"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > ===========================
> > You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> > for our diets.
>
> You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
> a part of your diet: grass fed beef.
>
> I didn't ask about the beef you eat,
======================
Why? Afraid that i'm answering truthfully, which I am? It's all about
individuals you ignorant fool!
That's why you do everything *you* can to ly about your diet and impact. I
have never claimed
animals don't die because of my diet. You do.


because I knew you
> were going to lie about it by claiming your particular grass
> fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and
> doesn't accrue any collateral deaths at all, and it seems I
> was right. So I'll ask again.
========================
No, you won't. Because you'll unethically edit the responses again, because
you don't like
the fact you've been caught, again, in you're own little game of deceit and
delusions.


>
> "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> deaths?"
> ============================
No fool, I haven't said that at all. Like you, I only talk about 'my' diet.
Kinda like your fallen apples and stuff. Afterall, it's only *your*
specific diet that you think matters. Why is it everybody elses general
diets? Because
you're the hypocritical ignorant fool you are?


>
> > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > =====================
> > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
>
> Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> deaths.
============================
Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. UInlike you, I
know where my it comes from. You have *no* idea where your food comes
from except the local supermarket. Again, when you begin to realize that
you can't specify *your* diet, and compare it to *general* diest of everyone
else,
come on back you hypocritical fool.


>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
>
> > You're denying they die for your grass fed beef, so
> > you're lying here again Rick. "Do you accept that
> > the *general* production, storage, and distribution
> > of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral deaths?"
> > ============================
> No fool, I haven't said that at all.

Then do you admit that grass fed beef accumulates
collateral deaths. Not the magical ones you eat
which slaughter, process, store and distribute
themselves; I'm talking of the ordinary generally
available grass fed beef that ordinary people eat.

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message news

> >
> > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > deaths?"
> > ============================
> No fool, I haven't said that at all.

Then how many collateral deaths do you think
accumulate during the production, packaging,
storage and distribution of typical grass fed beef?

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > > ===========================
> > > You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> > > for our diets.
> >
> > You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
> > a part of your diet: grass fed beef.
> >
> > I didn't ask about the beef you eat,
> ======================
> Why?

Because the grass fed beef you eat is special. It
slaughters, packs, stores and distributes itself
without the use of any power. The grass fed
beef you eat doesn't cause any collateral deaths
at all. Not a single one, ever.

> > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > deaths?"
> > ============================
> No fool, I haven't said that at all.

Then how many collateral deaths are associated
with it? You obviously think they cause only a
few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
you think they cause less than any other food
source?
>
> >
> > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > =====================
> > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> >
> > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > deaths.
> ============================
> Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.

Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > "Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> > > > > in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> > > > > You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> > > > > only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> > > > > you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> > > > > waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> > > > > at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> > > > > the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> > > > > us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> > > > > valuable time, fool?
> > > >
> > > > That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people
> > > > far more intelligent than yourself
> > >
> > > Are you that deluded that you forgot your own
> > > confessions to having this delusional malady you
> > > suffer from, Ditch?
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> Good. I'm glad to see you're still brave enough to admit it.

I'm glad to see you can admit that I showed personal courage by discarding
veganism.

> > > "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
> > > feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
> > > Dutch 19/03/2002
> >
> > You otoh, find it quite comfortable.
>
> I don't suffer from delusions, although you, on the
> other hand do suffer from them and have admitted
> it often.

Yes, you do, many, MANY delusions. Too many to list.

> > > And
> > >
> > > " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
> > > after all who was it hurting?"
> > > Dutch 17/03/2002
> >
> > Indeed, most vegans are only harming themselves,
>
> They aren't deluding themselves as you do.

Most are.

> If your
> argument rests on the premise that vegans must be
> delusional to follow their choices,

Not their dietary choices, their thought processes.

> then your argument
> is nothing more than one huge Ad hominem. And that.
> coming from a self-confessed delusional is hysterical.

It's not an ad hominem, it comes from careful and accurate observation.

>
> > certainly my delusions were quite invisible to the
> > outside world.
> >
> Your delusions made you lie

I didn't lie, that's a lie. You lie constantly.

> and invent ways to
> continue clinging to illusions,

I didn't invent ways, I tried but I couldn't do it. I'm not dishonest enough
to be a successful vegan.

so no, you weren't
> just hurting yourself because you were lying to
> everyone, which is a form of harm.

Who did I lie to? What lies did I tell?

> > > And
> > >
> > > "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> > > is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> > > need invent ways to try either, which is the
> > > real relief."
> > > Dutch 16/02/2002
> >
> > I wish you could experience the relief.
> >
> I'm quite sane and don't need any relief for something
> I don't suffer from.

Yes you do, you need a lot of relief.

> > > If you were lying then, and "inventing ways" (lying)
> >
> > Inventing arguments isn't the same as lying.
>
> "Inventing ways", dummy; that's what you were
> inventing. You lied to yourself and others while
> trying to pretend a support for animal rights.

Nope, that's wrong. I supported animal rights and tried to invent arguments
to support it. That's what all vegans do.

> > > so you could continue deluding yourself, how do
> > > we know you're cured and not still lying to us even
> > > now?
> >
> > I wasn't lying then
>
> You were lying, and you knew it because you had
> to "invent ways" to cling to illusions you knew you
> couldn't support.
> "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> need invent ways to try either, which is the
> real relief."
> Dutch 16/02/2002
>
> >I used arguments I thought made sense, when I found
> > they didn't I looked for others.
>
> You invented lies. That's all.

Name one.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > > > ===========================
> > > > You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> > > > for our diets.
> > >
> > > You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
> > > a part of your diet: grass fed beef.
> > >
> > > I didn't ask about the beef you eat,
> > ======================
> > Why?
>
> Because the grass fed beef you eat is special. It
> slaughters, packs, stores and distributes itself
> without the use of any power. The grass fed
> beef you eat doesn't cause any collateral deaths
> at all. Not a single one, ever.
>
> > > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > deaths?"
> > > ============================
> > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
>
> Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> you think they cause less than any other food
> source?
> >
> > >
> > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > =====================
> > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > >
> > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > deaths.
> > ============================
> > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
>
> Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.
=================
No, you're lying. Everyone knows that...
The production of my beef does not. That you are too stupid to see what
your asking is just part of your stupidity.




>
>

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > "Bill" > wrote in message k.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> > > > > > in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> > > > > > You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> > > > > > only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> > > > > > you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> > > > > > waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> > > > > > at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> > > > > > the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> > > > > > us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> > > > > > valuable time, fool?
> > > > >
> > > > > That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people
> > > > > far more intelligent than yourself
> > > >
> > > > Are you that deluded that you forgot your own
> > > > confessions to having this delusional malady you
> > > > suffer from, Ditch?
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> > >
> > Good. I'm glad to see you're still brave enough to admit it.
>
> I'm glad to see you can admit that I showed personal
> courage by discarding veganism.
>
You didn't discard veganism. If anything, all you
did was to discard the lies you invented that helped
you cling to those illusions which convinced you into
believing you were a vegan in support for animal
rights. That's all.

> > > > "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
> > > > feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
> > > > Dutch 19/03/2002
> > >
There you are. You left AR because you weren't
really in support for it to begin with. You *knowingly*
deluded yourself so you could carry on a charade as
one.

> > > You otoh, find it quite comfortable.
> >
> > I don't suffer from delusions, although you, on the
> > other hand do suffer from them and have admitted
> > it often.
>
> Yes, you do, many, MANY delusions. Too many to list.
>
That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
these delusions.

> > > > And
> > > >
> > > > " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
> > > > after all who was it hurting?"
> > > > Dutch 17/03/2002
> > >
> > > Indeed, most vegans are only harming themselves,
> >
> > They aren't deluding themselves as you do.
>
> Most are.
>
That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
these delusions.

> > If your
> > argument rests on the premise that vegans must be
> > delusional to follow their choices,
>
> Not their dietary choices, their thought processes.
>
> > then your argument
> > is nothing more than one huge Ad hominem. And that.
> > coming from a self-confessed delusional is hysterical.
>
> It's not an ad hominem, it comes from careful and accurate
> observation.
>
That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
these delusions.
> >
> > > certainly my delusions were quite invisible to the
> > > outside world.
> > >
> > Your delusions made you lie
>
> I didn't lie, that's a lie. You lie constantly.
>
You invented ways to cling to your delusions,
and that's lying; not only to yourself but the people
you were trying to convince with your charade.

> > and invent ways to
> > continue clinging to illusions,
>
> I didn't invent ways,

"I no longer cling to that illusion because it
is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
need *invent ways* to try either, which is the
real relief." *my emphasis*
Dutch 16/02/2002

See my emphasis.

> I tried but I couldn't do it.

You were already or had been doing it, and that
is emphasised when you wrote, "I no longer need
to.." How can one no longer need to continue doing
something they weren't already doing, stupid liar?

> I'm not dishonest enough
> to be a successful vegan.
>
> > so no, you weren't
> > just hurting yourself because you were lying to
> > everyone, which is a form of harm.
>
> Who did I lie to?

Yourself and everyone you tried to fool with your
charade.

> What lies did I tell?
>
Who can tell? The point is that your statement
shows you were lying to yourself and others by
*knowingly deluding yourself*. That, by definition,
is lying to yourself.

> > > > And
> > > >
> > > > "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> > > > is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> > > > need invent ways to try either, which is the
> > > > real relief."
> > > > Dutch 16/02/2002
> > >
> > > I wish you could experience the relief.
> > >
> > I'm quite sane and don't need any relief for something
> > I don't suffer from.
>
> Yes you do

That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
these delusions.
>
> > > > If you were lying then, and "inventing ways" (lying)
> > >
> > > Inventing arguments isn't the same as lying.
> >
> > "Inventing ways", dummy; that's what you were
> > inventing. You lied to yourself and others while
> > trying to pretend a support for animal rights.
>
> Nope, that's wrong. I supported animal rights and
> tried to invent arguments to support it. That's what
> all vegans do.
>
You deluded yourself into believing you supported
animal rights, and the reason you gave for deluding
yourself was that it made you feel comfortable.

" I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
after all who was it hurting?"
Dutch 17/03/2002

You wanted to be one, but you were only a method
ARA: you believed it while you acted out the part, as
all method actors do.

> > > > so you could continue deluding yourself, how do
> > > > we know you're cured and not still lying to us even
> > > > now?
> > >
> > > I wasn't lying then
> >
> > You were lying, and you knew it because you had
> > to "invent ways" to cling to illusions you knew you
> > couldn't support.
> > "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> > is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> > need invent ways to try either, which is the
> > real relief."
> > Dutch 16/02/2002
> >
> > >I used arguments I thought made sense, when I found
> > > they didn't I looked for others.
> >
> > You invented lies. That's all.
>
> Name one.
>
Each and every argument you invented while acting
out your charade, that's them, so you tell me what
they are.

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > > > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > > > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > > > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > > > > ===========================
> > > > > You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> > > > > for our diets.
> > > >
> > > > You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
> > > > a part of your diet: grass fed beef.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't ask about the beef you eat,
> > > ======================
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because the grass fed beef you eat is special. It
> > slaughters, packs, stores and distributes itself
> > without the use of any power. The grass fed
> > beef you eat doesn't cause any collateral deaths
> > at all. Not a single one, ever.
> >
Well? Don't you agree?

> > > > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > deaths?"
> > > > ============================
> > > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
> >
> > Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> > with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> > few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> > you think they cause less than any other food
> > source?

Well, liar? What proof have you to show that the
grass fed beef you eat doesn't accrue any collateral
deaths?
> > > >
> > > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > =====================
> > > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > > >
> > > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > deaths.
> > > ============================
> > > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> >
> > Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.
> =================
> No, you're lying.

Yes, I would be if I sincerely wrote such a thing,
because we all accept the fact that animals die
during the production of our food, so why do you
lie while pretending no collateral deaths accrue
during the production of your grass fed beef?

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > > > > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > > > > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > > > > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > > > > > ===========================
> > > > > > You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> > > > > > for our diets.
> > > > >
> > > > > You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
> > > > > a part of your diet: grass fed beef.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't ask about the beef you eat,
> > > > ======================
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because the grass fed beef you eat is special. It
> > > slaughters, packs, stores and distributes itself
> > > without the use of any power. The grass fed
> > > beef you eat doesn't cause any collateral deaths
> > > at all. Not a single one, ever.
> > >
> Well? Don't you agree?
=======================
The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.


>
> > > > > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > deaths?"
> > > > > ============================
> > > > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
> > >
> > > Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> > > few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> > > you think they cause less than any other food
> > > source?
>
> Well, liar? What proof have you to show that the
> grass fed beef you eat doesn't accrue any collateral
> deaths?
========================
The cows themselves. they live right out in the open just down the road.
Come on over and see them.



> > > > >
> > > > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > > > >
> > > > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > deaths.
> > > > ============================
> > > > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> > >
> > > Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.
> > =================
> > No, you're lying.
>
> Yes, I would be if I sincerely wrote such a thing,
> because we all accept the fact that animals die
> during the production of our food, so why do you
> lie while pretending no collateral deaths accrue
> during the production of your grass fed beef?
=====================
Because they don't occur during the production of the beef.

Your unannotated snipping noted, hypocrite.


Go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer...

>
>

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > > "Bill" > wrote in message
k.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unlike you, bluefooted cripple, I have a real life.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's examine that claim. You live in a beautiful house
> > > > > > > in one of the richest places on Earth: Sunny California.
> > > > > > > You have qualifications and an acedemic CV most can
> > > > > > > only dream of ever achieving, myself included, but here
> > > > > > > you are, day after day spending at least 25% of your
> > > > > > > waking hours butting heads with a blue-footed carpenter
> > > > > > > at the keyboard. Some life you have for yourself for all
> > > > > > > the effort you've put into it, pally. Between the two of
> > > > > > > us, who's the real idiot. Who's REALLY wasting their
> > > > > > > valuable time, fool?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's what it's all about for you, "butting heads" with people
> > > > > > far more intelligent than yourself
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you that deluded that you forgot your own
> > > > > confessions to having this delusional malady you
> > > > > suffer from, Ditch?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all.
> > > >
> > > Good. I'm glad to see you're still brave enough to admit it.
> >
> > I'm glad to see you can admit that I showed personal
> > courage by discarding veganism.
> >
> You didn't discard veganism. If anything, all you
> did was to discard the lies you invented that helped
> you cling to those illusions which convinced you into
> believing you were a vegan in support for animal
> rights. That's all.
======================
So, clinging to veganism is all about holding onto lys and delusions?
Thanks for the great insight there killer.


>
> > > > > "The reason I left AR is precisely that I DON'T
> > > > > feel comfortable *knowingly* deluding myself.
> > > > > Dutch 19/03/2002
> > > >
> There you are. You left AR because you weren't
> really in support for it to begin with. You *knowingly*
> deluded yourself so you could carry on a charade as
> one.
=====================
Hey, what a coincidence, you aren't fully supporting AR either,
and continue to delude yourself with the charade that you
somehow 'care'. You prove otherwise which each and
every post, but thanks again for the insight to your twisted mind...


>
> > > > You otoh, find it quite comfortable.
> > >
> > > I don't suffer from delusions, although you, on the
> > > other hand do suffer from them and have admitted
> > > it often.
> >
> > Yes, you do, many, MANY delusions. Too many to list.
> >
> That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
> person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
> bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
> the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
> these delusions.
==========================
No, you prove you live in a deluded state with just about every post,
killer.


>
> > > > > And
> > > > >
> > > > > " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
> > > > > after all who was it hurting?"
> > > > > Dutch 17/03/2002
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, most vegans are only harming themselves,
> > >
> > > They aren't deluding themselves as you do.
> >
> > Most are.
> >
> That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
> person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
> bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
> the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
> these delusions.
==========================
No, you prove you live in a deluded state with just about every post,
killer.



>
> > > If your
> > > argument rests on the premise that vegans must be
> > > delusional to follow their choices,
> >
> > Not their dietary choices, their thought processes.
> >
> > > then your argument
> > > is nothing more than one huge Ad hominem. And that.
> > > coming from a self-confessed delusional is hysterical.
> >
> > It's not an ad hominem, it comes from careful and accurate
> > observation.
> >
> That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
> person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
> bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
> the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
> these delusions.
==========================
No, you prove you live in a deluded state with just about every post,
killer.



> > >
> > > > certainly my delusions were quite invisible to the
> > > > outside world.
> > > >
> > > Your delusions made you lie
> >
> > I didn't lie, that's a lie. You lie constantly.
> >
> You invented ways to cling to your delusions,
> and that's lying; not only to yourself but the people
> you were trying to convince with your charade.
=================
Nope, he's managed to grow, and become aware of his impact on the world.
You, on the other hand, have contiuned to live with your lys and delusions.
It is you that tries to convince yourself of the charade you're living.


>
> > > and invent ways to
> > > continue clinging to illusions,
> >
> > I didn't invent ways,
>
> "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> need *invent ways* to try either, which is the
> real relief." *my emphasis*
> Dutch 16/02/2002
>
> See my emphasis.
>
> > I tried but I couldn't do it.
>
> You were already or had been doing it, and that
> is emphasised when you wrote, "I no longer need
> to.." How can one no longer need to continue doing
> something they weren't already doing, stupid liar?
>
> > I'm not dishonest enough
> > to be a successful vegan.
> >
> > > so no, you weren't
> > > just hurting yourself because you were lying to
> > > everyone, which is a form of harm.
> >
> > Who did I lie to?
>
> Yourself and everyone you tried to fool with your
> charade.
>
> > What lies did I tell?
> >
> Who can tell? The point is that your statement
> shows you were lying to yourself and others by
> *knowingly deluding yourself*. That, by definition,
> is lying to yourself.
>
> > > > > And
> > > > >
> > > > > "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> > > > > is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> > > > > need invent ways to try either, which is the
> > > > > real relief."
> > > > > Dutch 16/02/2002
> > > >
> > > > I wish you could experience the relief.
> > > >
> > > I'm quite sane and don't need any relief for something
> > > I don't suffer from.
> >
> > Yes you do
>
> That claim relies on the premise that you can judge a
> person's mental faculties from behind a monitor, and
> bearing in mind that you are an admitted delusional,
> the claim itself appears to be merely a sequelae of
> these delusions.
==========================
No, you prove you live in a deluded state with just about every post,
killer.



> >
> > > > > If you were lying then, and "inventing ways" (lying)
> > > >
> > > > Inventing arguments isn't the same as lying.
> > >
> > > "Inventing ways", dummy; that's what you were
> > > inventing. You lied to yourself and others while
> > > trying to pretend a support for animal rights.
> >
> > Nope, that's wrong. I supported animal rights and
> > tried to invent arguments to support it. That's what
> > all vegans do.
> >
> You deluded yourself into believing you supported
> animal rights, and the reason you gave for deluding
> yourself was that it made you feel comfortable.
==========================
Exactly what you claim now. Guess you haven't mananged to grow any, eh
stupid?



>
> " I did find deluding myself quite comfortable,
> after all who was it hurting?"
> Dutch 17/03/2002
>
> You wanted to be one, but you were only a method
> ARA: you believed it while you acted out the part, as
> all method actors do.
>
> > > > > so you could continue deluding yourself, how do
> > > > > we know you're cured and not still lying to us even
> > > > > now?
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't lying then
> > >
> > > You were lying, and you knew it because you had
> > > to "invent ways" to cling to illusions you knew you
> > > couldn't support.
> > > "I no longer cling to that illusion because it
> > > is impossible to support. I no longer feel the
> > > need invent ways to try either, which is the
> > > real relief."
> > > Dutch 16/02/2002
> > >
> > > >I used arguments I thought made sense, when I found
> > > > they didn't I looked for others.
> > >
> > > You invented lies. That's all.
> >
> > Name one.
> >
> Each and every argument you invented while acting
> out your charade, that's them, so you tell me what
> they are.
==================
Didn't think you could...

>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the
> > > > > > > > likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
> > > > > > > > allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral
> > > > > > > > deaths associated with his diet to go unchallenged?
> > > > > > > ===========================
> > > > > > > You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur
> > > > > > > for our diets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with
> > > > > > a part of your diet: grass fed beef.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't ask about the beef you eat,
> > > > > ======================
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Because the grass fed beef you eat is special. It
> > > > slaughters, packs, stores and distributes itself
> > > > without the use of any power. The grass fed
> > > > beef you eat doesn't cause any collateral deaths
> > > > at all. Not a single one, ever.
> > > >
> > Well? Don't you agree?
> =======================
> The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
>
Keep up with that denial, hypocrite, because while
you continue with it you're proving that the CD
argument holds a double standard. Kevin Brandon
et al ignore your claims of CD free substitute to
regular meat, so your arrogance has come in very
handy for once because it allows me to show
their hypocricy and double standards too.
> >
> > > > > > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > > deaths?"
> > > > > > ============================
> > > > > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
> > > >
> > > > Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> > > > few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> > > > you think they cause less than any other food
> > > > source?
> >
> > Well, liar? What proof have you to show that the
> > grass fed beef you eat doesn't accrue any collateral
> > deaths?
> ========================
> The cows themselves. they live right out in the open just down the road.
> Come on over and see them.
>
I could point you to a row of cabbages and make
exactly the same claim, but according to you I
would then be denying the existence of collateral
deaths associated with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > > > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > > deaths.
> > > > > ============================
> > > > > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > >
> > > > Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > =================
> > > No, you're lying.
> >
> > Yes, I would be if I sincerely wrote such a thing,
> > because we all accept the fact that animals die
> > during the production of our food, so why do you
> > lie while pretending no collateral deaths accrue
> > during the production of your grass fed beef?
> =====================
> Because they don't occur during the production of the beef.
>
Yes, they do. The tables have been turned, killer.
>
> Go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer...
>
Go have that CD free GFB burger, hypocrite.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote

> > > Good. I'm glad to see you're still brave enough to admit it.
> >
> > I'm glad to see you can admit that I showed personal
> > courage by discarding veganism.

> You didn't discard veganism.

Yes I did, I discarded the notion that my diet was more animal friendly than
diets which contain meat. That notion is central to veganism.

> If anything, all you
> did was to discard the lies you invented that helped
> you cling to those illusions which convinced you into
> believing you were a vegan in support for animal
> rights. That's all.

True, I discarded the lie that vegan diets are categorically more animal
friendly than diets which contain meat.

Everyone who values their personal integrity should discard that lie.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>

snippage...
> > > > > at all. Not a single one, ever.
> > > > >
> > > Well? Don't you agree?
> > =======================
> > The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
> >
> Keep up with that denial, hypocrite, because while
> you continue with it you're proving that the CD
> argument holds a double standard. Kevin Brandon
> et al ignore your claims of CD free substitute to
> regular meat, so your arrogance has come in very
> handy for once because it allows me to show
> their hypocricy and double standards too.
=======================
No, it hasn't, because you are too stupid to understand the comment, killer.


> > >
> > > > > > > "Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > > > deaths?"
> > > > > > > ============================
> > > > > > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> > > > > few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> > > > > you think they cause less than any other food
> > > > > source?
> > >
> > > Well, liar? What proof have you to show that the
> > > grass fed beef you eat doesn't accrue any collateral
> > > deaths?
> > ========================
> > The cows themselves. they live right out in the open just down the
road.
> > Come on over and see them.
> >
> I could point you to a row of cabbages and make
> exactly the same claim, but according to you I
> would then be denying the existence of collateral
> deaths associated with them.
=======================
Nope. Because if they are the ones you purchase, they were machine farmed.
Their production required
the use of power and petro-chemicals.


> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > > > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > > > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > > > > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > > > deaths.
> > > > > > ============================
> > > > > > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > > =================
> > > > No, you're lying.
> > >
> > > Yes, I would be if I sincerely wrote such a thing,
> > > because we all accept the fact that animals die
> > > during the production of our food, so why do you
> > > lie while pretending no collateral deaths accrue
> > > during the production of your grass fed beef?
> > =====================
> > Because they don't occur during the production of the beef.
> >
> Yes, they do. The tables have been turned, killer.
=====================
No, they don't. Try again, killer...

> >
> > Go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer...
> >
> Go have that CD free GFB burger, hypocrite.
=====================
Nope. Didn't claim that the burger had no CDs, stupid.

You lose, again.



Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite...


>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
> snippage...
> > > > > > at all. Not a single one, ever.
> > > > > >
> > > > Well? Don't you agree?
> > > =======================
> > > The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
> > >
> > Keep up with that denial, hypocrite, because while
> > you continue with it you're proving that the CD
> > argument holds a double standard. Kevin Brandon
> > et al ignore your claims of CD free substitute to
> > regular meat, so your arrogance has come in very
> > handy for once because it allows me to show
> > their hypocricy and double standards too.
> =======================
> No, it hasn't

Yes, it has. Only Jonathan has made a small effort
to put you right, yet even he's whiffed off after you
told him he was wrong, so it's certainly true that
they are allowing you to continue with your denial
while attacking vegans for their alleged denial. A
classic example of a double standard.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > "Do you accept that the *general* production,
> > > > > > > > storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
> > > > > > > > accumulates any collateral deaths?"
> > > > > > > > ============================
> > > > > > > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > > with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> > > > > > few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> > > > > > you think they cause less than any other food
> > > > > > source?
> > > >
> > > > Well, liar? What proof have you to show that the
> > > > grass fed beef you eat doesn't accrue any collateral
> > > > deaths?
> > > ========================
> > > The cows themselves. they live right out in the open
> > > just down the road. Come on over and see them.
> > >
> > I could point you to a row of cabbages and make
> > exactly the same claim, but according to you I
> > would then be denying the existence of collateral
> > deaths associated with them.
> =======================
> Nope. Because if they are the ones you purchase,
> they were machine farmed.

They grew in a field, just like your grass fed beef did.

> Their production required the use of power and
> petro-chemicals.
>
The production of your grass fed beef requires the
use of power and petro- chemicals in a similar way
to crops. Your beef goes to a mechanised abattoir,
is packed, stored and distributed like any other food.
Your grass fed beef does accrue collateral deaths.
>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > > > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > > > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > > > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > > > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the
> > > > > > > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > > > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > > > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > > > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > > > > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > > > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > > > > > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > > > > deaths.
> > > > > > > ============================
> > > > > > > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > > > =================
> > > > > No, you're lying.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I would be if I sincerely wrote such a thing,
> > > > because we all accept the fact that animals die
> > > > during the production of our food, so why do you
> > > > lie while pretending no collateral deaths accrue
> > > > during the production of your grass fed beef?
> > > =====================
> > > Because they don't occur during the production of the beef.
> > >
> > Yes, they do. The tables have been turned, killer.
> =====================
> No, they don't.

Yes, they do, but keep that denial going, Rick,
because it's the light that illuminates the hypocrisy
of your anti pals and shows a massive double
standard in the CD argument generally.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > snippage...
> > > > > > > at all. Not a single one, ever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Well? Don't you agree?
> > > > =======================
> > > > The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs.
> > > >
> > > Keep up with that denial, hypocrite, because while
> > > you continue with it you're proving that the CD
> > > argument holds a double standard. Kevin Brandon
> > > et al ignore your claims of CD free substitute to
> > > regular meat, so your arrogance has come in very
> > > handy for once because it allows me to show
> > > their hypocricy and double standards too.
> > =======================
> > No, it hasn't
>
> Yes, it has.
====================
No, it hasn't. I've never denied that my food does cause CDs. You have.
Too bad, killer.

Only Jonathan has made a small effort
> to put you right, yet even he's whiffed off after you
> told him he was wrong, so it's certainly true that
> they are allowing you to continue with your denial
> while attacking vegans for their alleged denial. A
> classic example of a double standard.
======================
No, because you were too stupid to see your stupidity...


> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Do you accept that the *general* production,
> > > > > > > > > storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
> > > > > > > > > accumulates any collateral deaths?"
> > > > > > > > > ============================
> > > > > > > > No fool, I haven't said that at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > > > with it? You obviously think they cause only a
> > > > > > > few, or in your case, none at all, so what makes
> > > > > > > you think they cause less than any other food
> > > > > > > source?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, liar? What proof have you to show that the
> > > > > grass fed beef you eat doesn't accrue any collateral
> > > > > deaths?
> > > > ========================
> > > > The cows themselves. they live right out in the open
> > > > just down the road. Come on over and see them.
> > > >
> > > I could point you to a row of cabbages and make
> > > exactly the same claim, but according to you I
> > > would then be denying the existence of collateral
> > > deaths associated with them.
> > =======================
> > Nope. Because if they are the ones you purchase,
> > they were machine farmed.
>
> They grew in a field, just like your grass fed beef did.
======================
Not without intensive farming. Too bad for you, killer.


>
> > Their production required the use of power and
> > petro-chemicals.
> >
> The production of your grass fed beef requires the
> use of power and petro- chemicals in a similar way
> to crops.
====================
No, it does not. You really are too stupid for this, aren't you killer?


Your beef goes to a mechanised abattoir,
> is packed, stored and distributed like any other food.
> Your grass fed beef does accrue collateral deaths.
==========================
Not during the production, stupid.




> >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly
> > > > > > > > > > > denying the collateral deaths associated with their
> > > > > > > > > > > diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths
> > > > > > > > > > > associated with his? I'm not questioning anyone's
> > > > > > > > > > > belief of their responsibility for them, but rather
the
> > > > > > > > > > > anti's silence while one particular regular on these
> > > > > > > > > > > animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever
> > > > > > > > > > > daring to suggest no animals die for his food. I
> > > > > > > > > > > believe their CD argument holds a double standard.
> > > > > > > > > > =====================
> > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals
> > > > > > > > > > die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated
> > > > > > > > > with the grass fed beef you eat. After that tell me if you
> > > > > > > > > accept that the *general* production, storage, and
> > > > > > > > > distribution of grass fed beef accumulates any collateral
> > > > > > > > > deaths.
> > > > > > > > ============================
> > > > > > > > Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then likewise, the production of my veg promotes no CDs.
Period.
> > > > > > =================
> > > > > > No, you're lying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I would be if I sincerely wrote such a thing,
> > > > > because we all accept the fact that animals die
> > > > > during the production of our food, so why do you
> > > > > lie while pretending no collateral deaths accrue
> > > > > during the production of your grass fed beef?
> > > > =====================
> > > > Because they don't occur during the production of the beef.
> > > >
> > > Yes, they do. The tables have been turned, killer.
> > =====================
> > No, they don't.
>
> Yes, they do, but keep that denial going, Rick,
> because it's the light that illuminates the hypocrisy
> of your anti pals and shows a massive double
> standard in the CD argument generally.
> ========================
Nope. again, the only double standard is yours, hypocrite.
Keep up the good work on proving your stupidity.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer.


>