"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately
> wants the reader to forget about (below).
>
> [start Mmhsb]
> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
> [usual suspect]
> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>
> and
>
> "Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
> stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
> be messy, but they're not cruel."
> Usual Suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq
>
> and
>
> "Suffering results for all animals whether they're
> eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
> other predators are less humane than humans."
> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>
> It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but
> both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between
> themselves to stop the readers on these animal related
> groups getting to read them.
>
> They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
> titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about
> anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh?

Yes, they are. One sad aspect of it is that U.S. didn't seem
to start out that way and he's written a few interesting posts
that are worth a read (e.g., his post about GI vs. GL earlier
today).

But for some reason he came to think that jonnie's behavior
was acceptable and worthy of emulation, and he started
emulating jonnie's dishonest unethical unchristian behavior.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:50:41 -0400, "farrell77" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately
>> wants the reader to forget about (below).
>>
>> [start Mmhsb]
>> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
>> [usual suspect]
>> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
>> stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
>> be messy, but they're not cruel."
>> Usual Suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>> eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>> other predators are less humane than humans."
>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>>
>> It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>> natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but
>> both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between
>> themselves to stop the readers on these animal related
>> groups getting to read them.
>>
>> They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
>> titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about
>> anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh?
>
>Yes, they are. One sad aspect of it is that U.S. didn't seem
>to start out that way and he's written a few interesting posts
>that are worth a read (e.g., his post about GI vs. GL earlier
>today).

Here's a few interesting views he claims to have held;

"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09 http://tinyurl.com/2wny3

"Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
protection under the law. But are they endowed with
any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12 http://tinyurl.com/2hfz9

"Veganism costs less regardless of socio-economic
environs. Indeed, lesser well-off people are far more
likely to subsist on vegetarian diets; meat and dairy
are a product of 'advanced' society. It costs more to
produce dairy, beef, poultry, pork than grains,
vegetables, legumes; indeed, you must first raise the
latter to fatten the former. Skip the former entirely
and you have much more of the latter to feed the
world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/yvyk8

>But for some reason he came to think that jonnie's behavior
>was acceptable and worthy of emulation, and he started
>emulating jonnie's dishonest unethical unchristian behavior.

I've seen bullying at school where the victim does his
best to appease his aggressor because he has very
little option but to continue going to school from threat
of expulsion, but this net bullying and appeasement,
especially the voluntary appeasement as seen in "usual"
has a chapter of its own in any book relating to bullying
because "usual" doesn't necessarily have to put up with
it. I don't quite understand it, tbh.

Dreck Nash, lifelong bully, wrote:

> I've seen bullying at school

SEEN it?! You perpetrated it, you ****ing fat coward.

farrell77 wrote:
<...>
>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,

Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.

>>but
>>both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between
>>themselves to stop the readers on these animal related
>>groups getting to read them.

They're available IN CONTEXT at Google. Your incessant and gross
misrepresentations of others' remarks, including mine, are as well.

>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup

*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.

>>titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about
>>anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh?

Very rich coming from such a shit-stirrer who alters posts, snips context, and
changes subjects at least as often as those whom he accuses.

> Yes, they are.

Welcome to Dreck's asinine smear club, cocksucking liar Boob. The irony isn't
lost that you reject the list about pearl's well-established moronic beliefs and
yet side with the fat, shit-stirring cretin of Eastbourne in his little game.

> One sad aspect of it is that U.S. didn't seem
> to start out that way and he's written a few interesting posts
> that are worth a read (e.g., his post about GI vs. GL earlier
> today).

You'd find all my posts interesting if you weren't so busy trying to defend "the
side" when their balls are against the wall. Not that you're apt to handle such
tasks (you're clearly not).

> But for some reason he came to think that jonnie's behavior
> was acceptable and worthy of emulation, and he started
> emulating jonnie's dishonest unethical unchristian behavior.

No, I only stopped trying to defend and deflect criticism leveled against lying
assholes like you. Where's the dishonesty or unethical behavior in my posts?
Prove it, shitstain.

ipse dixit wrote:
<...>
> I've seen bullying at school where the victim does his
> best to appease his aggressor because he has very
> little option but to continue going to school from threat
> of expulsion, but this net bullying and appeasement,
> especially the voluntary appeasement as seen in "usual"
> has a chapter of its own in any book relating to bullying
> because "usual" doesn't necessarily have to put up with
> it. I don't quite understand it, tbh.

There's a lot you don't understand, bluefoot. Like how lifting an engine block
out of a car can cripple someone for life. You seem to know a lot about
bullying. You've been at it -- and forms of shit-stirring -- your whole life.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:58:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>farrell77 wrote:
><...>
>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>
>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.

Here's the quote you keep snipping away which
proves my claim is correct.

[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

>>>but
>>>both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between
>>>themselves to stop the readers on these animal related
>>>groups getting to read them.
>
>They're available IN CONTEXT at Google.

Exactly true. I've supplied links to them, so go
and check them for yourself.

>>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
>
>*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.

You've been doing it all week and more besides.
The evidence is all in Google archives.

>>>titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about
>>>anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh?
>
>Very rich coming from such a shit-stirrer who alters posts

Show where.

> snips context,

Show where

>and changes subjects

So what?

[..]
>> But for some reason he came to think that jonnie's behavior
>> was acceptable and worthy of emulation, and he started
>> emulating jonnie's dishonest unethical unchristian behavior.
>
>No, I only stopped trying to defend and deflect criticism leveled against lying
>assholes like you. Where's the dishonesty or unethical behavior in my posts?
>Prove it, shitstain.

You've edited the sentences in my posts at least a dozen
times before responding to them, used two identities to
attack JethroUk, altered newsgroup follow-up addresses
to make replying to your posts awkward, lied, forged posts
using your opponent's identity, and committed just about every
unethical trick you can think of, so don't try claiming your
behaviour here is honest because no one's that stupid to
believe you in light of all the evidence against you.

ipse dixit wrote:
<...>
> You've edited the sentences in my posts at least a dozen
> times before responding to them,

Never. Prove it.

> used two identities to attack JethroUk,

Never. Prove it. I've ignored the JethroUK threads.

> altered newsgroup follow-up addresses
> to make replying to your posts awkward,

Never. Prove it.

> lied,

Never. Prove it.

> forged posts using your opponent's identity,

Never. Prove it.

> and committed just about every
> unethical trick you can think of,

Never. Prove it.

> so don't try claiming your
> behaviour here is honest because no one's that stupid to
> believe you in light of all the evidence against you.

Do you beat Belinda as bad as you beat your dog?

"ipse dixit" > wrote nothing

Why did you beat your dog with a broom anyway?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote nothing
>
<unsnip>
>> > Dutch doesn't believe what ****wit believes.
>>
>> I've provided his quotes proving he holds the
>> very same views as Harrison.
>
>You showed that I made statements 3 1/2 years ago that appear superficially
>similiar to ****wit's position.

They are more superficially similar, and you
admitted this when you wrote that you were
in fact quoting him;

> > [start Dutch]
> > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
> > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life
> > as David says, in exchange for the use of their
> > hides. We give them life. They give us their
> > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial
> > contract, which I believe includes treating them
> > with respect. The only contract I have with mice
> > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you.
> > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe
> > we're not so different after all.
> [Polly]
> Although we know there's no literal "contract", I
> do like your way of stating the fact that both humans
> and animals benefit from the animals' domestication.
[Dutch]
Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David..
who'da thunk???
Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2jdml

When are you going to stop lying?

Also, you've made recent statements owning up to
your belief in that animals benefit from getting to
experience life. Jon sipped them away while trying
to dig you out of this mess, but Google still has the
proof that you believe natural predation is cruel
and that removing it is a benefit to wild animals. With
that in mind and your earlier quotes below, you've
conceded to both of Harrison's claims;

1) That animals benefit from getting the chance
to experience life;
[start ipse dixit]
> The quotes and admissions below prove you
> believe an animal benefits from getting to
> experience life and being able to reproduce after
> their predators have been removed
[Dutch]
Of course they do.
[end]

2) That "this is a "moral consideration" issue.""
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

Both these arguments are Harrison's, and like
him, when asked to explain how they benefit
and why it's a moral consideration issue, you
reply that it is "self-evident" or "obvious".

> [ipse dixit]
> Then explain how they benefit;
> 1) from living
> 2) from producing
[Dutch]
It's self-evident
[end]

As usual your past quotes have come back to bite you.
You believe our moral consideration to remove natural
predators is a good thing and that we should continue to
farm animals because "nature is arguably more cruel
than captivity." You follow the logic of the larder, Dutch.

"ipse dixit" > wrote nothing coherent

Why did you beat your dog with a broom anyway?

On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:21:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"ipse dixit" > wrote nothing coherent
>
>Why did you beat your dog with a broom anyway?
>
I didn't. Your cheap diversion and unethical snipping
aside, why do you claim your view isn't the same as
David Harrison's when your own quotes admit that it
is? Read the part where you admit to actually quoting
him.

> > [start Dutch]
> > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that
> > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life
> > as David says, in exchange for the use of their
> > hides. We give them life. They give us their
> > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial
> > contract, which I believe includes treating them
> > with respect. The only contract I have with mice
> > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you.
> > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe
> > we're not so different after all.
> [Polly]
> Although we know there's no literal "contract", I
> do like your way of stating the fact that both humans
> and animals benefit from the animals' domestication.
[Dutch]
Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David..
who'da thunk???
Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2jdml

You've since gone on from there and recently
insisted only a couple of days ago that animals owe
their lives to our demand for the products made
from them in this "mutually beneficial contract" you
say exists between us, so you can hardly say your
old quotes aren't a demonstration of your current
view;

[start, Jonathan Ball to Dutch]
>>Incorrectly thinking of it as an "exchange" is what
>>leads to the wrong notion that the animals "owe" their
>>lives to our demand for the products made from the
>>animals. That is simply and unalterably wrong. The
>>animals "owe" nothing.
> [Dutch]
> It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms,
[Jonathan Ball]
No, because their lives are not physical entities.
[end]
Fri, 14 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/ytc2h

You're in exactly the same boat as Harrison. You've
both stated in the past and recently that animals owe
us their meat and hides on the basis that we provided
them with life.

"The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial
partnership."
Dutch 2001-01-21 http://tinyurl.com/2wlu8

"It *is* an exchange in purely physical terms"
Dutch 2004 -05-15 http://tinyurl.com/ytc2h

Check those dates. You've been holding the same
view as Harrison for over 2 years while hypocritically
and hatefully sniping at him from behind Jon's skirt.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> farrell77 wrote:
> <...>
> >>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> >>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>
> Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.

Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".


> >>but
> >>both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between
> >>themselves to stop the readers on these animal related
> >>groups getting to read them.
>
> They're available IN CONTEXT at Google. Your incessant and gross
> misrepresentations of others' remarks, including mine, are as well.

Ipse caught you and you can't stand the thought
of that. Grow up. There's nothing wrong with what
you said. Why are you so afraid of owning up to it?


> >>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
>
> *I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.

I don't know if you did or not before this denial, but
it does appear that you did so at some point.


> >>titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about
> >>anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh?
>
> Very rich coming from such a shit-stirrer who alters posts, snips context,
and
> changes subjects at least as often as those whom he accuses.

What do you think of jonnie doing these things?


> > Yes, they are.
>
> Welcome to Dreck's asinine smear club, cocksucking liar Boob. The irony
isn't
> lost that you reject the list about pearl's well-established moronic
beliefs and ...

You explicitly stated your belief, so are you saying that
I shouldn't believe it? That you were lying? Okay, if
that's what you really want.

But Pearl has disputed some of your list and you haven't
been able to back it up. I haven't known her to be
dishonest, but I have known you to be. So there's no
irony here. There's solid evidence for believing her and
disbelieving you.


> > One sad aspect of it is that U.S. didn't seem
> > to start out that way and he's written a few interesting posts
> > that are worth a read (e.g., his post about GI vs. GL earlier
> > today).
>
> You'd find all my posts interesting ..

No, I wouldn't. Many of them are trash, laced with
lies, childish un-christian insults, and obscene name-calling.
They provide solid evidence of a serious character flaw
and they're often not worth reading. The post mentioned
above was an exception. Why not post like that more
often?


> ..if you weren't so busy trying to defend "the
> side" when their balls are against the wall. Not that you're apt to handle
such
> tasks (you're clearly not).
>
> > But for some reason he came to think that jonnie's behavior
> > was acceptable and worthy of emulation, and he started
> > emulating jonnie's dishonest unethical unchristian behavior.
>
> No, I only stopped trying to defend and deflect criticism leveled against
lying
> assholes like you. Where's the dishonesty ...

We'll start with your lies about her list.


> ...or unethical behavior in my posts? ...

Your frequent obscene name-calling and insults.

You forgot ask where the unchristian behavior was.
Because you know. So why present yourself as an
alleged christian and then act so frequently in such
an unchristianly manner? Why this obvious hypocrisy?

farrell77 wrote:
<...>
>>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>>
>>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>
> Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".

That is NOT what I said.

<...>
>>>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
>>
>>*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.
>
> I don't know if you did or not before this denial,

I did NOT.

> but
> it does appear that you did so at some point.

Only after Dreck continued snipping *my* posts without noting such snips,
replying to partial statements (as he did to the post which you continue
stirring shit with), and then accusing me of altering his posts -- something
which *I* had not done.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> farrell77 wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
> >>
> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
> >
> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>
> That is NOT what I said.

[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f

It's clearly what you said, christian.

> >>>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
> >>
> >>*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.
> >
> > I don't know if you did or not before this denial,
>
> I did NOT.

You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.

> > but
> > it does appear that you did so at some point.
>
> Only after Dreck continued snipping *my* posts without noting such snips,

Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
same as editing your opponent's reply before
responding to it, as you have been shown to
do. If you're going to criticise me for such
snipping, then for consistency's sake why don't
you criticise others who do the same, christian?

dog-beating fat **** Dreck Nash wrote:
<...>
>>>but
>>>it does appear that you did so at some point.
>>
>>Only after Dreck continued snipping *my* posts without noting such snips,
>
> Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
> same as editing

Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
and then snip the entire substantive part. The result is not a dialogue but a
monologue of your faulty pretexts.

> your opponent's reply before
> responding to it, as you have been shown to
> do. If you're going to criticise me for such
> snipping, then for consistency's sake why don't
> you criticise others who do the same, christian?

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the big, fat broomstick-wielding gander. Search
this group for the words "unethical snip" or "unethical snipping" and see how
many posts are to YOU, asking you to cease such unethical practices.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> ipse dixit wrote:
> <...>
> >>>but
> >>>it does appear that you did so at some point.
> >>
> >>Only after Dreck continued snipping *my* posts without noting such snips,
> >
> > Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
> > same as editing
>
> Bullshit.

You've snipped away the evidence I produced
showing how you unethically edit your opponent's
posts. You're trying to hide the fact that you do
edit your opponent's posts, and now you're trying
to hide the evidence I produce proving it. Is there
no end to your unchristian-like behaviour?

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've also snipped the evidence I've produced
here showing you believe natural predation is cruel.

<unsnip>
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
<endsnip>

When are you going to stop lying, and when are you
going to stop snipping away the evidence I bring here
that reveals your lies?

ipse dixit keep stirring shit:
<...>
>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>same as editing
>>
>>Bullshit.
>
> You've snipped away the evidence I produced

You didn't produce anything; you're not a producer, you're a parasite. You keep
snipping others, including my post to which you just replied, without noting
your snips, and then whining like a little bitch when others do the same to you.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:25:16 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixit :
><...>
>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>same as editing
>>>
>>>Bullshit.
>>
>> You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>
>You didn't produce anything;

I produced evidence which proves you unethically
edit your opponent's posts.

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've also snipped the evidence I've produced
here showing you believe natural predation is cruel.

<unsnip>
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
<endsnip>

When are you going to stop lying, and when are you
going to stop snipping away the evidence I bring here
that reveals your lies?

dog-beating, shit-stirring fat **** Dreck Nash wrote:
>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>same as editing
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>
>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>
>>You didn't produce anything;
>
> I produced evidence which proves you unethically
> edit your opponent's posts.

From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
and then snip the entire substantive part. The result is not a dialogue but a
monologue of your faulty pretexts.

I rest my case.
<...>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:33:49 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
>>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>>same as editing
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>>
>>>You didn't produce anything;
>>
>> I produced evidence which proves you unethically
>> edit your opponent's posts.
>
> From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
>Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
>and then snip the entire substantive part.

There was nothing substantive to bother leaving in.
In fact, it was just a futile diversion from the point
being made about your unethical editing of my posts
before responding to them.

Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
were at all consistent in your whines about this point
in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
for their part in doing it too, but you don't, so it's
obvious you're merely trying to divert attention from
your proven history of EDITING your opponent's
posts. Not just snipping without notation, but actually
EDITING whole sentences, and that's unethical,
"christian."

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've also snipped the evidence I've produced
here showing you believe natural predation is cruel.

<unsnip>
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
<endsnip>

When are you going to stop lying, and when are you
going to stop snipping away the evidence I bring here
that reveals your lies?

ipse dixit wrote:
>>>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>>>same as editing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>>>
>>>>You didn't produce anything;
>>>
>>>I produced evidence which proves you unethically
>>>edit your opponent's posts.
>>
>>From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
>>Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
>>and then snip the entire substantive part.
>
> There was nothing substantive to bother leaving in.
> In fact, it was just a futile diversion from the point
> being made about your unethical editing of my posts
> before responding to them.

You're a shit-stirring parasite. You keep snipping others without noting your
snips, and then you whine like a little bitch when others do the same to you.


<...>

ipse dixit wrote:
<...>
> Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
> is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
> were at all consistent in your whines about this point
> in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
> for their part in doing it too

Tu quoque allacy. I'm not the usenet police. You know how to behave if you want
others to take you seriously. At this rate, I doubt anyone here ever will take
you seriously.

<...>

usual suspect wrote:

> ipse dixit wrote:
> <...>
>
>> Snipping your rants and diversions without notation is par for the
>> course on this group, sonny, and if you were at all consistent in your
>> whines about this point
>> in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
>> for their part in doing it too
>
>
> Tu quoque allacy.

Fallacy.

> I'm not the usenet police. You know how to behave if
> you want others to take you seriously. At this rate, I doubt anyone here
> ever will take you seriously.
>
> <...>
>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:57:01 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
>>>>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>>>>same as editing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't produce anything;
>>>>
>>>>I produced evidence which proves you unethically
>>>>edit your opponent's posts.
>>>
>>>From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
>>>Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
>>>and then snip the entire substantive part.
>>
>> There was nothing substantive to bother leaving in.
>> In fact, it was just a futile diversion from the point
>> being made about your unethical editing of my posts
>> before responding to them.
>
>You're a shit-stirring parasite.

You see, you just can't help yourself, can you?
Every time I lay the clear evidence of your lying
in front of you you merely snip it all away as if it
were never there. You're living in denial, although
I've a suspicion you do know you're a liar, but can't
face the embarrassment in being seen as one.

Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
were at all consistent in your whines about this point
in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
for their part in doing it too, but you don't, so it's
obvious you're merely trying to divert attention from
your proven history of EDITING your opponent's
posts. Not just snipping without notation, but actually
EDITING whole sentences, and that's unethical,
"christian."

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've also snipped the evidence I've produced
here showing you believe natural predation is cruel.

<unsnip>
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
<endsnip>

When are you going to stop lying, and when are you
going to stop snipping away the evidence I bring here
that reveals your lies?

True. Nature *is* cruel - but that's not an excuse for us to do likewise -
it's a warning that with our intelligence and intelect, we should rise above
that sort of thing!

On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:00:52 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
><...>
>> Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
>> is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
>> were at all consistent in your whines about this point
>> in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
>> for their part in doing it too
>
>Tu quoque fallacy. I'm not the usenet police.

You've misused the term. I'm not trying to claim my
snips are legitimate because you snipped first, I'm
pointing out something entirely different from that.
Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
editing your opponent's post, as you've been proven
to do, and that you grievance on my snipping is merely
a diversion from your wholly unacceptable editing. I'm
also pointing out that you are lying when protesting you
don't edit your opponents posts before replying to them,
and this was shown in the evidence I've unsnipped yet
again below.

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've also snipped the evidence I've produced
here showing you believe natural predation is cruel.

<unsnip>
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
<endsnip>

When are you going to stop lying, and when are you
going to stop snipping away the evidence I bring here
that reveals your lies?
<endsnip>

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote

>your wholly unacceptable editing.

You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off. Once you cross the
line you don't get to draw it in a new place that you prefer.

Are you going to tell nemo that nature isn't cruel?

Now that you have gone back on your word and come back here, when are you
going to explain this?

"My dog quivers like a jelly when I pick up a broom to sweep the garden. I
must get a new handle for that old broom one of these days."
http://snipurl.com/6isr

You can run but you can't hide.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:29:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
>
>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>
>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.

Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
them. Furthermore, "usual suspect" denies ever
editing my posts, but I have shown that he did by
producing a link to a short thread where he edited
whole sentences. http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just
follow that short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that he edited my posts before making his replies
to them. He's repeatedly snips this hard evidence
away and then whines about snips instead.

If he were at all consistent in his whines about this
point in Usenet protocol he should be criticizing others
for their part in doing it too, but he doesn't, so it's
obvious he's merely trying to divert attention from
his proven history of EDITING his opponent's posts.
Not just snipping without notation, but actually
EDITING whole sentences, and that's unethical,

...

"nemo" > wrote
> True. Nature *is* cruel - but that's not an excuse for us to do likewise -
> it's a warning that with our intelligence and intelect, we should rise
above
> that sort of thing!

That admonition really makes little sense. The word cruel has a two
distinctly different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cruel
1.. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
2.. Causing suffering; painful.
In the sentence, "Derek Nash is cruel." the meaning is (1) which implies a
mean or sadistic nature. In the sentence, "Nature is cruel." it's (2)
which only says that suffering results, with no moral implication.

In this thread a shit-stirrer named Derek Nash, aka "ipse dixit" has
launched into a misguided campaign to attack people for employing the term
meaning (2), as you did, claiming that they must believe that Nature itself
is mean and sadistic, and therefore immoral. In his limited mental capacity
he believes this feeble equivocation undermines their credibility.

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote

> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
> them.

No it's not, not in your case, you do far more than innocently snip without
noting. You snip and paste out of context in ways to deliberately create an
incorrect impression of what your opponent says or believes. In fact
building these strawmen has become the theme of your whole identity the past
year.

If you are going to disappear and return you should try to turn over a new
leaf why you're at it.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:56:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
>
>> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>> them.
>
>No it's not,

Yes, it most certainly is. To edit your opponent's
post before replying to it is merely arguing with
yourself instead of your opponent. It's the most
reprehensible tactic available to him and cannot
be excused by my snipping his rants.

>not in your case, you do far more than innocently snip without
>noting.

And where in this entire thread, for instance, have
you noted yours, hypocrite? Now, let's put back all
that evidence showing his unethical EDITING,

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

and while we're at it we can look at the evidence
you both keep snipping (without notation) of his
view concerning natural predation as being cruel.

<unsnip>
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

and

"Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
be messy, but they're not cruel."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq

and

"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
other predators are less humane than humans."
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
<endsnip>

There it is, plain and simple.

broken broomstick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>>>>>same as editing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You didn't produce anything;
>>>>>
>>>>>I produced evidence which proves you unethically
>>>>>edit your opponent's posts.
>>>>
>>>>From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
>>>
>>>>Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
>>>>and then snip the entire substantive part.
>>>
>>>There was nothing substantive to bother leaving in.
>>>In fact, it was just a futile diversion from the point
>>>being made about your unethical editing of my posts
>>>before responding to them.
>>
>>You're a shit-stirring parasite.
>
> You see, you just can't help yourself, can you?
> Every time I lay the clear evidence of your lying

No lying involved. Continue your undocumented and unethical snipping with
someone who's more willing to entertain your simple mind. Stop your pathetic
whining when others return your foul favors. It's all so unbecoming, even for
someone with a GCE in woodwork.

<...>

dog-beating dickhead wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
>>>is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
>>>were at all consistent in your whines about this point
>>>in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
>>>for their part in doing it too
>>
>>Tu quoque fallacy. I'm not the usenet police.
>
> You've misused the term.

No, I've not.

> I'm not trying to claim my
> snips are legitimate because you snipped first,

Yes, you are and you compounded it by asking why I don't criticize others who
play your silly little game by your peculiar and unethical rules.

<...>
> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
> editing your opponent's post,

Wrong, fatso. You snip out relevant and substantive context to make your
pretexts. The *only* times I ever edited your posts was after you had already
wrongly accused me of doing that, and after well over a year of your uncreative
editing of my posts and misquoted remarks. I noted at the time of doing that
that two can play your silly little game, what's sauce for the goose is sauce
for the self-crippled, dog-abusing gander, etc. Stop whining like a little girl.

<...>

ipse dixit wrote:
>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>
>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>
> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
> them.

Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing. Your selective editing doesn't leave remarks
in context -- it removes so much of the context that what's left is often
undiscernable from what one actually wrote. Stop crying when others play your
silly game, and play it *better* than you ever could.

<...>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:33:17 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>broken broomstick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>>>>>>same as editing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You didn't produce anything;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I produced evidence which proves you unethically
>>>>>>edit your opponent's posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
>>>>>and then snip the entire substantive part.
>>>>
>>>>There was nothing substantive to bother leaving in.
>>>>In fact, it was just a futile diversion from the point
>>>>being made about your unethical editing of my posts
>>>>before responding to them.
>>>
>>>You're a shit-stirring parasite.
>>
>> You see, you just can't help yourself, can you?
>> Every time I lay the clear evidence of your lying
>
>No lying involved.

If we go back to the beginning of this thread, it's clear
to see you're contesting my assertion that you believe
natural predation is cruel. Bob agrees that my opening
remark is "clearly what you said, "christian". You then
responded by claiming, "That is NOT what I said", yet
the evidence I keep providing shows you do believe it's
cruel, so it's clear you've lied on this issue. Here (below)
is the discussion you've snipped away showing how you
lied.

[start me]
> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
[You]
> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
[Bob]
> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
[You]
> That is NOT what I said.
[my proof showing you DO think it's cruel and that you lied]
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
[end]

Nothing could be simpler to show
1) you believe natural to be cruel
2) you lied by pretending you didn't believe it to be cruel

and you call yourself a Christian?

Also, you've snipped away your proven history
of EDITING your opponent's posts. Not just
snipping without notation, but actually EDITING
whole sentences.

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've tried to lie your way out of this one as
well.

> Continue your undocumented and unethical snipping with
>someone who's more willing to entertain your simple mind. Stop your pathetic
>whining when others return your foul favors. It's all so unbecoming, even for
>someone with a GCE in woodwork.
>
><...>
You see, this is the sort of crap from you that I usually
just snip away, but I thought I'd leave it in this time to
show the reader the reason why I do it. I don't care
what you think of my GCSE in woodwork, and I'm not
interested in your opinion of me, so I normally just snip
your stupid rants away because they don't contribute
anything to the discussion but your childish hate and
name-calling.

broomstick-wielding dog beater wrote:
<...>
>>Continue your undocumented and unethical snipping with
>>someone who's more willing to entertain your simple mind. Stop your pathetic
>>whining when others return your foul favors. It's all so unbecoming, even for
>>someone with a GCE in woodwork.
>
> You see, this is the sort of crap from you that I usually
> just snip away,

Strawman and blatant lie. You *usually* snip away the substantive points you
can't address, fatso.

> but I thought I'd leave it in this time to
> show the reader the reason why I do it. I don't care
> what you think of my GCSE in woodwork,

Maybe you should've stuck with woodwork, though you'd probably find a way to
cripple yourself in any profession.

> and I'm not interested in your opinion of me,

That makes us even, you dog-abusing, congenital liar.

> so I normally just snip
> your stupid rants away because they don't contribute
> anything to the discussion but your childish hate and
> name-calling.

Why does Bob quiver when you get the broomstick?
My dog quivers like a jelly when I pick up a broom to sweep the garden.
I must get a new handle for that old broom one of these days.
Derek Nash: http://snipurl.com/6isr

On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:48:59 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
>>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>>
>>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>>
>> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>> them.
>
>Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing.

No, it isn't, and only someone such as yourself would
fail to see the wrong done in editing your opponent's
posts against the usual snipping done here.

>Your selective editing

Snipping. Unlike you, I don't edit my opponent's whole
sentence to suit before replying to it. I snip away your
childish rants and name-calling, but I don't edit your
sentences to suit before replying to them.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies
to them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."
[..]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:47:02 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>dog-beating dickhead wrote:
>>><...>
>>>
>>>>Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
>>>>is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
>>>>were at all consistent in your whines about this point
>>>>in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
>>>>for their part in doing it too
>>>
>>>Tu quoque fallacy. I'm not the usenet police.
>>
>> You've misused the term.
>
>No, I've not.
>
>> I'm not trying to claim my
>> snips are legitimate because you snipped first,
>
>Yes, you are and you compounded it by asking why I don't criticize others who
>play your silly little game by your peculiar and unethical rules.
>
><...>
>> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>> editing your opponent's post,
>
>Wrong, fatso.

Only someone such as yourself would fail to see the
wrong done in editing your opponent's posts against
the usual snipping done here.

Unlike you, I don't edit my opponent's whole
sentence to suit before replying to it. I snip away your
childish rants and name-calling, but I don't edit your
sentences to suit before replying to them.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies
to them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."
[..]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:23:19 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
><...>
You've snipped out a whole discussion concerning your
view on natural predation and how you lied to avoid
admitting it. And you criticize ME for unethical snipping?

<unsnip>
>>>>>>>>>>Snipping posts without notation is hardly the
>>>>>>>>>>same as editing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You've snipped away the evidence I produced
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You didn't produce anything;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I produced evidence which proves you unethically
>>>>>>edit your opponent's posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>From my original post, of which you only left the "Bullshit" part:
>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit. You leave only a portion that serves your shitty self-serving replies
>>>>>and then snip the entire substantive part.
>>>>
>>>>There was nothing substantive to bother leaving in.
>>>>In fact, it was just a futile diversion from the point
>>>>being made about your unethical editing of my posts
>>>>before responding to them.
>>>
>>>You're a shit-stirring parasite.
>>
>> You see, you just can't help yourself, can you?
>> Every time I lay the clear evidence of your lying
>
>No lying involved.

If we go back to the beginning of this thread, it's clear
to see you're contesting my assertion that you believe
natural predation is cruel. Bob agrees that my opening
remark is "clearly what you said, "christian". You then
responded by claiming, "That is NOT what I said", yet
the evidence I keep providing shows you do believe it's
cruel, so it's clear you've lied on this issue. Here (below)
is the discussion you've snipped away showing how you
lied.

[start me]
> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
[You]
> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
[Bob]
> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
[You]
> That is NOT what I said.
[my proof showing you DO think it's cruel and that you lied]
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
[end]

Nothing could be simpler to show
1) you believe natural to be cruel
2) you lied by pretending you didn't believe it to be cruel

and you call yourself a Christian?

Also, you've snipped away your proven history
of EDITING your opponent's posts. Not just
snipping without notation, but actually EDITING
whole sentences.

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

You've tried to lie your way out of this one as
well.

[..]

Obese Crybaby Dreck Nash wrote:
>>>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>>>
>>>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>>>
>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>>>them.
>>
>>Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing.
>
> No, it isn't, and only someone such as yourself would
> fail to see the wrong done in editing your opponent's
> posts against the usual snipping done here.

I warned you in advance that two could play your game. That is all I did. Stop
whining.

>>Your selective editing
>
> Snipping.

Selective editing, so you can take others out of context.

> Unlike you, I don't edit my opponent's whole
> sentence to suit before replying to it.

Bullshit. You edit through deletion (or snipping, if you prefer). The effect is
the same.

> I snip away your
> childish rants and name-calling, but I don't edit your
> sentences to suit before replying to them.

Yes, you do. That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post
to which you responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my
post you left intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what
little you left from the posts which you replied.

http://snipurl.com/6kzz
http://snipurl.com/6l01

There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
context to make your pretext.

Starting with you...
------
> Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.

Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
taking things out of context to make a pretext.

RESTO
The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
END RESTORE

What part of *that* do you specifically object?

------

You snipped that, and ended your reply from the above post with this (starting
and ending with your unethical snipping to take others out of context):

>> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>
>I noted as much

Good.

http://snipurl.com/6l05
--------

The line that you edited contained NO name-calling. I wrote:
I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your
snip about it.

Now what were you saying about not editing anyone else's posts? THAT was your
last straw, and THAT is when I decided to play your stupid game of editing your
posts. You started it and you have NO grounds for complaining, you big fat arsehole.

<...>