Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Derek wrote:
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... Stop replying to your own posts, cocksucker. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball - loser.
"Bill/ Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc." > wrote
How many times are you going to make a complete fool of yourself by claiming everyone who gives you a hard time to be me, loser. You're pathetic. The last opponent, "Immortalist" you tried evading in this way made you look a right idiot, and you knew it as well. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the mind. Proof? Odd how you question and demand proof for the obvious fact that an enormous percentage of trees on this planet have been cut down for cattle grazing all for needless meat-eating by humans. |
|
|||
|
|||
The judge rules the farmer is responsible
Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by
alternating between half a dozen different posters wrote in message nk.net... > >>>>>>Derek, thinking he's fooling someone alternating with his ****witted "ipse dixit" pseudonym, wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>Logic insists farmers cause them, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, it doesn't, you ignorant idiot. > >>>>> > >>>>>1) If autonomous farmers kill animals, then they are > >>>>> responsible for their deaths. > >>>>>2) Autonomous farmers do kill animals > >>>>>therefore > >>>>>3) they are responsible for their deaths. > >>>>> > >>>>>What could be simpler? > >>>> > >>>>That you are complicit in the deaths, and share moral > >>>>responsibility for them. > >>> > >>>Only according to buck-passing miscreants. > >> > >>No. YOU are the buck-passer, and I am pointing it out. > > > > You'll never convince a jury that the farmer or murderer > > who kills isn't responsible for the deaths he causes, > > The moral prosecutor will easily persuade the jury that > you share the moral responsibility. > No, he wouldn't. He would rightly conclude that the farmer is fully responsible for the deaths he causes. You know it too. > You are the buck-passer. You're the one passing the buck from him to me, don't forget. > > Ditch the stupid "ipse dixit" pseudonym, ****head, and > just post under your own name. You're no better at > that disguise than you were with "jane". > How many times are you going to make a complete fool of yourself by claiming everyone who gives you a hard time to be me, loser. You're pathetic. The last opponent, "Immortalist" you tried evading in this way made you look a right idiot, and you knew it as well. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, loser blue-footed cocksucker
Derek wrote:
> "Bill/ Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc." > wrote > > How many times Are you going to post under a new ****witted pseudonym - "jane", "ipse dixt", whatever-the-**** - and pretend it isn't you, when you say exactly the same things, in the same language, in the same glaringly bad style, as you originally said as Dreck? **** off, loser. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, loser blue-footed cocksucker
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:49:11 GMT, Bill > wrote:
>Derek wrote: > >> "Bill/ Jonathan Ball/ etc. etc." > wrote >> >> How many times > >Are you going to post under a new ****witted pseudonym >- "jane", "ipse dixt", whatever-the-**** - and pretend >it isn't you, when you say exactly the same things, in >the same language, in the same glaringly bad style, as >you originally said as Dreck? Word for word jonny no balls, i mean usual suspect I mean oops, you are he! Prat. ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"tortrix" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote > > That's another fallacy, pot does tremendous damage to the body and the mind. > > Proof? http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/h...-marijuana.htm http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/download44.html Marijuana adversely affects sleep patterns, social and cognitive functioning on many levels, and causes severe lung damage, just for STARTERS. > Odd how you question and demand proof for the obvious fact that > an enormous percentage of trees on this planet have been cut down > for cattle grazing all for needless meat-eating by humans. What a bunch of crap. What's odd is how so many lazy dimwits like you can toss away their very humanity in favour of cheap rushes like those obtained from drugs and self-serving "causes". |
|
|||
|
|||
The judge rules the farmer is responsible and Derek is found guilty as an accessory
"Derek" > wrote ..
> Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by > alternating between half a dozen different posters > wrote Bullshit, unlike you, he has never tried to pretend that his aliases are anyone else. [..] > > Ditch the stupid "ipse dixit" pseudonym, ****head, and > > just post under your own name. You're no better at > > that disguise than you were with "jane". > > > How many times are you going to make a complete > fool of yourself by claiming everyone who gives you > a hard time to be me, loser. You're pathetic. The last > opponent, "Immortalist" you tried evading in this way > made you look a right idiot, and you knew it as well. His posts have your greasy fingerprints all over them Dreck. You've never fooled anyone with your attempts to invent people to agree with you. |
|
|||
|
|||
The judge rules the farmer is responsible and Derek is foundguilty as an accessory
Dutch wrote:
>>Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by >>alternating between half a dozen different posters >>wrote > > Bullshit, unlike you, he has never tried to pretend that his aliases are > anyone else. Jpn's also never responded to his own posts, much less traded e-mail addresses in them (lmao): http://tinyurl.com/u7xx <snip> |
|
|||
|
|||
The judge rules the farmer is responsible and Derek is foundguilty as an accessory
usual suspect wrote:
> Jpn's... Jon's even (sorry Mr Ball) |
|
|||
|
|||
For the Record
> Rat & Swan wrote: >>>> For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me >>>> by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. Repeating a lie does not make it so, Jonnie. It merely makes it obvious you are completely without scruples. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
The judge rules the farmer is responsible and Derek is found guilty as an accessory
"usual suspect" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: > >>Jonathan Ball, thinking he's fooling everyone by > >>alternating between half a dozen different posters > >>wrote > > > > Bullshit, unlike you, he has never tried to pretend that his aliases are > > anyone else. > > Jon's also never responded to his own posts, much less traded e-mail > addresses in them (lmao): > > http://tinyurl.com/u7xx Yes, that was particularly good lowlight in the career of a particularly good lowlife. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correcting the Record
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > >> Rat & Swan wrote: > > >>>>> For the record, this is a lie. My son was not taken from me >>>>> by anyone or any agency, public or private. Jonnie knows this. >>>> >>>> Your son was taken from you, by your father. >>> >>> As I said, this is a lie. He was not. >> >> He was. Your whole life has been one massive self >> indulgence. Having the kid in the first place was a >> self indulgence, and further self indulgence - focusing >> on your sex life rather than nurturing and raising your >> son - led to a conclusion that he needed to be raised >> elsewhere. You were only too happy to be rid of him; >> further evidence of your wrecked mind. >> >> You snipped without noting that he is estranged from you. > > Repeating a lie It isn't a lie. Your son was taken from you, and is now estranged from you except for minimal e-mail contact. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Derek" > wrote
[..] > > If I hire a killer have I done anything unethical? I haven't killed anyone. > > > If you hire a killer, then you are responsible for > the deaths you hire him to cause. That's also true if you hire that killer to rob a convenience store. You know the farmer is a killer, yet you hire him to rob that convenience store. [..] > > and I don't demand that animals be killed > > Then you aren't responsible for any deaths accrued > by those who farm "your" land. But I know they use 'cides and I hire them anyway. [..] > > I just want wheat to grow on my land and I don't > > want it to cost 10x as much as the wheat is worth. > > The decision to use herbicides is made by the > > government, it's a crime to not use them. > > > No. That's a lie. Farmers are not legally forced to use > cides of any kind. The decision to use them is always > down to the individual who farms the land. That's not true, in Saskatchewan it's mandatory for all farmers to use herbicides (e.g. Roundup) to control wild oats. It can't be done any other way. If you want bread to eat you automatically support the use of Roundup. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Derek wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>>>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* >>>>>>concrete to stop killing them? None. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* >>>>>concrete to start killing them? None. > > > There's the long and the short of it. The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of animals. This is not legitimately in dispute. |
|
|||
|
|||
Correcting Jonnie
Provide proof, Jonnie. I know you are lying, so do all the regular posters who have seen you try this shoddy lie before. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > Derek wrote: > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > There's the long and the short of it. > > The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and > off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of > animals. Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the fallacy; Non causa pro causa 1.. Type-Level: A causal law has the form: Events of type C cause events of type E. Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. For example, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. Rather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer. Mistakes about type-level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. One common source of non-causal correlations between two event-types is when both are effects of a third type of event. http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/index.html |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Dreck Nash, ****witted shitbag ordinaire, wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* >>>>concrete to stop killing them? None. >>> >>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* >>>concrete to start killing them? None. >>>There's the long and the short of it. >> >>The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and >>off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of >>animals. > > > Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the > collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the > fallacy; > > Non causa pro causa **** off, Dreck. This is how we know it's you: you run your ****ing ignorant mouth when you're bone-ignorant, and have misidentified a fallacy. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > Dreck Nash, ****witted shitbag ordinaire, wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > > > >>Derek wrote: > >> > >>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > >>>>concrete to stop killing them? None. > >>> > >>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > >>>concrete to start killing them? None. > >>>There's the long and the short of it. > >> > >>The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and > >>off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of > >>animals. > > > > > > Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the > > collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the > > fallacy; > > > > Non causa pro causa > > **** off, Dreck. Unsupported speculation. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
Dreck Nash, ****witted shitbag ordinaire, wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>Dreck Nash, ****witted shitbag ordinaire, wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* >>>>>>concrete to stop killing them? None. >>>>> >>>>>Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* >>>>>concrete to start killing them? None. >>>>>There's the long and the short of it. >>>> >>>>The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and >>>>off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of >>>>animals. >>> >>> >>>Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the >>>collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the >>>fallacy; >>> >>>Non causa pro causa >> >>**** off, Dreck. > > > Unsupported speculation. **** off, Dreck, you miserable cocksucker. |
|
|||
|
|||
(yeah, right)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > > **** off, Dreck, you miserable cocksucker. > I was, once. I no longer believe in an afterlife. Jonathan Ball 2002-04-20 http://members.global2000.net/~periph/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
Ipse dixit wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>**** off, Dreck, you miserable cocksucker. >> > > I **** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere choice of quote confirms it's you. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > Ipse dixit wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > > **** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere > choice of quote confirms it's you. > These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy. It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time, according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
Ipse dixit wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> >>**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere >>choice of quote confirms it's you. >> > > These constant **** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. **** off and die, asshole. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > Ipse dixit wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > > > >>Ipse dixit wrote: > >> > >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >> > >>**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere > >>choice of quote confirms it's you. > >> > > > > These constant > > **** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. > > **** off and die, asshole. > These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy. It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time, according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
Ipse dixit wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >>> >>> >>>>Ipse dixit wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >>>> >>>>**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere >>>>choice of quote confirms it's you. >>>> >>> >>>These constant >> >>**** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. >> >>**** off and die, asshole. >> > > These constant **** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. **** off and die, asshole. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy. It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time, according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
Ipse dixit wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > > These constant **** off and die, Dreck. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:37 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
wrote: > >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> Ipse dixit wrote: >> >> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> > >> >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> >> >> >>**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere >> >>choice of quote confirms it's you. >> >> >> > >> > These constant >> >> **** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. >> >> **** off and die, asshole. >> >These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are >wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / >Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game >plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the >purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree >with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has >written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a >perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your >recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy. >It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's >posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the >many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time, >according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in >alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years > >I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym >for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if >Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader >and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or >may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in >being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than >welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself. > John Ball once wrote to me and confessed he was a bisexual, which was fine, he praised me on my sense of humour, charm and wit and claimed he only used so many false names as "a gag" then he proceeded to try and get me into bed, saying he had always yearned after my powerful loins. I can only assume he has been spurned by derek, hell hath no fury like a poison dwarf scorned. He also claimed to be hung like a horse, when I explained he was no taller than a pit pony himself, he claimed "proportionately hung like a horse" but it still meant his dick was bigger than he was, perhaps he meant dick eatter was bigger? anyway I spurned his advance. Sorry Jon, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, I had to tell, it was eating away at me, the shame. ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. |
|
|||
|
|||
The frustrations of Derek who can't conceal his identity
"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
... > On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:00:00 GMT, Bill > wrote: > > >Dreck Nash, fat **** ordinaire, wrote: > > > These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are > wearing a bit thin Shut up Derek, you're obviously Ipse Dixit. Now are we to believe that this newcomer is sometimes *lending* you his news server and pseudonym? What a joke. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
|
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
"LordSnooty" > wrote in message news > On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:37 GMT, "Ipse dixit" > > wrote: > >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >> Ipse dixit wrote: > >> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >> >>Ipse dixit wrote: > >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... > >> >> > >> >>**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere > >> >>choice of quote confirms it's you. > >> > > >> > These constant > >> > >> **** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. > >> > >> **** off and die, asshole. > >> > >These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are > >wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / > >Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game > >plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the > >purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree > >with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has > >written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a > >perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your > >recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy. > >It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's > >posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the > >many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time, > >according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in > >alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years > > > >I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym > >for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if > >Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader > >and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or > >may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in > >being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than > >welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself. > > > > John Ball once wrote to me and confessed he was a bisexual, "I was, once." Jonathan Ball 2002-04-20 > which was > fine, he praised me on my sense of humour, charm and wit and claimed > he only used so many false names as "a gag" then he proceeded to try > and get me into bed, saying he had always yearned after my powerful > loins. If I remember correctly, and boy what a memory I have, it was your "creamy yet amusingly hirsute buns" that he was after, actually. "I desperately want to slide my skinny tool betwixt your creamy yet amusingly hirsute buns." Jonathan Ball 2003-06-11 > I can only assume he has been spurned by derek, hell hath no > fury like a poison dwarf scorned. > Again, if memory serves, I remember something similar to that from an old pal-o-mine. "Hell hath no fury like a bitch scorned " From: JudGeDreD ) Date: 2002-07-30 09 > He also claimed to be hung like a horse, when I explained he was no > taller than a pit pony himself, he claimed "proportionately hung like > a horse" but it still meant his dick was bigger than he was, perhaps > he meant dick eatter was bigger? anyway I spurned his advance. > I didn't take you for a prick teaser, you dirty flirt. > Sorry Jon, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / > Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, I had to tell, it was eating away at > me, the shame. > It's not your fault: you were being groomed by a experienced net perv. Contact his ISP right away. > > > > ********************************************** > > > > > 'You can't win 'em all.' > Lord Haw Haw. > > Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities > Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities > I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. > There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me > > If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 > richest person in the world. > > And I'm keeping the bloody lot. > > So sue me. > > http://www.globalrichlist.com/ > > Newsgroup ettiquette > > 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. > 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. > 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. > 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining > they're having no effect. > 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know > how to avoid them. > 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping > manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. > 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. > 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. > 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while > secretly reading it. > 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're > as bent as a roundabout. > 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet > 12) Die of old age > 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you > will have a penis the girls can see. > > --------------------------------------- > > "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" > > "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" > The Big Yin. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" > wrote
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > There's the long and the short of it. > > > > The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and > > off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of > > animals. > > Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the > collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the > fallacy; > > Non causa pro causa Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying for the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that the goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a link between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" > wrote > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > > Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > > There's the long and the short of it. > > > > > > The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and > > > off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of > > > animals. > > > > Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the > > collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the > > fallacy; > > > > Non causa pro causa > > Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying for > the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that the > goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a link > between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing. > Er, you've just shown that there isn't. > |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck Nash, dimwitted incompetent disguise "artist" (yeah, right)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:20:37 GMT, "Ipse dixit" >
wrote: > >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> Ipse dixit wrote: >> >> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> > >> >>Ipse dixit wrote: >> >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net... >> >> >> >>**** off, Dreck. You're not fooling anyone. The mere >> >>choice of quote confirms it's you. >> >> >> > >> > These constant >> >> **** off, Dreck. It's you, and everyone knows it. >> >> **** off and die, asshole. >> >These constant evasions by accusing everyone of being Derek are >wearing a bit thin, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / >Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, and it's obvious you use this game >plan as a means to bail out of uncomfortable discussions and for the >purposes of launching personal attacks against people you disagree >with instead of dealing with them in the usual honest way. Derek has >written to me confirming I am correct about you on this point, and a >perfect example of this was demonstrated only a short while ago in your >recent encounter with a highly experienced member in alt.philosophy. >It backfired on you, as it was surely bound to, because that member's >posts are archived while mine are not, leaving you unable to explain the >many thousands of posts made by "Immortalist" who at the same time, >according to you, was also making an equally large number of posts in >alt.food.vegan as Derek over several years > >I've been on Usenet for years now and regularly change my nym >for reasons I have no wish to discuss with the likes of you, and if >Derek wishes to take my advice he will use my news server, reader >and nym to keep you and your many characters occupied. I may or >may not take up a new nym, and that's the beauty and advantage in >being anonymous on Usenet: it's impersonal, and Derek is more than >welcome to adopt my identity to experience this for himself. > John Ball once wrote to me and confessed he was a bisexual, which was fine, he praised me on my sense of humour, charm and wit and claimed he only used so many false names as "a gag" then he proceeded to try and get me into bed, saying he had always yearned after my powerful loins. I can only assume he has been spurned by derek, hell hath no fury like a poison dwarf scorned. He also claimed to be hung like a horse, when I explained he was no taller than a pit pony himself, he claimed "proportionately hung like a horse" but it still meant his dick was bigger than he was, perhaps he meant dick eatter was bigger? anyway I spurned his advance. Sorry Jon, Bill / Jonathan Ball / Everett / Usual Suspect / Murry Cooper / Elvera / Silvia, I had to tell, it was eating away at me, the shame. ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" > wrote > > > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > > > > Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > > > There's the long and the short of it. > > > > > > > > The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and > > > > off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of > > > > animals. > > > > > > Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the > > > collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the > > > fallacy; > > > > > > Non causa pro causa > > > > Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying for > > the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that the > > goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a link > > between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing. > > > Er, you've just shown that there isn't. Er, then how come you're sitting in the slammer for it? |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Bill wrote: <snip> >>>> 1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind >>>> the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat. This is true, generally. I do know in some specific instances (e.g., I know that tomatoes came off my patio-bush, or squash from my neighbor's backyard garden, or oranges from my neighbor down the block's tree). <snip> > You KNOW that animals are killed in the course of producing your food. Actually, unless it is meat, or unless you kill the animals yourself, you do NOT know; you only know there is a certain degree of probability. That is why meat is a certainty and CDs are only a probability. <snip> > She will continue to buy goods which have been produced in a way she > finds unethical. She has done nothing to stop so far, and nothing will > change. I have done things to reduce. <snip> >>> she's waiting for the unethical production and distribution methods >>> to disappear on their own, with no concrete action from her. Not true, as I have made clear several times. >> What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop >> them if she isn't already causing them? > She is causing them, Dreck; so are you. Neither of us are. > She knows how not to do so; so > do you, Derek. Actually, I do not know how to stop CDs, since I do NOT cause them directly, and I can do nothing to stop them. The Anti side, in its consistent strategy of personal attack, confuses ( deliberately or not) two separate things: causation and what you are calling "complicity," which I think is too strong a term. The purchaser of any product does not _cause_ the producer to produce it, and certainly does not cause the producer to use any particular methods of producing it. To take the example of purchasing stolen goods: the purchaser does not cause the thief to steal, nor is he complicit in the theft; he merely provides a market. If the purchaser really _caused_ the thief to steal, then every person in a community where purchasers of stolen goods buy stolen goods would become a thief. If addicts _caused_ people to become drug dealers, then every person in a neighborhood where there are addicts would become a drug dealer. Yet we know that even in inner-city areas where there are many addicts to buy, large numbers of people do not become drug dealers. It is the choice of the producer to produce, and his choice to use specific methods of production. <snip> >>> her equally self-serving decision to >>> eat the cheapest, most easily obtainable vegetables she can get. You have no evidence for this claim; I choose among existing sources of vegetables; I do not choose, necessarily, the cheapest or the most easily obtainable. I doubt Derek does either. <snip> >>> for the same reason that the buyer of stolen >>> property is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the >>> original crime doesn't happen. This is not necessarily true. A thief may steal things for his own use or consumption, not for sale. A purchaser is not _necessary_ for robbery. <snip> >>>> Am I to assume that all my goods are produced using unethical >>>> means to satisfy your argument? That is what he would like you to assume, but it is not necessarily true. I know it is not true in my case. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, the Rush Limbaugh of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > Bill wrote: > > <snip> > > >>>> 1) She has no certain knowledge of the history behind > >>>> the goods she buys, unless it is farmed meat. > > This is true, generally. I do know in some specific instances > (e.g., I know that tomatoes came off my patio-bush, or > squash from my neighbor's backyard garden, or oranges from my > neighbor down the block's tree). Then one chooses those using utilitarian calcuations. > <snip> > > You KNOW that animals are killed in the course of producing your food. > > Actually, unless it is meat, or unless you kill the animals > yourself, you do NOT know; you only know there is a certain > degree of probability. That is why meat is a certainty and > CDs are only a probability. Certainty and probability are both sufficient to establish a link between the consumer and the source. > > <snip> > > She will continue to buy goods which have been produced in a way she > > finds unethical. She has done nothing to stop so far, and nothing will > > change. > > I have done things to reduce. So have many meat-eaters. > <snip> > >>> she's waiting for the unethical production and distribution methods > >>> to disappear on their own, with no concrete action from her. > > Not true, as I have made clear several times. > > >> What concrete action can she or anyone take to stop > >> them if she isn't already causing them? > > > She is causing them, Dreck; so are you. > > Neither of us are. Your participation is instrumental, in the "real world". Your consumer dollars "drive" the process. > > She knows how not to do so; so > > do you, Derek. > > Actually, I do not know how to stop CDs, since I do NOT > cause them directly, and I can do nothing to stop them. Your responsibility is not to "stop cds" any more than it's to stop livestock production. Your job is to be true to your ethical position, to remove your involvment with cds, just as you have removed your involvment with the meat industry. > The Anti side, in its consistent strategy of personal > attack, It's not a personal attack on my part, it's an attack on the validity and consistency of the ethical claims made by vegans, and on the poor logic and types of arguments used. > confuses ( deliberately or not) two separate > things: causation and what you are calling "complicity," > which I think is too strong a term. The purchaser of > any product does not _cause_ the producer to produce it, > and certainly does not cause the producer to use any > particular methods of producing it. It doesn't matter, you are knowingly supporting a particular deadly process when you (vegans in general) have the option to do much more to bring yourself into accordance with your claimed belief that animals have fundamental rights. You fail to take the opportunities to do these things, you take partial measures and declare that those measures are both necessary and sufficient to create an ethical position. That's an unsupportable conclusion. > To take the example of purchasing stolen goods: the > purchaser does not cause the thief to steal, Yes he does, absent buyers, thieves would have no reason to steal. Car stereos can't buy drugs, unless the dealer is a dealer AND a buyer. > nor is he > complicit in the theft; he merely provides a market. That is considered complicity under every legal system in the civilized world. > If the purchaser really _caused_ the thief to steal, > then every person in a community where purchasers of > stolen goods buy stolen goods would become a thief. Why? > If addicts _caused_ people to become drug dealers, then > every person in a neighborhood where there are addicts > would become a drug dealer. Why? Explain this reasoning. > Yet we know that even in > inner-city areas where there are many addicts to buy, > large numbers of people do not become drug dealers. It > is the choice of the producer to produce, and his choice > to use specific methods of production. Buyers of stolen goods usually know from the circumstances and price that those are stolen goods. They have the option to pay more and buy legal goods, but they choose to act in their own self-interest by patronizing a thief. This act connects the act of robbery to them, and makes them a criminal also. They are, ethically speaking, no better than the thief. <snip> > >>> for the same reason that the buyer of stolen > >>> property is guilty of a crime: without their participation, the > >>> original crime doesn't happen. > > This is not necessarily true. A thief may steal things for his > own use or consumption, not for sale. A purchaser is not > _necessary_ for robbery. Necessity is a red herring. Where a purchaser exists, and that purchaser has reason to believe those goods were stolen, they become part of the crime. In this analogy if the goods are sitting on a store shelf, priced retail, the purchaser has every reason to believe they are legitimate. The fact that they are bought in a back alley for 60% discount is what connects the buyer to the crime. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
For the umpteenth time; extend your line wrap, you
scruffy, sloppy slob, or at least use your "Enter" key to drop down a line. "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > > Derek Nash, posing as "Ipse dixit" > wrote > > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote > > > > > Derek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which "vegans" here on usenet have done *anything* > > > > > > > concrete to stop killing them? None. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which vegans here on Usenet have done *anything* > > > > > > concrete to start killing them? None. > > > > > > There's the long and the short of it. > > > > > > > > > > The long and short of it is that ALL "vegans", on and > > > > > off usenet, are complicit in the collateral deaths of > > > > > animals. > > > > > > > > Claiming vegans to be complicit or causal to the > > > > collateral deaths caused by farmers invokes the > > > > fallacy; > > > > > > > > Non causa pro causa > > > > > > Then how can the act of buying stolen goods be a crime? You are paying > for > > > the goods, you took no part in the robbery, and you don't demand that > the > > > goods be stolen, only that they be affordable. Seems that there is a > link > > > between the robbery ad the purchaser that you aren't seeing. > > > > > Er, you've just shown that there isn't. > > Er, then how come you're sitting in the slammer for it? > Errrrrr, what? |
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Ball, the buck-passing miscreant of t.p.a./a.a.e.v.
Ipse dreck wrote:
> For the umpteenth time; extend your line wrap, you > scruffy, sloppy slob, or at least use your "Enter" key > to drop down a line. Why don't you just stop your little charade instead? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians | Vegan | |||
Rush is a hypocritical piece of shit; Karen Winter is a hero | Vegan | |||
Obama Fears Rush Limbaugh...Find Out Why | General Cooking | |||
The astonishing lunacy of Karen Winter | Vegan | |||
Karen Winter, the crown princess of smear | Vegan |