>A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.

Dr. Mercola pointed out the flaw in that study.

The study -seemed- to show that people who consumed alcohol moderately
were healthier than people who abstained totally from alcohol.

The flaw in that study was that the people who used to be drunks and
wrecked their health on alcohol and then swore off alcohol were counted
as abstainers.

>A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.

Dr. Mercola pointed out the flaw in that study.

The study -seemed- to show that people who consumed alcohol moderately
were healthier than people who abstained totally from alcohol.

The flaw in that study was that the people who used to be drunks and
wrecked their health on alcohol and then swore off alcohol were counted
as abstainers.

Ron wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>>It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The
point
> > >>>that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement
that
> > >>>decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.
> > >>
> > >>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > >>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > >>of False Dilemma.
> > >>
> > >>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > >>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > >>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > >
> > >
> > > [snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> >
> > You committed logical fallacies.
>
>
> We all do -- it's called being human.

Yours are persistent. You keep making the SAME mistakes, even when
people have made good-faith efforts to help you avoid them.
>
> *screams

You do a lot of screaming, queen.

In article . com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . net>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>It is interesting to note that you've changed topics AGAIN. The
> point
> > > >>>that was being discussed was the consistency of your statement
> that
> > > >>>decriminalization does not constituting advocacy.
> > > >>
> > > >>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > > >>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > > >>of False Dilemma.
> > > >>
> > > >>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > >>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > >>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > >
> > > You committed logical fallacies.
> >
> >
> > We all do -- it's called being human.
>
> Yours are persistent. You keep making the SAME mistakes, even when
> people have made good-faith efforts to help you avoid them.
> >
> > *screams
>
> You do a lot of screaming, queen.

*ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Gaydar notation made*

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > > > You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > > very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > > fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > >
> > > Legalizing pot does not advocate pot use. (Dutch's example)
> > > Legalizing killing humans does not advocate killing humans.
> > > Legalizing rape does not advocate the act of rape.
> > >
> > > The formulation of the three examples is the same. Please
identify what
> > > is logical for one statement and illogical for the remaining two.
> >
> > Pot use involves an person taking a substance into their own body.
Taking
> > substances into one's body is generally seen as a personal choice
and
> > therefore it should not be a crime.
> >
> > The second two involve causing serious harm to another person.
Therefore the
> > second two should illegal.
> >
> > This is really, really basic stuff Ron, which is why I suspect you
of
> > trolling.
>
> To repeat

Why do you wish to repeat your logical fallacy?

Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
. net>,
> > > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > > > >>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > > > >>of False Dilemma.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > > >>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > > >>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > > >
> > > > You committed logical fallacies.
> > >
> > >
> > > We all do -- it's called being human.
> >
> > Yours are persistent. You keep making the SAME mistakes, even when
> > people have made good-faith efforts to help you avoid them.
> > >
> > > *screams
> >
> > You do a lot of screaming, queen.
>
> *ding,

No substance. Typical.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >, "Dutch"
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Ron" > wrote
> > >
> > > > > You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > > > very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > > > fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > >
> > > > Legalizing pot does not advocate pot use. (Dutch's example)
> > > > Legalizing killing humans does not advocate killing humans.
> > > > Legalizing rape does not advocate the act of rape.
> > > >
> > > > The formulation of the three examples is the same. Please
> identify what
> > > > is logical for one statement and illogical for the remaining two.
> > >
> > > Pot use involves an person taking a substance into their own body.
> Taking
> > > substances into one's body is generally seen as a personal choice
> and
> > > therefore it should not be a crime.
> > >
> > > The second two involve causing serious harm to another person.
> Therefore the
> > > second two should illegal.
> > >
> > > This is really, really basic stuff Ron, which is why I suspect you
> of
> > > trolling.
> >
> > To repeat
>
> Why do you wish to repeat your logical fallacy?

Back to editing....

The issue at hand is that you disagreed with me that legalizing pot us
was advocating pot use. I used the two examples above. Please respond to
the question. If I suggest we remove statutes against murder and rape am
I, or am I not advocating for murder and rape?

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> . net>,
> > > > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > > > > >>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > > > > >>of False Dilemma.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > > > >>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > > > >>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > > > >
> > > > > You committed logical fallacies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We all do -- it's called being human.
> > >
> > > Yours are persistent. You keep making the SAME mistakes, even when
> > > people have made good-faith efforts to help you avoid them.
> > > >
> > > > *screams
> > >
> > > You do a lot of screaming, queen.
> >
> > *ding,
>
> No substance. Typical.

*So many aggressive men and just little ole me*

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > In article
. com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You committed logical fallacies.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We all do -- it's called being human.
> > > >
> > > > Yours are persistent. You keep making the SAME mistakes, even
when
> > > > people have made good-faith efforts to help you avoid them.

I notice you failed to address this. People here really do try to help
you out of your mistakes, and you never accept the help.

> > > > >
> > > > > *screams
> > > >
> > > > You do a lot of screaming, queen.
> > >
> > > *ding,
> >
> > No substance. Typical.
>
> *So many

logical fallacies. Yes, you do commit so many logical fallacies. Sad
that you can't learn from your mistakes.

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> usual suspect > wrote:
>
> > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > <...>
> > >>>>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > >>>>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > >>>>of False Dilemma.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > >>>>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > >>>>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>[snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > >>
> > >>You committed logical fallacies.
> > >
> > > We all do
> >
> > Most people learn from their mistakes, but you seem quite happy to
keep
> > repeating yours.
> >
> > > *screams heard as people run for cover*
> >
> > Enough of your drama queen crap in newsgroups. Grow up, you
> > self-marginalized windbag.
>
> I see we return to

your persistent logical fallacies. Yes, we do. Stop making them,
fudgepacker, and perhaps we can get to something more interesting.

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >A small amount of red wine is said to be beneficial.
>
> Dr. Mercola pointed out the flaw in that study.
>
> The study -seemed- to show that people who consumed alcohol moderately
> were healthier than people who abstained totally from alcohol.
>
> The flaw in that study was that the people who used to be drunks and
> wrecked their health on alcohol and then swore off alcohol were counted
> as abstainers.


There have been a number of studies that have shown that moderate alcohol
intake is associated with lower overall mortality, especially cardiovascular
mortality.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > In article
> . com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fudgepacker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You committed logical fallacies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We all do -- it's called being human.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours are persistent. You keep making the SAME mistakes, even
> when
> > > > > people have made good-faith efforts to help you avoid them.
>
> I notice you failed to address this. People here really do try to help
> you out of your mistakes, and you never accept the help.

Well, that is awfully presumptuous of you to assume that I've made a
mistake and then to compound the problem by assuming that I want or need
your help.

Which vegan killed what animal, Rudy?

> > > > > >
> > > > > > *screams
> > > > >
> > > > > You do a lot of screaming, queen.
> > > >
> > > > *ding,
> > >
> > > No substance. Typical.
> >
> > *So many
>
> logical fallacies. Yes, you do commit so many logical fallacies. Sad
> that you can't learn from your mistakes.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article >,
> > usual suspect > wrote:
> >
> > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > >>>>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > > >>>>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > > >>>>of False Dilemma.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > >>>>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > >>>>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>[snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > > >>
> > > >>You committed logical fallacies.
> > > >
> > > > We all do
> > >
> > > Most people learn from their mistakes, but you seem quite happy to
> keep
> > > repeating yours.
> > >
> > > > *screams heard as people run for cover*
> > >
> > > Enough of your drama queen crap in newsgroups. Grow up, you
> > > self-marginalized windbag.
> >
> > I see we return to
>
> your persistent logical fallacies. Yes, we do. Stop making them,
> fudgepacker, and perhaps we can get to something more interesting.

Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do. Damn, my power is
so friggin awesome.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > > <...>
> > > > >>>>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > > > >>>>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > > > >>>>of False Dilemma.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > > >>>>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > > >>>>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>[snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>You committed logical fallacies.
> > > > >
> > > > > We all do
> > > >
> > > > Most people learn from their mistakes, but you seem quite happy
to
> > keep
> > > > repeating yours.
> > > >
> > > > > *screams heard as people run for cover*
> > > >
> > > > Enough of your drama queen crap in newsgroups. Grow up, you
> > > > self-marginalized windbag.
> > >
> > > I see we return to
> >
> > your persistent logical fallacies. Yes, we do. Stop making them,
> > fudgepacker, and perhaps we can get to something more interesting.
>
> Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do.
Stop misrepresenting what was written.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > usual suspect > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fudgepacker Ron wrote:
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > >>>>It doesn't. You are, predictably, committing the
> > > > > >>>>Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, also known as Fallacy
> > > > > >>>>of False Dilemma.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>You commit lots of fallacies. You're just generally
> > > > > >>>>very slovenly. You have an extremely poor grasp of
> > > > > >>>>fundamental logic, and you're slovenly.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>[snip weak, limp-wristed sophistry]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>You committed logical fallacies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We all do
> > > > >
> > > > > Most people learn from their mistakes, but you seem quite happy
> to
> > > keep
> > > > > repeating yours.
> > > > >
> > > > > > *screams heard as people run for cover*
> > > > >
> > > > > Enough of your drama queen crap in newsgroups. Grow up, you
> > > > > self-marginalized windbag.
> > > >
> > > > I see we return to
> > >
> > > your persistent logical fallacies. Yes, we do. Stop making them,
> > > fudgepacker, and perhaps we can get to something more interesting.
> >
> > Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do.
> Stop misrepresenting what was written.

Who is stopping you from getting to "something more interesting"?

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Enough of your drama queen crap in newsgroups. Grow up, you
> > > > > > self-marginalized windbag.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see we return to
> > > >
> > > > your persistent logical fallacies. Yes, we do. Stop making
them,
> > > > fudgepacker, and perhaps we can get to something more
interesting.
> > >
> > > Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do.
> >
> > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
>
> Who is stopping you from getting to "something more interesting"?

Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
anything interesting.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > pearl wrote:
> >
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > >
> > >>pearl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>news
> <..>
> > >>>>>> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a
> > >>
> > >>15%
> > >>
> > >>>>>> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease.
> > >>
> > >>This was
> > >>
> > >>>>>> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
> > >>>
> > >>>How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
> > >>>*NOT SIGNIFICANT*??
> > >>
> > >>Not STATISTICALLY significant, meaning, the measured result - a
15%
> > >>reduction - could have come about by simple chance.
> > >
> > >
> > > Non sequitur. You're thinking of 'P Values'.
> >
> > No, I'm thinking of statistical significance.
>
> Whatever,.. it doesn't apply to the above.

Yes, it most certainly DOES. But because you don't understand a THING
about statistics, having never studied it ever, you wouldn't know.

>
> > You don't have a CLUE about "P values".
>
> False.

No, TRUE. You have never studied statistics in your life.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enough of your drama queen crap in newsgroups. Grow up, you
> > > > > > > self-marginalized windbag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see we return to
> > > > >
> > > > > your persistent logical fallacies. Yes, we do. Stop making
> them,
> > > > > fudgepacker, and perhaps we can get to something more
> interesting.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do.
> > >
> > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> >
> > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more interesting"?
>
> Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
> anything interesting.

roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion. I control your ability to say
anything else. I am all powerful.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do.
> > > >
> > > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> > >
> > > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more interesting"?
> >
> > Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
> > anything interesting.
>
> roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion.

Yes, in part. It's a shame you're such a lightweight sophist and
mentally unstable homo that you choose to exercise your control in
strictly unconstructive ways.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, it's my responsibility that you write what you do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> > > >
> > > > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more interesting"?
> > >
> > > Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
> > > anything interesting.
> >
> > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion.
>
> Yes, in part. It's a shame you're such a lightweight sophist and
> mentally unstable homo that you choose to exercise your control in
> strictly unconstructive ways.

My control....bwhahahahaha....(strokes white cate whilst typing) the
discussion is under my control. Yes, I must control your thinking and
your ability to enter anything at YOUR keyboard. I must control YOUR
fingers and determine what YOU will type. I control what I type and what
I discuss.

My power is just friggin awesome.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > .com>,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more
interesting"?
> > > >
> > > > Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning
to
> > > > anything interesting.
> > >
> > > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion.
> >
> > Yes, in part. It's a shame you're such a lightweight sophist and
> > mentally unstable homo that you choose to exercise your control in
> > strictly unconstructive ways.
>
> My control
Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and dishonestly.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > .com>,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more
> interesting"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning
> to
> > > > > anything interesting.
> > > >
> > > > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion.
> > >
> > > Yes, in part. It's a shame you're such a lightweight sophist and
> > > mentally unstable homo that you choose to exercise your control in
> > > strictly unconstructive ways.
> >
> > My control
> Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and dishonestly.

Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation. You have no options in
what you type or the direction of the discussion. Stop making me type
these posts Rudy. Stop controlling me and my every move.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > > >
> > > >>pearl wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >>news
> > <..>
> > > >>>>>> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a
> > > >>
> > > >>15%
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>> reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease.
> > > >>
> > > >>This was
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>> *NOT SIGNIFICANT*
> > > >>>
> > > >>>How is a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease
> > > >>>*NOT SIGNIFICANT*??
> > > >>
> > > >>Not STATISTICALLY significant, meaning, the measured result - a
> 15%
> > > >>reduction - could have come about by simple chance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Non sequitur. You're thinking of 'P Values'.
> > >
> > > No, I'm thinking of statistical significance.
> >
> > Whatever,.. it doesn't apply to the above.
>
> Yes, it most certainly DOES.

No, it DOESN'T. The OP answered the question..

"We did, however, find that daily consumption of fresh fruit was
associated with a significant reduction in mortality from ischaemic
heart disease (24%), cerebrovascular disease (32%), and all
causes of death combined (21%), and was associated with
non-significant reductions in mortality from all the other cause(s)
of death examined.". IOW, the authors are attributing the 15%
reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease in vegetarians
to daily consumption of fruit. Multivariate analysis shows otherwise.

Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > .com>,
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > .com>,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more
> > interesting"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from
turning
> > to
> > > > > > anything interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, in part. It's a shame you're such a lightweight sophist
and
> > > > mentally unstable homo that you choose to exercise your control
in
> > > > strictly unconstructive ways.
> > >
> > > My control
> > Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
dishonestly.
>
> Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.

You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried to
have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable. You're
incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.

In article . com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > .com>,
> > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > .com>,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stop misrepresenting what was written.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who is stopping you from getting to "something more
> > > interesting"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from
> turning
> > > to
> > > > > > > anything interesting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, in part. It's a shame you're such a lightweight sophist
> and
> > > > > mentally unstable homo that you choose to exercise your control
> in
> > > > > strictly unconstructive ways.
> > > >
> > > > My control
> > > Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
> dishonestly.
> >
> > Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.
>
> You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried to
> have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable. You're
> incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.

I decline responsibility for your comments, your failure to add to the
discussion, or the choice not to change the discussion. Thank you, but
no.

My power is still so freakin awesome. I rock!

Ron wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
> > dishonestly.
> > >
> > > Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.
> >
> > You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried
to
> > have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable.
You're
> > incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.
>
> I decline responsibility for your comments

You cannot decline responsibility for the low quality of your
participation.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
> > > dishonestly.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.
> > >
> > > You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried
> to
> > > have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable.
> You're
> > > incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.
> >
> > I decline responsibility for your comments
>
> You cannot decline responsibility for the low quality of your
> participation.

For weeks, right Rudy? Will the real Rudy please stand up.

"Ron" > wrote

> *So many aggressive men and just little ole me*

You're agressive, aggressively stupid.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > *So many aggressive men and just little ole me*
>
> You're agressive, aggressively stupid.

Rudy vanishes and Dutch appears. Hmm?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>> Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
>> anything interesting.
>
> roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion. I control your ability to say
> anything else. I am all powerful.

You have the power to make this an interesting discussion, you are choosing
instead to make it into a mockery. Why? Interesting discussions are better.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> >> Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
> >> anything interesting.
> >
> > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion. I control your ability to say
> > anything else. I am all powerful.
>
> You have the power to make this an interesting discussion, you are choosing
> instead to make it into a mockery. Why? Interesting discussions are better.

I agree that you have that power. That could be easily accomplished by
answer one of the questions that was posed rather than using stalling
and diversions.

I'll just wait for the 'new and improved' great minds to surface.

Ron wrote:

> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>In article . com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article
>>
ps.com>,
>>
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
>>>>
>>>>dishonestly.
>>>>
>>>>>Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.
>>>>
>>>>You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable.
>>
>>You're
>>
>>>>incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.
>>>
>>>I decline responsibility for your comments
>>
>>You cannot decline responsibility for the low quality of your
>>participation.
>
>
> For weeks, right

Longer, no doubt.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>>>Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
>>>>anything interesting.
>>>
>>>roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion. I control your ability to say
>>>anything else. I am all powerful.
>>
>>You have the power to make this an interesting discussion, you are choosing
>>instead to make it into a mockery. Why? Interesting discussions are better.
>
>
> I agree that you have that power.

We exercise it responsibly. What's your problem?

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article . com>,
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article
> >>
> ps.com>,
> >>
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
> >>>>
> >>>>dishonestly.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried
> >>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>>have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable.
> >>
> >>You're
> >>
> >>>>incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.
> >>>
> >>>I decline responsibility for your comments
> >>
> >>You cannot decline responsibility for the low quality of your
> >>participation.
> >
> >
> > For weeks, right
>
> Longer, no doubt.

So how many identities are you using at the moment? I guess it wasn't so
intelligent to state that you had been discussing this with me for weeks.

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article .com>,
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article . com>,
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article
>>>>
oups.com>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, in part. You exercise your control irresponsibly and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>dishonestly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Indeed. I am responsible for this conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are responsible for the low quality of it, yes. I have tried
>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>have good-faith conversation with you, and you are incapable.
>>>>
>>>>You're
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>incapable because of defects of both mentality and character.
>>>>>
>>>>>I decline responsibility for your comments
>>>>
>>>>You cannot decline responsibility for the low quality of your
>>>>participation.
>>>
>>>
>>>For weeks, right
>>
>>Longer, no doubt.
>
>
> So how many

No substance. As usual.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > *So many aggressive men and just little ole me*
>>
>> You're agressive, aggressively stupid.
>
> Rudy vanishes and Dutch appears. Hmm?

Paranoia hmmm

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
>> >> anything interesting.
>> >
>> > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion. I control your ability to say
>> > anything else. I am all powerful.
>>
>> You have the power to make this an interesting discussion, you are
>> choosing
>> instead to make it into a mockery. Why? Interesting discussions are
>> better.
>
> I agree that you have that power.

No, Ron, *you* are the one holding up the works, YOU! Nobody else. Please
get that through your head.

> That could be easily accomplished by
> answer one of the questions that was posed rather than using stalling
> and diversions.

I have humoured you by answering a considerable number of your meaningless
questions, it makes no difference, you don't learn, you simply ask another
meaningless question, and another, and so on, ad absurdum. This is not
advancing the cause.

> I'll just wait for the 'new and improved' great minds to surface.

Don't wait any longer, use YOUR mind.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > *So many aggressive men and just little ole me*
> >>
> >> You're agressive, aggressively stupid.
> >
> > Rudy vanishes and Dutch appears. Hmm?
>
> Paranoia hmmm

Yup. A suspicion. When someone discloses (evidence) that they have been
speaking to me for weeks, when I respond to someone named Rudy, yes. I
am now suspicious. Although, whomever has to assume a second identity is
the one who appears foolish.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Your lack of substance is preventing this thread from turning to
> >> >> anything interesting.
> >> >
> >> > roflmao, Yes, I control the discussion. I control your ability to say
> >> > anything else. I am all powerful.
> >>
> >> You have the power to make this an interesting discussion, you are
> >> choosing
> >> instead to make it into a mockery. Why? Interesting discussions are
> >> better.
> >
> > I agree that you have that power.
>
> No, Ron, *you* are the one holding up the works, YOU! Nobody else. Please
> get that through your head.
>
> > That could be easily accomplished by
> > answer one of the questions that was posed rather than using stalling
> > and diversions.
>
> I have humoured you by answering a considerable number of your meaningless
> questions, it makes no difference, you don't learn, you simply ask another
> meaningless question, and another, and so on, ad absurdum. This is not
> advancing the cause.

I didn't ask you to humour me, you made that decision and took the
requisite actions.

I wasn't aware of the agenda or the cause that you seem to assume that I
have joined.

> > I'll just wait for the 'new and improved' great minds to surface.
>
> Don't wait any longer, use YOUR mind.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > *So many aggressive men and just little ole me*
>> >>
>> >> You're agressive, aggressively stupid.
>> >
>> > Rudy vanishes and Dutch appears. Hmm?
>>
>> Paranoia hmmm
>
> Yup. A suspicion. When someone discloses (evidence) that they have been
> speaking to me for weeks, when I respond to someone named Rudy, yes. I
> am now suspicious.

I am not using any other identities.

> Although, whomever has to assume a second identity is
> the one who appears foolish.

Who says he *has to*?