FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Always put quotes around "vegan" (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/416325-always-put-quotes-around.html)

George Plimpton 21-03-2012 06:13 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>>
>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?


Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

Rupert 21-03-2012 06:59 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 6:13*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> > No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?


Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

George Plimpton 21-03-2012 07:36 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.


So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

Rupert 21-03-2012 07:40 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 7:36*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational..

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> > Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?


I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job. I
did it for a couple of months back in 2007, then I quit it to go to
Shanghai and work at a place called the Sino-British College. Then I
finished my PhD and worked at Australian Catholic University for
eighteen months, then I lectured and tutored at Sydney University for
one semester and then I came to the University of Münster to do a post-
doc. The telemarketing job is old news, and you know this. And the
fact that I worked as a telemarketer for two months strikes me as
unimportant and uninteresting.

George Plimpton 21-03-2012 08:00 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.


I thought it suited you.

Rupert 21-03-2012 08:02 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 8:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> > I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> I thought it suited you.


You think a lot of things.

George Plimpton 21-03-2012 08:14 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>> I thought it suited you.

>
> You think a lot of things.


Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

Rupert 21-03-2012 08:22 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 8:14*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups..

>
> >>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >> I thought it suited you.

>
> > You think a lot of things.

>
> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.


A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
arrogant and egotistical.

George Plimpton 21-03-2012 09:53 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> arrogant and egotistical.


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

Rupert 22-03-2012 04:39 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 10:18*pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 21, 6:13*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> There must be an easy way to figure out how much walking area a goat
> has when tethered to the inside wall of a round enclosure measuring
> 30M in diameter with a 3M length of rope, but I can't find it.


Let theta be the angle subtended at the centre between the point at
which the goat is tethered and the furthest point south on the
circumference of the circle that the goat can reach.

3^2=15^2+15^2-2*15^2*cos theta by the cosine rule

cos theta=441/450

Now you want the area of a sector in a circle of radius 15, angle
2theta, minus the area of the corresponding isosceles triangle

And you also want the area of a sector in a circle of radius 3, angle
pi-theta, minus the area of the corresponding isosceles triangle

Are you saying they want an exact value? If they just want it to five
decimal places, say, you would just use the calculator at this point.

Rupert 22-03-2012 04:40 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 9:53*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.


George Plimpton 22-03-2012 05:12 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>>
>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.

I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect. Another is that they think they're all
Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it. It's hard to say which
is the more outrageously offensive defect. When someone suffers from
both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.

Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 22-03-2012 06:15 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 21, 10:12*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> >>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> >>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> >>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> > I find that rather unlikely.

>
> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> thinking people.
>
> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> plainly suffer from this defect. *Another is that they think they're all
> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it. *It's hard to say which
> is the more outrageously offensive defect. *When someone suffers from
> both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.


Goo, you just described *yourself*.

Rupert 22-03-2012 08:58 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 22, 5:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> >>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> >>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> >>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> > I find that rather unlikely.

>
> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> thinking people.
>
> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?

> Another is that they think they're all
> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.


No, I don't.

> It's hard to say which
> is the more outrageously offensive defect. *When someone suffers from
> both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.



Rupert 22-03-2012 10:28 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 22, 5:12*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> >>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> >>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> >>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> > I find that rather unlikely.

>
> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> thinking people.
>
> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> friends and acquaintances.


Another point you're missing, Ball, is that quite a lot of my family
and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.


George Plimpton 22-03-2012 04:27 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 12:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>>
>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>> thinking people.
>>
>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


>> Another is that they think they're all
>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.

>
> No, I don't.


Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.


>> It's hard to say which
>> is the more outrageously offensive defect. When someone suffers from
>> both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.

>



Rupert 22-03-2012 04:37 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 22 Mrz., 16:27, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 12:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> >>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> >>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> >>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >> thinking people.

>
> >> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> > Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?
>


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.

> >> Another is that they think they're all
> >> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
> >> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> >> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.

>
> > No, I don't.

>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> It's hard to say which
> >> is the more outrageously offensive defect. *When someone suffers from
> >> both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.



George Plimpton 22-03-2012 04:38 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>>
>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>> thinking people.
>>
>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>> friends and acquaintances.

>
> Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
> and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.


They're suck-ups.

George Plimpton 22-03-2012 04:48 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 16:27, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 12:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>>
>>>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?
>>

>
> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


>>>> Another is that they think they're all
>>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
>>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
>>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.

>>
>>> No, I don't.

>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.


!!!!!


>>
>>
>>>> It's hard to say which
>>>> is the more outrageously offensive defect. When someone suffers from
>>>> both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.

>



Rupert 22-03-2012 05:29 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>


> >>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> > Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> > suffer from this defect.

>
> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals, and I am
not preaching to the choir, I am talking to people who are about to
engage in experiments on animals. And I was offered that job, I did
not apply for it.

I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.

> >>>> Another is that they think they're all
> >>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
> >>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> >>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.

>
> >>> No, I don't.

>
> >> Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do.

>
> !!!!!
>


I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
interesting, so I ignored it.

Rupert 22-03-2012 05:29 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>
> >>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>
> >>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>
> >>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>
> >>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>
> >>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >> thinking people.

>
> >> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >> friends and acquaintances.

>
> > Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
> > and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
> > still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.

>
> They're suck-ups.


You're a fool.

George Plimpton 22-03-2012 05:45 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>

>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>>

>
> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


> I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.


Bullshit.


>
>>>>>> Another is that they think they're all
>>>>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
>>>>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
>>>>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.

>>
>>>>> No, I don't.

>>
>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.

>>
>> !!!!!
>>

>
> I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
> interesting, so I ignored it.


Cute.

George Plimpton 22-03-2012 05:47 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You think a lot of things.

>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.

>>
>>>>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>>>>>> arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>> friends and acquaintances.

>>
>>> Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
>>> and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
>>> still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.

>>
>> They're suck-ups.

>
> You're a fool.


You're an arrogant and egotistical clueless urbanite. **** off.

George Plimpton 22-03-2012 05:49 PM

Definition of "vegan"
 
Check this out:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=Vegan&page=8

Look at number 51. I didn't write this, but whoever did clearly read
some of my posts to a.a.e.v./t.p.a./a.f.v.

Number 52 is pretty good, too.

Rupert 22-03-2012 06:35 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 22, 5:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> > I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> You are unqualified for it.
>


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.

> > I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.

>
> Bullshit.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Another is that they think they're all
> >>>>>> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
> >>>>>> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> >>>>>> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.

>
> >>>>> No, I don't.

>
> >>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do.

>
> >> !!!!!

>
> > I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
> > interesting, so I ignored it.

>
> Cute.



George Plimpton 22-03-2012 07:10 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>> You are unqualified for it.
>>

>
> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.

dh@. 22-03-2012 09:21 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>
>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>
>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>conscious
>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>two
>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>death
>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>part,
>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.

>>
>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
>> the
>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,

>
>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.


Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all, on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.

> which is even more evidence
>> to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
>> probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
>> get
>> over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
>> Anyway, **** all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
>> brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
>> STILL
>> can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
>> wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
>> you
>> could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
>> least one
>> example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
>> unable to
>> accept much less appreciate those particular situations?

>
>As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.


There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
doesn't believe the distinction means anything.

dh@. 22-03-2012 09:21 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>
>Below are all true.


Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>results from killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


George Plimpton 22-03-2012 09:53 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
****wit David Harrison - "Goo" - blabbered:

>>>
>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>> Below are all true.

>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans


No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.


>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>> results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton



Rupert 23-03-2012 06:32 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 22, 7:10*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates..
> >>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >> You are unqualified for it.

>
> > Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> > stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> > who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> > it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> > feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof". I was offered that job because a
friend of mine who has a PhD in ethics respected me as someone who is
knowledgeable about ethics. Your opinion on the matter is not very
important.

George Plimpton 23-03-2012 06:56 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>>
>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>>
>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>> the whole concept.

>
> I am not "any unqualified goof".


When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

Rupert 23-03-2012 07:05 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 6:56*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >>>> You are unqualified for it.

>
> >>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> >> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >> the whole concept.

>
> > I am not "any unqualified goof".

>
> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.


In your unqualified opinion, which someone who has completed a PhD in
ethics does not share.

George Plimpton 23-03-2012 07:25 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>>
>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>>
>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>>>> the whole concept.

>>
>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>>
>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>
> In your unqualified opinion


No less qualified than yours.

Rupert 23-03-2012 07:38 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 7:25*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>
> >>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> >>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >>>> the whole concept.

>
> >>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>
> >> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>
> > In your unqualified opinion

>
> No less qualified than yours.


No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
"unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
about it. I've also formally taken three courses about it at
undergraduate level. I've also attended a conference and some seminars
about it. Two people, one who has completed a PhD in ethics and one
who is currently doing a PhD in metaethics, regard me as someone who
is quite knowledgeable about moral philosophy and with whom one can
have an interesting discussion about it, and furthermore one of these
people recommended me for paid work giving a talk about the subject.
Those are the facts, make of them what you will. I don't really think
it is reasonable to call me an "unqualified goof" in the subject.

George Plimpton 23-03-2012 07:53 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>>
>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>>
>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>>>>>> the whole concept.

>>
>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>>
>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>>
>>> In your unqualified opinion

>>
>> No less qualified than yours.

>
> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.
>
> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> about it.


You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.

Rupert 23-03-2012 08:14 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 7:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible.. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise.. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>
> >>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> >>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >>>>>> the whole concept.

>
> >>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>
> >>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>
> >>> In your unqualified opinion

>
> >> No less qualified than yours.

>
> > No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> > "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>
> > I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> > about it.

>
> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.


I have not undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, no.
It's not a question of being "entitled" to talk about it. You have not
undertaken formal postgraduate study of moral philosophy either but
you obviously think you are "entitled" to pontificate about it here.
If someone offers me some paid work giving a talk about ethics because
they think I might have something interesting to say, and I do not
misrepresent my qualifications at any stage of the process, then I am
perfectly "entitled" to take on the job.

The simple fact of the matter is that I have quite a good knowledge of
moral philosophy and can do that job just as well as someone who has
undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, just as I would
be in a good position to give lectures on mathematical logic and set
theory even though I am entirely self-taught in those subjects. You
can choose not to believe that if you wish. Your beliefs about the
matter don't strike me as being very interesting.

Rupert 23-03-2012 08:19 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On Mar 23, 7:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible.. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise.. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>
> >>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>
> >>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>
> >>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >>>>>> the whole concept.

>
> >>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>
> >>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>
> >>> In your unqualified opinion

>
> >> No less qualified than yours.

>
> > No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> > "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>
> > I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> > about it.

>
> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.


You think that the be-all and end-all is whether you have formally
studied the subject under supervision. I am completely self-taught in
mathematical logic and set theory but I am recognised in sci.logic as
being someone who is knowledgeable about those subjects, I have
submitted a paper for publication in that field, and I would be
perfectly competent to give paid lectures in those fields. Sometimes
it is about the competence you are able to demonstrate in a field, not
about whether you studied the subject under formal supervision. That
is obviously what happened in the case of my talks on ethics. The
director of lab studies at Sydney University was obviously pleased
with my presentation and the feedback the students gave on it and
repeatedly invited me back.

Dutch 23-03-2012 09:05 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> >> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the
>>>>>> >> loathsome
>>>>>> >> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
>>>>>> >> ugly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>> is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>>>
>>>>This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
>>>>conscious
>>>>awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
>>>>two
>>>>reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial,
>>>>the
>>>>second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
>>>>death
>>>>and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it,
>>>>and
>>>>certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to
>>>>have
>>>>for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is
>>>>primarily
>>>>about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
>>>>lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
>>>>part,
>>>>there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.
>>>
>>> They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but
>>> it's
>>> the
>>> same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,

>>
>>Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
>>prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans
>>spew.

>
> Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior


It is when the "consideration" is self-serving prattle.




Dutch 23-03-2012 09:08 AM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.

>>
>>Below are all true.

>
> Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans,


No, he's not. You have taken the quotes completely out of context, so of
course you are misconstruing them, plus you're an idiot, which complicates
things further.



George Plimpton 23-03-2012 04:02 PM

Always put quotes around "vegan"
 
On 3/23/2012 12:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.

>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>>>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>>>>>>>> the whole concept.

>>
>>>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".

>>
>>>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

>>
>>>>> In your unqualified opinion

>>
>>>> No less qualified than yours.

>>
>>> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
>>> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

>>
>>> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
>>> about it.

>>
>> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
>> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.

>
> I have not undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, no.


You are not an expert in it. You are delusional if you think you have
either the intellectual or moral right to be wagging your finger in
anyone's face.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter