burden-proof.html)

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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?

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> 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?

Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page. Ball has continually,
spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
There are no details about his whereabouts on my page whatsoever,
although -he- gives (what he believes) are the whereabouts of others.
Ball acts like a 'big man'. The photos, from public web pages, show
that he's a ugly git. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> 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?
>
>Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
>There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.

[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful

>Ball has continually,
>spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
>over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
>and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.

I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
spiteful,
[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> 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?
> >
> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>
> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful

I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.

> >Ball has continually,
> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
>
> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
> spiteful,
> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> return for one received.]
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful

And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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 think Karen Winter had a lot more at stake than Jon Ball is
likely to have at stake with my silly little webpage. It hardly gets
any hits.

As Lesley says, there's plenty of public evidence of Jon Ball's net
activity. Try typing "Jonathan Ball animal rights" into Google. I
really don't know what he was making such a fuss about.

I basically regard this as trivial. My Google Groups profile has a
link to my website with my full name, photo, and CV. So I guess I find
it hard to empathize with Jon Ball's desire for privacy. Maybe he
should have thought of that when he first started posting using his
real name. As I say, if you think the right to privacy is so important
I really don't see how you can rationalize your behaviour towards
Karen Winter.

Anyway. The most recent changes I made to the webpage are gone. I'm
such a nice guy. Can't say fairer than that, now can you?

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
>> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>>
>> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
>I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
>
>> >Ball has continually,
>> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
>> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
>> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
>>
>> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
>> spiteful,
>> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
>> return for one received.]
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
>And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way

Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
is spiteful,

[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
revenge.]

[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]

>due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me.

No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
church officials is true and backed by evidence from
her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).

"Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
partners and as companions. A child-hating
pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
where they come in contact with children, and are
excellent in those fields because they understand
and like children, and can relate to them well on a
one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z

She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
paedophiles" access to children, including her own
son..

"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
http://snipurl.com/4aej

She believes society should stop making a big deal
out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
"responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
can then practice oral sex on them.

"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
And sometimes that love is provided by caring
and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o

She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
church communities where they can come into
contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
them.

"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8

Those comments are of real concern to me and
her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
from one parish only to then flee to another
which specialises in child care. Compounding my
concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
identity by openly lying like a common predator.

I think Karen Winter had a lot more at stake than Jon Ball is
>likely to have at stake with my silly little webpage. It hardly gets
>any hits.
>
>As Lesley says, there's plenty of public evidence of Jon Ball's net
>activity. Try typing "Jonathan Ball animal rights" into Google. I
>really don't know what he was making such a fuss about.
>
>I basically regard this as trivial. My Google Groups profile has a
>link to my website with my full name, photo, and CV. So I guess I find
>it hard to empathize with Jon Ball's desire for privacy. Maybe he
>should have thought of that when he first started posting using his
>real name. As I say, if you think the right to privacy is so important
>I really don't see how you can rationalize your behaviour towards
>Karen Winter.
>
>Anyway. The most recent changes I made to the webpage are gone. I'm
>such a nice guy. Can't say fairer than that, now can you?

You shouldn't have given in to petty revenge in the first place.
If you think he's a genuine threat, like I think Karen is, you
should've dealt with that threat in the usual way rather than
publish his particulars on a web page.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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.

Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
church officials is true and backed by evidence from
her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).

"Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
partners and as companions. A child-hating
pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
where they come in contact with children, and are
excellent in those fields because they understand
and like children, and can relate to them well on a
one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z

She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
paedophiles" access to children, including her own
son..

"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
http://snipurl.com/4aej

She believes society should stop making a big deal
out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
"responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
can then practice oral sex on them.

"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
And sometimes that love is provided by caring
and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o

She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
church communities where they can come into
contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
them.

"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8

Those comments are of real concern to me and
her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
from one parish only to then flee to another
which specialises in child care. Compounding my
concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
identity by openly lying about it like a common
predator.

>I'm having trouble fathoming the
>intricacies of your moral theory.

No, I don't believe that.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> 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?
> >> >
> >> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
> >> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
> >>
> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
> >
> >I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
> >
> >> >Ball has continually,
> >> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
> >> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
> >> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
> >>
> >> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
> >> spiteful,
> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> return for one received.]
> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
> >
> >And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
>
> Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
> is spiteful,

No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.

> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> revenge.]
>
> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> return for one received.]
>
> >due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.
>
> No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
> to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
> choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
> should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
> maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.

The definition(s) apply only in your imagination. Neither Rupert
or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:50:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> 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?
>> >> >
>> >> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
>> >> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>> >>
>> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
>> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>> >
>> >I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
>> >
>> >> >Ball has continually,
>> >> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
>> >> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
>> >> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
>> >>
>> >> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
>> >> spiteful,
>> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
>> >> return for one received.]
>> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>> >
>> >And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
>>
>> Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
>> is spiteful,
>
>No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.

No, I'm choosing to see it that way because it's the
given definition of the term, "spiteful".

>> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
>> revenge.]
>>
>> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
>> return for one received.]
>>
>> >due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.
>>
>> No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
>> to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
>> choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
>> should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
>> maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.
>
>The definition(s) apply only in your imagination.

No, the definitions apply and are given here,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful

[Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
revenge.]

[a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
return for one received.]

>Neither Rupert
>or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
>you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?

I'm not.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:50:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> 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?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
> >> >> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
> >> >>
> >> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
> >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
> >> >
> >> >I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
> >> >
> >> >> >Ball has continually,
> >> >> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
> >> >> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
> >> >> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
> >> >>
> >> >> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
> >> >> spiteful,
> >> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> >> return for one received.]
> >> >> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
> >> >
> >> >And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
> >>
> >> Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
> >> is spiteful,
> >
> >No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.
>
> No, I'm choosing to see it that way because it's the
> given definition of the term, "spiteful".

"Choosing" being the operative word..

Me, just above:
> my web page is a fun and convenient way to let
> others know exactly what we're dealing with.

Your reply, just above:
I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to
think of it as spiteful,

It's your perception of it, or as you wish to portray it..

> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> >> revenge.]
> >>
> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> return for one received.]
> >>
> >> >due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.
> >>
> >> No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
> >> to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
> >> choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
> >> should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
> >> maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.
> >
> >The definition(s) apply only in your imagination.
>
> No, the definitions apply and are given here,
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> revenge.]
>
> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> return for one received.]

I really do have better things to do, Derek.

> >Neither Rupert
> >or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
> >you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?
>
> I'm not.

Who are you trying to kid?

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 -

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?

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.

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.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:G75si.20784$_d2.10534@pd7urf3no...
> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 9:21 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 -
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Er, yes, fine. And he's got no cause for complaint when I make his
usenet behaviour a little easier to find out about (not that I was
making it that much easier to find out about). Yet for some reason
when I do that you say I should indulge his cowardly desire for
anonymity out of a sense of "fairness" or "decency". My Google Groups
profile has a link to my full name, photo, location, and CV. I'm happy
for the whole world to know about everything I do and say here, Ball
apparently isn't, and with good reason in my opinion. Ball chose to
behave the way he does in public in circumstances where personal
information about him was publicly available. If there's really
nothing wrong with his usenet behaviour, he should be happy for anyone
to know about it. He wants this newsgroup to be a school playground
where he can act like a school bully and yet have this shielded from
the eyes of the adult world, such as prospective employers. And you
want me to molly-coddle him and indulge this desire of his, because I
should be "nice". Why the hell should I be "nice" to Ball, of all
people?

I find employment through my website. Someone typed "personal maths
tutor north sydney" into Google and found me, and now they're
employing me. It's conceivable that a prospective employer might find
Ball's statements that my medication is all that prevents me from
committing mass murder. Now, admittedly I put my history of mental
illness into the public domain. Still, that statement of Ball's is
both false and defamatory. It's conceivable that it might influence a
prospective employer's decision. If Ball lived in Australia, I could
sue him for defamation. Also, he has repeatedly made threats of
violence against me, which is illegal regardless of whether the threat
is credible. And you say this is all fair and I shouldn't complain,
and if I don't like it I should go elsewhere. Well, fine. But in that
case why is anyone in any position to criticize when I make publicly
available information about Ball a little easier to find? Especially
someone who has already deliberately got someone thrown out of her
parish? If Ball wants to protect his reputation, he should be more
careful about how he behaves when information about him is publicly
available. If all's fair round here, then all's fair.

I'm not complaining about Ball's behaviour. In fact, I'm enjoying
myself making fun of him. I just think it's ridiculous of you to
criticize the way I behave while never saying a word against Ball.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:46 am, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Homosexuality seems to be a topic of discussion that comes up quite
frequently round here. If you find it irritating, maybe you should
have a word to Ball, I think he's the one responsible.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 1, 9:56 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:50:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:2lp0b3llnbv78bugh18h2181o8eim548b8@4ax .com...
> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:49:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:fin0b31v051kdnu7fllsuooe1qrti4f2e3@4ax .com...
> >> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in messagenews:p1h0b3dib6tvk0ujf8vd8ve5ul2po1v0rd@4ax .com...
> >> >> >> 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?
>
> >> >> >Threads can appear on quite a few forums as searchable web pages.
> >> >> >There is nothing "spiteful" about my web page.
>
> >> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty) revenge.]
> >> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> >> >I do know what the word "spiteful" means. Not on my path.
>
> >> >> >Ball has continually,
> >> >> >spitefully, and IMMORALLY slandered many people on these groups
> >> >> >over the years, myself included obviously, and my web page is a fun
> >> >> >and convenient way to let others know exactly what we're dealing with.
>
> >> >> I used to think of it in that way, but I've come to think of it as
> >> >> spiteful,
> >> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> >> return for one received.]
> >> >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> >> >And you'll no doubt choose to continue to think of it in that way
>
> >> Of course, because there's no doubt that your web page
> >> is spiteful,
>
> >No. You are (spitefully) choosing to see it in that way.
>
> No, I'm choosing to see it that way because it's the
> given definition of the term, "spiteful".
>
> >> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> >> revenge.]
>
> >> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> >> return for one received.]
>
> >> >due to *your* spiteful feelings towards me. So more projection.
>
> >> No, due to the given definition of the term "spiteful", not due
> >> to my feelings toward you. Like you say, "And [I'll] no doubt
> >> choose to continue to think of it in THAT WAY." Rupert
> >> should no better than to give in to "petty revenge". You, well,
> >> maybe you don't know any better and can be excused.
>
> >The definition(s) apply only in your imagination.
>
> No, the definitions apply and are given here,http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiteful
>
> [Spiteful implies a mean or malicious desire for (often petty)
> revenge.]
>
> [a desire to inflict a wrong or injury on someone, usually in
> return for one received.]
>
> >Neither Rupert
> >or I lack valid arguments or require "revenge". And *why* are
> >you trying to defend the person who inflicts a wrong or injury?
>
> I'm not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your calling Pearl's webpage "spiteful" in the context of your
behaviour towards Karen is really absurd beyond all belief. Why would
I want to take revenge on Ball? He provides me with excellent
entertainment. I was just showing him what will happen any time he
tries to give me orders like that.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Dutch > wrote:
> 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.

This shows how you're competent to comment on who has the moral and
intellectual high ground, doesn't it, Dutch?

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>>>> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> >>>>>>> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> >>>>>>> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
> >>>>>> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
> >>>>> Yes, that's fine.
> >>>> It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
> >>>> not the ability.
> >>> Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
> >>> involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
> >>> the ability.
> >> Right
>
> >> So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
>
> >>> radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
> >>> linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
> >>> scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
> >>> everyday observation.
> >> I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
> >> any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
> >> young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
> >> they had innate capabilities.
>
> > Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
> > provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
> > that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
> > will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
> > different tests.
>
> And? Is there a rule that there can be only test to verify something?
> It's pretty difficult, at least for a lay person to understand
> neurological mechanisms, but it's quite easy to observe that B follows
> A. Both are true.
>

If you're going to have more than one test, you need to say something
about what happens when they give different answers.

> >>>>>> Do you
> >>>>>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
> >>>>> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
> >>>>> laryngitis?
> >>>> That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
> >>>> for example,
> >>> I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
> >>> that infants have the capability of speech.
> >> You're talking about "ability", not capability.
>
> > There's no distinction in ordinary usage.
>
> But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
> on, long ago.
>

If you're going to introduce a non-standard usage, you need to explain
what it is, and in my view you haven't done that adequately yet.

> Wetlesen says "Infants have
>
> > the capability, but not the ability, for speech." The meaning of this
> > is obscure to me, and I believe it would be obscure to most native
> > English speakers as well.
>
> I'm incredulous that a person of your intelligence would find this
> obscure. It means that whatever the mechanisms that permit a human being
> to talk they are not yet fully formed in an infant.

Yes, that's fine, so in what sense is the "capability" already there?

> The same goes for
> it's ability to walk. Yet they do have the capability to develop these
> skills, given time and the right environment.

What does that *mean*?

> No reasonably intelligent
> person would find this obscure I'm quite sure.

Well, I'm a counterexample, a friend of mine who has recently
submitted a Ph.D. in mathematics, Peter Singer is a counterexample.
Unless you're seriously going to maintain that none of us are
"reasonably intelligent people".

> I submit that you are
> having trouble with this because you believe that there may be an
> unpleasant a consequence to "getting it" and you are not prepared to
> accept that consequence.
>

How about I see what my parents think about it? Would that be a fair
test?

> >>>> or someone suffering from brain trauma or stress disorder.
> >>> I would say that would depend on the brain trauma.
> >> Of course, but it's an example of how a person could have the ability to
> >> speak damaged. They could and many do subsequently learn all over again.
>
> > So the ability is termporarily lost. But apparently the capability
> > stays there permanently. What's the basis for saying that? What
> > actually happens is that neural pathways are damaged and then
> > gradually re-formed. What's the basis for saying the capability was
> > never lost?
>
> The verification is in the reforming of neural pathways, the return of
> the ability.

Wetlesen explicitly denies that "capability" is the same as "potential
ability". Remind me of your take on that again?

>
> > In what sense is it always there?
>
> Apparently the capacity to form neural pathways to enable abilities to
> manifest remained. Perhaps the very same mechanism that the person's
> brain used as an infant. A neuroscientist would likely have a more
> technical explanation, but that hardly matters, there obviously *is* an
> explanation.
>
> >>>> The primary way we know with relative certainty that these individuals
> >>>> have the capability of speech is by their species. This is exactly the
> >>>> same principle as the flightless bird above.
> >>> It's not clear enough how to generalize from the case of the
> >>> flightless bird. Do chickens have the capability of flight? Why, or
> >>> why not?
> >> No, observing the rest of the species tells us that. Why, I'm not sure.
>
> > So it looks like we now have three different tests.
>
> > (1) Is there a structure present which realizes the ability in normal
> > contexts?
> > (2) Do we know that the ability will eventually develop under normal
> > circumstances?
> > (3) Do conspecifics have the ability?
>
> > Those are very different tests.
>
> That's all good right? The more the merrier, unless one test comes out
> different than the others, and I don't think that is the case.
>

I think the different tests do give different answers, hence the
problem.

> >>> In the case of the advanced cognitive abilities, what brain
> >>> structures have to be there for the capability to be present? What
> >>> kinds of brain damage would mean the capability was no longer there?
> >>> Why? You're just vaguely saying "oh, they're the same species as us,
> >>> so it's reasonable to assume they have the same capabilities as us",
> >>> as if it were self-evident what that meant. It's just not good enough.
> >>> You have to give a scientific account of what it is to have the
> >>> capabilities and give evidence that they actually have them.
> >> It's always good to have more information, as humans we crave knowledge,
> >> but the present purpose we have enough to know that only humans have the
> >> abilities in question.
>
> > But it's crucial to argument that we have good reason to suspect that
> > all humans with a brain have the capabilities, but no reason to
> > suspect this in the case of nonhumans. Whatever "capabilities" means.
> > You need to substantiate this claim.
>
> The tests you listed above pretty much do that as far as I can see,
> along with the complete absence of these abilities in non-humans.
>
> >>>>>> Advanced cognitive abilities are no different.
> >>>>> This really doesn't tell me anything. You're talking as though it were
> >>>>> self-evident how to generalize those two examples. It's not.
> >>>> Just like the eagle with underdeveloped wings, we know from long
> >>>> experience observing members of their species that they have the
> >>>> capability of flight. If the bird were a baby emu we would not make that
> >>>> assumption, we would assume that they will never be able to fly.
> >>> Well, that's interesting. So it's relevant whether the structure has
> >>> the potential to become functional. So, what about the case of a
> >>> radically brain-damaged human, then?
> >> We would not be able to define that individual's precise disability,
> >> because it is specific to him. In any case we would not form any
> >> conclusions about dogs on that basis. The idea is actually absurd when
> >> you look at from that angle.
>
> > I don't understand why there is a reason to give a brain-damaged human
> > the benefit of the doubt
>
> Because of the considerations under tests #2 and #3.
>

I think it's only test #3.

> >(why is there any doubt at all, using the
> > test you gave just above?)
>
> We can't verify test #1 without a neurological examination, at CT scan
> perhaps, even that would probably be inconclusive. Some humans with
> massive catastrophic brain damage have fully recovered functionality.
>

Well, can you elaborate on this point? Can you give me some examples?

As I see it, the point of the AMC is that there are cases where there
is no hope, and we still don't doubt that these humans have a high
moral status.

> > but it's "absurd" to do the same for a dog.
>
> I meant it is absurd to attempt to conclude anything about dogs at all
> by considering brain-damaged humans.
>
> > You've given me three different tests so far, only the one based on
> > species does the job of making the distinction, but I need to be told
> > why species is such a big deal.
>
> As long as humans continue to develop these abilities and no non-humans
> do, people will, being bears for efficiency, use species as a simple way
> to determine if these capabilities likely exist in a particular
> indivdual.

But there are some humans where the capabilities are clearly absent,
on any reasonable interpretation of the word, yet we still don't doubt
that they have high moral status. I know you're going to say I'm just
repeating the AMC over and over again, but I don't see that it's been
answered.

> As soon as other species start exhibiting these abilities
> that strategy will have to be abandoned.
>
> >>>>>> None of the abilities an
> >>>>>> ape displays are evident in young apes.
> >>>>>>> I guess you're
> >>>>>>> somehow alluding to the fact that the machinery which gives rise to
> >>>>>>> the ability in normal contexts is all there.
> >>>>>> You don't have to guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean.
> >>>>> Part of the way I earn my living is by explaining mathematical
> >>>>> concepts to teenagers. I find it very rewarding work. Now, often those
> >>>>> teenagers fail to understand something which is crystal clear to me.
> >>>>> If I were to say to them under those circumstances, "you don't have to
> >>>>> guess, I have made it abundantly clear what I mean", I don't think
> >>>>> they'd be hiring me for too much longer. I would be shirking my
> >>>>> professional responsibilities and I would also be delusional, I would
> >>>>> be flying in the face of the obvious reality that I hadn't succeeding
> >>>>> in doing my job of conveying my understanding to them.
> >>>>> I'm just going with this analogy for the sake of argument. I have to
> >>>>> confess that I find it very difficult to maintain this image of you
> >>>>> somehow standing in the same relation to me as I do to those teenagers
> >>>>> with a straight face, but never mind that. Let's say for the sake of
> >>>>> argument that you're the patient, long-suffering teacher and I'm the
> >>>>> slow-witted student. You still have to accept the obvious fact that
> >>>>> you're not conveying anything to me. Whatever that says about me, it's
> >>>>> part of the reality. Saying "I've already made it clear" is pretty
> >>>>> lame, don't you think? Surely it would be more rational to say "Well,
> >>>>> so far I haven't made it clear to you, I guess I'll either give up or
> >>>>> try a bit harder."
> >>>> That's a very good way of putting it. I will try harder. It's not like
> >>>> there are a plethora of intelligent people willing to discuss this
> >>>> subject with me..
> >>> Jolly good. And I'll do my best to be fair and open-minded. But I do
> >>> think there are some serious problems here.
> >> Yea, oh well, let's soldier on.
>
> >>>>>>> You might be able to give
> >>>>>>> that idea a precise sense in some contexts, though you haven't done
> >>>>>>> that yet.
> >>>>>> Every example I have given does it.
> >>>>> You think it's straightforward how to generalize those examples. I
> >>>>> don't. I'm really quite surprised it's not clear to you, based on what
> >>>>> I've said, why I find this talk of "capability" so vague.
> >>>> Can you maybe articulate why you find it difficult to generalize? The
> >>>> capability of flight is a fairly complex ability, as is the set of
> >>>> advanced cognitive functions we're discussing. In both cases we only
> >>>> know of the capability by making assumptions from prior observations of
> >>>> similar animals. In neither case do we require a thorough understanding
> >>>> of the mechanics of the ability.
> >>> Okay, let's see. You say "a baby eagle has the capability of flight
> >>> but not the ability, a baby emu doesn't have the capability". And
> >>> Wetlesen says that capability is not the same as potential ability.
> >> No he doesn't. You're forgetting that you misread that sentence. He
> >> makes in quite clear that capability *is* latent, undeveloped ability.
> >> If you can't agree to this I could ask him to clarify it, but I am
> >> positive about it.
>
> > Well, I'll have another look. If capability is latent ability then we
> > need to be told the reason for suspecting that a radically cognitively
> > impaired human has any latent ability, any more than a dog.
>
> This is trivial,

It's not, it's the crux of the matter.

> history offers us NO examples of dogs developing these
> abilities, while humans, impaired or otherwise do exhibit them. The
> *only* room for reasonable doubt is with humans. With the vast majority
> of all humans, there's no doubt at all that these abilities *do* exist
> to some degree.
>
> >> So
>
> >>> do I know what you mean? Well, the best I can do is speculate that by
> >>> having "the capability of flight" you mean the presence of some
> >>> structure which is in some sense sufficiently like the structure which
> >>> actually enables the ability in the cases where the ability is
> >>> present. It's a bit vague exactly where to draw the line, but assuming
> >>> you mean something like this, then I've got some understanding of the
> >>> concept you want to use. But to generalize it to the context of
> >>> advanced cognitive abilities, I think I need to know more about
> >>> exactly what structures you regard as most essential. The way in which
> >>> our brain structures give us advanced cognitive abilities is a bit
> >>> different to the way in which wings give birds the ability for flight.
> >>> It's a bit more complicated.
> >> I agree that it's all complicated, but the essence of it is the same. It
> >> is ability in some form that is part of the structure of the organism
> >> that can develop under the right circumstances.
>
> > But I see no reason to think that radically cognitively impaired
> > humans have such a thing.
>
> Of course it's plausible that there are some number of human beings so
> radically impaired that virtually all semblance of "humanity", if you
> will, is absent. What would you expect people do with them? Kill them?

The point is that we don't doubt it would be wrong to treat them the
way we typically treat nonhuman animals.

> Why would you expect that? People don't kill their dogs for being dumb.
> People don't kill any animal for being dumb.
>
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>> Where's the definition? I didn't see one.
> >>>> A capability is defined as a non-operative ability. The status of being
> >>>> non-operative may be due to a number of factors which we previously
> >>>> discussed.
> >>> Well, you can put it that way if you want, but I think you're straying
> >>> a bit from the way Wetlesen puts it.
> >> Not at all, that it exactly what he says. There is one sentence where he
> >> uses the word ability where he means capability but if you read the
> >> whole section it is quite clear what he means.
>
> >>> You're saying a capability is a
> >>> special case of an ability, Wetlesen says a capability can be present
> >>> without the corresponding ability being present.
> >> The two don't seem contradictory, capability doesn't disappear when
> >> ability begins, it becomes temporarily sidelined, secondary.
>
> >>> I mean, this may seem
> >>> like splitting hairs, but my problem is that when Wetlesen uses
> >>> "ability" to mean only abilities that are operative, the sense is
> >>> clear to me, but when you use "ability" to mean abilities that may or
> >>> may not be operative, the same difficulties of interpretation come up
> >>> as in the case of "capability".
> >> Let's use the example of the ability to solve complex equations, you
> >> developed the ability to do this from your basic capability and a lot of
> >> study. Let's say you stop doing math and lose the ability to do them,
> >> you would retain the capability and with some effort you would regain
> >> the ability you have now.
>
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>>>> How far is it allowed to be from being in working order?
> >>>>>> That doesn't matter.
> >>>>> It does matter if you want to understand the concept. Without some way
> >>>>> of going about deciding where to draw the line, I can't accept that
> >>>>> this is a well-defined enough concept to do the job that's being
> >>>>> required of it.
> >>>>> These are important questions. You're kidding yourself if you think
> >>>>> that you're seriously engaging with a philosophical issue if you brush
> >>>>> off questions like this with "It doesn't matter".
> >>>> I think you misunderstood the response. I didn't mean to brush your
> >>>> question off, I mean literally that it_doesn't_matter how far the
> >>>> capability is from being in working order. All that matters is that we
> >>>> have decided that it exists or that there is a reasonable possibility
> >>>> that it may exist.
> >>> But you have to convince me that it's reasonable to give all humans
> >>> with a brain the benefit of the doubt and not to give any nonhumans
> >>> the benefit of the doubt. Hence the issue of where to draw the line
> >>> becomes relevant.
> >> There is no doubt to give non-humans with respect to higher cognitive
> >> abilities, we simply have no evidence they have such capabilities. There
> >> is some inkling that great apes may approach such capabilities, enough
> >> that I think they should be protected with basic moral consideration.
>
> > I don't understand why there is a doubt the benefit of which to give
> > in the case of radically cognitively impaired humans, but not in the
> > case of nonhumans.
>
> Let's disconnect the two cases to clarify things.
>
> With respect to non-humans first, there is *no doubt*, period. Not one
> has ever exhibited these particular abilities so we have zero reason to
> believe they have them. That's that, end of story.
>
> Due to the similarities between great apes and humans it might make
> sense to protect them with some higher moral status, but even they have
> not actually demonstrated the kind of higher brain functions we're
> talking about.
>

If the achievements of great apes are not good enough for full moral
status, then to be consistent we would have to say that humans who are
permanently at their mental level - and there are plenty of those -
are not entitled to full moral status either. And no-one would find
that acceptable.

> With respect to impaired humans, every one is different, every diagnosis
> is different.

But we would never think it permissible to treat *any* human, no
matter how impaired, in the way we currently treat many billions of
nonhuman animals. That's the point.

> All we know for sure is that humans as a rule do have
> these capabilities. Maybe this person has some rich inner experience
> going on, it's possible. That's the doubt.
>
> >>>> It's the capability itself on which we are placing
> >>>> the value, not the becoming operative. When we decide that fish or cows
> >>>> lack the capability we mean there is zero possibility that those
> >>>> abilities would ever manifest.
> >>> But there are plenty of human cases where there is also zero
> >>> possibility.
> >> I would say not zero,
>
> > I wouldn't. That seems to be the problem.
>
> Even if that were the case, it doesn't actually present the problem that
> you propose with this argument. We don't assign moral status to marginal
> humans based on their cognitive abilities, we do so for a long list of
> other reasons, not the least of which are simply compassionate grounds.

Compassionate grounds should apply equally to nonhumans.

> If animals are to ever earn elevated moral status by default, they will
> not get it by breaking down the back door, they will need to earn it by
> acquiring higher cognitive capabilities.
>
> You may wish to argue that all animals and non-humans should have the
> same moral status regardless, but that's a different argument, and just
> as hard a sell as this one.
>

We don't doubt that any human, no matter how impaired, has a
significant amount of moral status. Hence there are no grounds for
denying the same to nonhumans. I know I'm just repeating the AMC over
and over again, but I don't see that it's been answered.

>
>
> >> almost all cases involve some level of
> >> diminishment, leaving some functionality. In any case, besides the faint
> >> hope principle, there is a long list of social, legal, personal,
> >> religious, logistic, and other reasons why we maintain moral
> >> consideration for impaired humans. There is no possibility that this
> >> backwards approach using marginal humans will ever convince us that we
> >> treat animals incorrectly.
>
> > I find it pretty convincing. So do lots of other people.
>
> There are groups of people who believe in just about anything you can
> think of, beliefs are funny that way. Once you decide to commit to
> believing something and invest some of yourself in that belief it's not
> easy to stop. It's a very good reason to cultivate skepticism.

Which I do. I hope you do as well.

> Mathematics doesn't tend to be like this.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> And,
> >>>>>>> anyway, what is supposed to be the morally big deal about the
> >>>>>>> machinery being there?
> >>>>>> The inherent capability is necessary for the operative ability to ever
> >>>>>> be expressed. Morally, life dictates that we "draw lines" since there is
> >>>>>> no practical way to avoid causing harm, therefore we use concepts like
> >>>>>> sentience to rationalize the way we interact with the world. We all do
> >>>>>> it. You dismiss the interests of some organisms as subservient to your
> >>>>>> own based largely on some sentience-type criteria, as well as convenience.
> >>>>> Yes, I have some criteria for determining what sort of consideration I
> >>>>> give to various beings. We've talked about those. Now your job is to
> >>>>> explain to me what you think Wetlesen's criteria are and defend them.
> >>>> Wetlesen's criterion is sentience, the same as yours, and mine.
> >>> I thought it was capability.
> >> For sentience. Page 2. "In the following I shall argue for a biocentric
> >> answer to the main question. This is an individualistic version of a
> >> nonanthropocentric position. It ascribes moral status to all individual
> >> living organisms; humans, other animals, plants, and micro-organisms.
> >> This position is congenial to Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life'.
> >> To me it has a strong appeal with both philosophical and religious
> >> overtones. On the other hand, I do not accept Schweitzer's assumption
> >> that all living organisms should be ascribed an equal moral status
> >> value. Such a strong assumption seems to be counter-intuitive, and
> >> besides, unnecessary. Instead, I shall argue for a grading of moral
> >> status value, as well as of the strength of our corresponding duties to
> >> moral subjects. There will be one exception from this grading, however,
> >> pertaining to human beings. They are ascribed the highest moral status
> >> value, not because they are humans but because they are moral agents or
> >> moral persons. This will be a universalistic and egalitarian view of
> >> human dignity and basic human rights. Other living beings are ascribed
> >> degrees of moral status value depending on their degree of relevant
> >> similarity to moral persons. Presumably, animals with self-consciousness
> >> or consciousness and sentience have a higher moral status value than
> >> nonconscious and nonsentient organisms. Even so, however, the organisms
> >> with a lesser moral status value are not devoid of moral status, and for
> >> this reason we do have a prima facie duty not to cause avoidable harm to
> >> them. Or if we cannot avoid harming them in order to survive ourselves,
> >> then we have at least a subsidiary duty to cause the least harm."
>
> >> >> He
>
> >>>> proposes that consideration be accorded in a graded fashion based on
> >>>> degrees of sentience.
> >>> Well, that sounds fine to me, except that I think that no meaningful
> >>> distinction can be drawn between radically cognitive impaired humans
> >>> and nonhumans, so I accept the argument from marginal cases.
> >> None of the reasons we extend consideration to marginal humans apply to
> >> non-humans.
>
> > How about their capacity to suffer?
>
> I assumed that the marginal humans could not even suffer. If that is the
> case then I reject your argument even more vehemently.
>

Sorry, I'm confused here. What's your stance on humans who lack the
capacity for consciousness?

> > I don't accept that you've given any good reason why we should make a
> > distinction.
>
> I don't argue that we should ignore the suffering of animals, but
> suffering in itself is not an advanced cognitive ability, although I
> would say that those abilities probably tend to intensify suffering.
>
> >>>> It is an approach that mirrors how most of us
> >>>> already think. Popper's notion of the natural selection of theories
> >>>> would lead us to conclude that this is a very useful idea.
> >>> For Popper, the key criterion would be the extent to which the theory
> >>> subjects itself to the risk of empirical falsification.
> >> Not according to the quote I found.
>
> > Yes, according to the quote you found, correctly interpreted. I know
> > Popper's philosophy of science. I'll find quotes in support of my
> > interpretation if you like.
>
> >> What would it
>
> >>> take to falsify the hypothesis that all humans with a brain can be
> >>> reasonably assumed to have the capability for linguistic competence
> >>> and moral agency, but no nonhumans can?
> >> That's not a reasonable hypothesis, it contains absolutes and absolutes
> >> don't lend themselves to reasonable hypotheses about social realities.
>
> > Quite. But the hypothesis must be sustained if the AMC is to be
> > rebutted. So it's a shame for you that it's not reasonable.
>
> No it doesn't, the AMC contains assumptions that cannot be verified. For
> one thing, radically impaired humans are treated as a special disability
> case, they are not judged in the same way as fully functioning animals
> are judged, and you cannot simply presuppose that they should be before
> making your argument.

The assumption is that we judge both impaired humans and nonhumans on
the basis of their individual characteristics. What's wrong with that?

> If you are going to second guess how we view
> radically impaired humans vs how we view animals then you must begin by
> accepting the actual reasons we view radically impaired humans as we do.
> You don't do that, you presume to claim that our treatment of them vis
> vis moral status is tied to their cognitive abilities, and that is
> clearly not the case.

What is it based on? That's the challenge, to explain that.

> Once this link is broken you cannot reconnect it.
> Radically impaired humans are given a certain moral status for a list of
> reasons which you must accept as reality.

Doing it on the ground of "capability" is not satisfactory because
that notion has not been adequately explained. The other grounds you
have given would not be sufficient for our strong conviction that they
have an absolutely unconditional entitlement to high moral status.

> In short, along with being a
> backwards argument, and an argument based on creating a rule from an ad
> hoc exception, it is circular.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Explain what is inadequate about the above description. I'll tell you,
> >>>>>>>> nothing.
> >>>>>>> Everything. You haven't given any indication of what having the
> >>>>>>> capability consists in.
> >>>>>> The way we determine if an organism has specific capabilities is by
> >>>>>> observation. The primary clue is species.
> >>>>> That's pretty much all you've said so far. Species is a big clue.
> >>>>> That's all we know so far. You haven't explained why, you've just
> >>>>> asserted it. All right, so species is a big clue, maybe we'll hear
> >>>>> more about why that is later. Now, what else is relevant? What are the
> >>>>> criteria? How do we go about determining it?
> >>>> Species is relevant in this argument because an animal's species tells
> >>>> us most of the story of that animal's capabilities and limitations.
> >>> That's pretty much just repeating what you've already said.
> >> Something similar to how you keep repeating the argument from marginal
> >> cases you mean?
>
> > Which has not yet been rebutted.
>
> Done, to death.
>
> >>> Could you
> >>> perhaps tell me why species gives us so much information,
> >> It just does.
>
> > Not very informative.
>
> Yes, actually it tells us A LOT.
>
> >> Why can birds fly? Why can we breathe air?
>
> > I assume biologists could help you out there.
>
> As they could you.
>
> >> and more
>
> >>> importantly *what* is it giving us information about?
> >> About members of the species, their abilities and limitations.
>
> > I thought it was giving us information about the capabilities of the
> > members of the species who lacked the abilities. And I was craving
> > some explication of what this meant.
>
> Ask a neurobiologist if you think it will make a difference.
>

It's the job of the would-be rebutter of the AMC to tell us how the
current state of neurobiology can be used to undermine the AMC.

>
>
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>> really is true. Shouldn't you be a little bit more open to the
> >>>>> possibility that maybe there is some validity to my point of view and
> >>>>> maybe this concept is not quite as clear as you think it is?
> >>>> Yes, I acknowledge that it is not clear to you. It is clear to me
> >>>> however. My theory about why it is not clear to you, fwiw, has to do
> >>>> with "cognitive dissonance". Since the theory disrupts a strongly held
> >>>> existing idea in your brain, your brain is setting up interference that
> >>>> is preventing you from internalizing it. This interference is causing
> >>>> you to perceive the idea as confusing. The idea in itself is not really
> >>>> difficult or vague however. The reason I mention this is not to be
> >>>> patronizing, I offer it as an plausible theory which may help you to
> >>>> deal with moving forward in this exercise. I do have some personal
> >>>> experience with cognitive dissonance, I experienced it, and at the point
> >>>> when I finally consciously confronted the underlying conflict I
> >>>> experienced a kind of physical discomfort in the brain, a dizziness and
> >>>> a buzzing in my ears, followed shortly by a kind of feeling of relief
> >>>> and elevated mental clarity. The brain will attempt to punish you to
> >>>> stop you from threatening the existing belief.
> >>>> > So see how you go at
> >>>>> dispelling the webs of confusion. Or not. It's up to you.
> >>>> Maybe if I lay it out in point form
> >>>> 1. There are such things as advanced cognitive abilities.
> >>>> 2. There is such a thing as the capability to develop these abilities,
> >>>> otherwise the abilities would not exist.
> >>> If there is the slightest reason to suspect that a radically
> >>> cognitively impaired human has any "capability to develop the
> >>> abilities", then I'm not clear on what "capability to develop the
> >>> abilities" means.
> >> There is the slightest reason, they are human, therefore the possibility
> >> exists, not only of advancing,
>
> > No, in many cases that doesn't exist.
>
> You can't say that. It is sufficent if someone important *believes*
> there is hope.
>

So, if someone important were to entertain the idea that maybe one day
a dog will acquire the abilities, that would be sufficient for giving
the dog full moral status? I suppose the question is who is
"important" here. Which "important" person actually believes that
there is some hope with every human with a brain, no matter how
impaired? You? Are you "important"?

>
>
> >> but that some exists already,
>
> > I don't see that, given that in many cases it's a certainty that
> > they'll never develop the abilities.
>
> "The" abilities?

The ones you were talking about. Linguistic competence, reason, and
moral agency. I thought you said those were crucial.

> Which ones, to what degree? Every case is unique and
> difficult to categorize clearly.
>
> >> and in most
> >> cases it probably does. Then there are the other reasons...
>
> > I'm not impressed with the other reasons.
>
> It doesn't matter if you're impressed with the other reasons, it doesn't
> matter if some of the reasons are completely irrational, the fact is,
> they ARE real reasons,

You're being inconsistent. If they're completely irrational, they're
not real reasons.

> and they explain why exceptional status is
> accorded such individuals. That effectively breaks the link to the
> cognitive capability argument.
>
>
>
> >>>> 3. Up until the present time only humans have exhibited these abilities.
> >>>> 4. Therefore only humans (as far as we know) possess the capability to
> >>>> develop these abilities.
> >>> And not all humans with a brain, so far as I can tell...
> >> We should avoid the absolute "all" in this context, it leads to confusion.
>
> > You need to defend the contention that all humans with a brain can be
> > reasonably assumed to have the relevant capabilities in order to rebut
> > the AMC.
>
> I rebutted the AMC right above. Once there exists a list of actual
> *other* reasons why as humans we extend moral status to marginal cases,
> and such a list exists,

I don't accept that any *good* reason has been given which would not
apply equally to nonhumans.

> then the argument for extending them to animals
> based on cognitive similarities between them and animals evaporates.
> Cognitive abilities don't come into it. And it doesn't matter what the
> reasons are, provided they are plausibly actual reasons.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This shows how you're competent to comment on who has the moral and
> intellectual high ground, doesn't it, Dutch?
>

I didn't write that swill, it was copied directly from pearl's website.
I believe her "wife" wrote it.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > This shows how you're competent to comment on who has the moral and
> > intellectual high ground, doesn't it, Dutch?
>
> I didn't write that swill, it was copied directly from pearl's website.
> I believe her "wife" wrote it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 2, 12:52 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:47 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rupert wrote:
> > > On Aug 2, 5:26 am, Dutch > wrote:
> > >> 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.
>
> > > This shows how you're competent to comment on who has the moral and
> > > intellectual high ground, doesn't it, Dutch?
>
> > I didn't write that swill, it was copied directly from pearl's website.
> > I believe her "wife" wrote it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And what exactly was your purpose in copying this piece of text?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

See, you could have put the piece of text in quotation marks and said
"This shows that your website is spiteful." But instead, you
reproduced the piece of text as if you intended to direct it at Pearl
herself. That's my point.

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:38:09 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>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.
>>
>> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
>> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
>> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
>> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
>> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
>> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>>
>> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
>> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
>> partners and as companions. A child-hating
>> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
>> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
>> where they come in contact with children, and are
>> excellent in those fields because they understand
>> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
>> one-to-one basis."
>> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>>
>> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
>> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
>> son..
>>
>> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
>> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
>> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>>
>> She believes society should stop making a big deal
>> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
>> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
>> can then practice oral sex on them.
>>
>> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
>> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
>> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
>> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
>> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
>> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
>> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>>
>> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
>> church communities where they can come into
>> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
>> them.
>>
>> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
>> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
>> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>>
>> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
>> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
>> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
>> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
>> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
>> ON THAT?!"
>> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
>> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>>
>> Those comments are of real concern to me and
>> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
>> from one parish only to then flee to another
>> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
>> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
>> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>
>Give me a break. Of course Karen's no threat to children.

Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
over young children, because if you don't think she's a
potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
you become as much a threat to them as she is.