You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>

>>>> Let's have some specifics here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's see, you are WAY far to the right politically,
>>
>>
>> DAMMIT, BE SPECIFIC. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?
>
>
> I'm not going there. The more specific I get the more defensive you will
> get, particularly regarding politics.


I'm defensive NOW because you've gone chickenshit on this. Don't throw
out things you can't or won't support. You opened the door, now come on
in and speak. Which of my views is "WAY far to the right"?

>> Examples?
>>
>>> your peculiar opposition to vegans
>>
>>
>> Veganism IS peculiar. Opposition to it is quite conventional. What world
>> do you
>> live in all of a sudden? Shall I find all the whiny posts in this
group's
>> archives about airlines and hotels and restaurants not catering to every
>> vegan's whims?
>
>
> Note that peculiar doesn't describe veganism in my sentence, it describes
> your 180 degree shift to oppose it. You suddenly became a staunch and
> vehement opponent to veganism. I'm not making a case for or against
veganism
> here.


My opposition is not peculiar. You're fully aware of when and why I
stopped carrying water for vegans here. It may have stunned you or
something, but that doesn't make it peculiar. If anything is peculiar,
it's that I ever parroted the rhetoric of a political philosophy I never
shared -- and some certainly did find it peculiar that I was a
Republican whose diet was "vegan."

>>> even though you have a vegan diet,
>>
>>
>> My diet is irrelevant to my beliefs. So, too, is the fact that I run.
>
>
> A vegan or vegan-like diet is unconventional in the broad sense. It says
> that something about you is different. And how much do you run a week? 40
> miles? 50 miles? That's a lot, more than all but marathon trainers.


It's relative: running 10 miles a week is a lot to a couch potato who
can't run 20 yards without getting winded. But does it have anything to
do with being unconventional? I don't think so.

>>> you regularly run marathon distances, etc. It
>>> all points to someone who tends to be unconventional.
>>
>>
>> Ipse dixit. I may be a complex person, but I am not unconventional.
>
>
> Being unconventional isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, many creative
> people are unconventional.


What's your point, James? You made some claims about me that you're
refusing to support. I don't care for a discourse about what makes
someone unconventional, your claim was about me. Tell me why you think
I'm not conventional.

<...>

>> Still waiting for specifics.
>
>
> Wait longer.


Just as I suspected. What a chickenshit.

<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.

Caustic allegations?! I made some passing comment about "unconventional" and
you keep pressing me for details that only serves to fuel your negativity
and defensiveness. None of what I wrote was intended to be negative. To the
contrary, being unconventional is a good thing. It would be a very boring
world if everyone were conventional. And if you think this is caustic from
me then you have VERY thin skin.

I don't care whether you are politically to the right of me or whether you
hate vegans (though I despise your abusive treatment of people here). I
don't care if you're an avid runner or whether you hunt. I honestly don't
care.

Why don't you go back to posting useful information and recipes like you
used to and dispense with your childish name calling and hostility. This
"business" is finished.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.
>
> Caustic allegations?! I made some passing comment about "unconventional" and
> you keep pressing me for details that only serves to fuel your negativity
> and defensiveness.

"It doesn't surprise me that you think you are conventional - you are
NOT." It's not negative to ask you what you find unconventional about
me, James. YOU're the one being defensive. You're the one dodging the
issues and claims you've made.

> None of what I wrote was intended to be negative. To the
> contrary, being unconventional is a good thing. It would be a very boring
> world if everyone were conventional.

That wasn't the thrust of your remarks and you know it. Now stop
squirming and just come out with it. I'm not ****ed off and not ready to
tear you a new one, I just want to know what you REALLY meant when you
said I was unconventional and that my political views are "WAY far to
the right."

> And if you think this is caustic from
> me then you have VERY thin skin.
>
> I don't care whether you are politically to the right of me or whether you
> hate vegans (though I despise your abusive treatment of people here).

Then why did *you* seek to make an issue of it by writing, "Let's see,
you are WAY far to the right politically"? I'm still waiting for you to
enumerate any of my "WAY far" right political views.

> I
> don't care if you're an avid runner or whether you hunt. I honestly don't
> care.

I think you're avoiding dealing with the worms now that you've opened
the can. Remember, you're the one who raised those issues when trying to
support your wild-assed claim that I'm unconventional. You're the one
throwing out issues like running and hunting as if those issues make
someone unconventional or "WAY to the right politically." Come on, be a
straight shooter for once in your life.

> Why don't you go back to posting useful information and recipes like you
> used to and dispense with your childish name calling and hostility.

Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically." At
least admit you weren't being complimentary about it at all. You can
confess that much, can't you?

> This "business" is finished.

No, James, I'll hold it over your head and laugh as you continue your
ridiculous tap dance until you come clean what you meant.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>You made some caustic allegations. Now back them up.
> >
> > Caustic allegations?! I made some passing comment about "unconventional"
and
> > you keep pressing me for details that only serves to fuel your
negativity
> > and defensiveness.
>
> "It doesn't surprise me that you think you are conventional - you are
> NOT." It's not negative to ask you what you find unconventional about
> me, James.

No, but it is negative to provoke statements that you will, in turn, use to
scathe me. You whack me, I whack you, you whack me, what's the point? Grow
up already.

YOU're the one being defensive. You're the one dodging the
> issues and claims you've made.

No, I'm just heading off stupidity that you are perpetuating.

> > None of what I wrote was intended to be negative. To the
> > contrary, being unconventional is a good thing. It would be a very
boring
> > world if everyone were conventional.
>
> That wasn't the thrust of your remarks and you know it. Now stop
> squirming and just come out with it.

I'm the one who wrote it and I know the intent. You make wrong assumptions.

> I'm not ****ed off and not ready to
> tear you a new one,

HA HA HA HA HA!!! You are too funny.

> I just want to know what you REALLY meant when you
> said I was unconventional and that my political views are "WAY far to
> the right."
>
> Then why did *you* seek to make an issue of it by writing, "Let's see,
> you are WAY far to the right politically"? I'm still waiting for you to
> enumerate any of my "WAY far" right political views.

> You're the one
> throwing out issues like running and hunting as if those issues make
> someone unconventional or "WAY to the right politically."

> Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
> unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."

Struck a nerve, did I? :^)

> > This "business" is finished.
>
> No, James, I'll hold it over your head and laugh as you continue your
> ridiculous tap dance until you come clean what you meant.

It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're "WAY
far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
grilling. That's why you created this new thread because you couldn't stand
not knowing what I meant by that. You are soooo wrapped up into your
politics that you take great offense when someone labels you as "WAY far to
the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
convention.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>YOU're the one being defensive. You're the one dodging the
>>issues and claims you've made.
>
> No,

YES.

> I'm just heading off stupidity that you are perpetuating.

Stupidity YOU started but cannot finish.

<...>
>>That wasn't the thrust of your remarks and you know it. Now stop
>>squirming and just come out with it.
>
> I'm the one who wrote it and I know the intent. You make wrong assumptions.

Surely you can level with me if it were meant to be so damn flattering.
So come on and brown nose me.

>>I'm not ****ed off and not ready to
>>tear you a new one,
>
> HA HA HA HA HA!!! You are too funny.

I'm getting a kick out of you tap dancing.

<...>
>>Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
>>unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."
>
> Struck a nerve, did I? :^)

No, you've only shown you don't know me as well as you think you do.

>>>This "business" is finished.
>>
>>No, James, I'll hold it over your head and laugh as you continue your
>>ridiculous tap dance until you come clean what you meant.
>
> It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're "WAY
> far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
> grilling.

No, you added that after I asked you why you found me unconventional. I
still want to know what you find unconventional about me -- and don't
dance around issues like running. That's a chickenshit evasion from what
you REALLY meant and you know it.

> That's why you created this new thread because you couldn't stand
> not knowing what I meant by that.

I created a new thread because it was clear you were avoiding the old one.

> You are soooo wrapped up into your politics

You have no clue.

> that you take great offense

No offense was taken. Shit, you couldn't even name ONE issue on which
you think I'm extreme.

> when someone labels you as "WAY far to
> the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
> convention.

You've yet to lay out a case. You've yet to give one example of why you
think I'm extreme. Can you?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:

> >>Well, James, I'll go back to it when you explain which of my views are
> >>unconventional and which ones are "WAY far to the right politically."
> >
> > Struck a nerve, did I? :^)
>
> No, you've only shown you don't know me as well as you think you do.

One only needs to read the anger in your writing to know what you're about.
I think everybody here knows all they need to know about you.

> > It's very clear what you REALLY want to know is why I said that you're
"WAY
> > far to the right" politically, isn't it? That's the crux of this whole
> > grilling.
>
> No, you added that after I asked you why you found me unconventional. I
> still want to know what you find unconventional about me -- and don't
> dance around issues like running. That's a chickenshit evasion from what
> you REALLY meant and you know it.

So what do you think I REALLY meant?

> > when someone labels you as "WAY far to
> > the right". You are EXTREME, and I rest my case as to your lack of
> > convention.
>
> You've yet to lay out a case. You've yet to give one example of why you
> think I'm extreme. Can you?

I don't have to lay out a case, your persona makes it quite clear.