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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 09:28 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default 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.

  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 09:37 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default 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?
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:29 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default 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.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:16 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Derek" wrote in message news
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 .






  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:28 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message news
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


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:49 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:01 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message news
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.






  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:50 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 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?

  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:53 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 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.

  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:57 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 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? I'm having trouble fathoming the
intricacies of your moral theory.

  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 12:06 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default 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 news 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.


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 12:31 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default 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.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 12:46 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default 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.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 12:50 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"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 news 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?






  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 12:56 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default 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 news 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.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-08-2007, 01:21 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"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 news 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?






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 07:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 05:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 09:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017