 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical >> >> >> >> > fallacy. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also >> >> >> >> amounts >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> logical fallacy. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma. >> >> > >> >> > Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was >> >> > happening. >> >> >> >> Of course I did not. You presented the opinion that "Agreement with X >> >> because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy", which is true, to >> >> which >> >> I replied, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a >> >> logical >> >> fallacy" which is also true. I did not suggest that you must select >> >> one >> >> or >> >> the other, in fact my point is that YOU appear to reject fallacy "A" >> >> and >> >> put >> >> "B" in it's place. Why would I suggest that you must select one of two >> >> responses both of which I have just finished identifying as logical >> >> fallacies? >> >> >> >> >> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information >> >> >> > versus >> >> >> > disagree or disbelieve the information. >> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to >> >> >> get a >> >> >> grip >> >> >> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical >> >> >> fallacy" >> >> > >> >> > You have consistently presented two choices or two >> >> > interpretations -- >> >> > this OR that. A false dilemma. >> >> >> >> You are seeing something that isn't there. You are creating it. >> >> >> >> >> > I consider a third option, it is >> >> >> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > information. >> >> >> >> >> >> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved >> >> >> until >> >> >> you >> >> >> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held >> >> >> provisionally. >> >> > >> >> > Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you >> >> > have >> >> > loosely termed "conventional wisdom". >> >> >> >> Exactly right. I have never advocated accepting "conventional wisdom" >> >> uncritically, what I have been saying is that you should not *reject* >> >> "conventional wisdom" uncritically as you seem to do. >> >> >> >> >> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I >> >> >> > found >> >> >> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or >> >> >> > false >> >> >> > dilemmas. >> >> >> >> >> >> You're out to lunch. >> >> > >> >> > I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my >> >> > sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no >> >> > control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well. >> >> >> >> You live in a world of your own design, >> > >> > We all do. >> >> Not with respect to the body of logic and reason. Either you live in that >> world or you create your own little irrational feelgood world. Your >> choice. > > I choose healthy people to date. You choose, it would seem by your > comments, someone who is mentally unstable and unable to control their > obsessional behaviour. That's an erroneous conclusion. We do construct our own reality. Based further on > your comments, you chose to have an eating disorder. Again, we construct > our own world. Whereas, I choose to eat. I have never chosen to not eat. By your own definition of obsessional behaviour you have crossed the line. >> > In the world that I've designed for myself, I can eat. I can live and >> I >> > can surround myself with "healthy" individuals. >> >> I'm all right Jack. > > The evidence suggests otherwise. Someone with an eating disorder married > to someone with an eating disorder contradicts your claims of wellness. That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude towards people you perceive as "weak". You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? >> > It seems you constructed >> > a different world/reality for yourself. Funny how that is. >> >> Non sequitor and distraction. See below. >> >> >> you see false dilemmas where none >> >> exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> [..] > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Agreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical > >> >> >> >> > fallacy. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I know that. Disagreement with X because it is popular also > >> >> >> >> amounts > >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> logical fallacy. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That is either/or thinking -- more of the false dilemma. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Wake up Ron!!!! I presented no dilemma. > >> >> > > >> >> > Of course you did. I just stopped commenting on when it was > >> >> > happening. > >> >> > >> >> Of course I did not. You presented the opinion that "Agreement with X > >> >> because it is popular amounts to a logical fallacy", which is true, to > >> >> which > >> >> I replied, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a > >> >> logical > >> >> fallacy" which is also true. I did not suggest that you must select > >> >> one > >> >> or > >> >> the other, in fact my point is that YOU appear to reject fallacy "A" > >> >> and > >> >> put > >> >> "B" in it's place. Why would I suggest that you must select one of two > >> >> responses both of which I have just finished identifying as logical > >> >> fallacies? > >> >> > >> >> >> > You are offering me two choices, agree or believe the information > >> >> >> > versus > >> >> >> > disagree or disbelieve the information. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I didn't offer you ANY choices, I stated a fact that you need to > >> >> >> get a > >> >> >> grip > >> >> >> on, "Disagreement with X because it is popular amounts to a logical > >> >> >> fallacy" > >> >> > > >> >> > You have consistently presented two choices or two > >> >> > interpretations -- > >> >> > this OR that. A false dilemma. > >> >> > >> >> You are seeing something that isn't there. You are creating it. > >> >> > >> >> >> > I consider a third option, it is > >> >> >> > information that can be believed or disbelieved and still be held > >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> > information. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're wrong, information should not be believed OR disbelieved > >> >> >> until > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> assess it for yourself, it should be taken in and held > >> >> >> provisionally. > >> >> > > >> >> > Which is what I've been saying all along -- this includes what you > >> >> > have > >> >> > loosely termed "conventional wisdom". > >> >> > >> >> Exactly right. I have never advocated accepting "conventional wisdom" > >> >> uncritically, what I have been saying is that you should not *reject* > >> >> "conventional wisdom" uncritically as you seem to do. > >> >> > >> >> >> > this goes back week's Dutch. I clearly pointed out to you that I > >> >> >> > found > >> >> >> > many, many of your statement to be black and white, either/or, or > >> >> >> > false > >> >> >> > dilemmas. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're out to lunch. > >> >> > > >> >> > I can eat a sandwich and recognize it for what it is -- I think my > >> >> > sanity is very much intact. People with perceptual problems and no > >> >> > control aren't likely to be able to manage that reality very well. > >> >> > >> >> You live in a world of your own design, > >> > > >> > We all do. > >> > >> Not with respect to the body of logic and reason. Either you live in that > >> world or you create your own little irrational feelgood world. Your > >> choice. > > > > I choose healthy people to date. You choose, it would seem by your > > comments, someone who is mentally unstable and unable to control their > > obsessional behaviour. > > That's an erroneous conclusion. > > We do construct our own reality. Based further on > > your comments, you chose to have an eating disorder. Again, we construct > > our own world. Whereas, I choose to eat. > > I have never chosen to not eat. > > By your own definition of obsessional behaviour you have crossed the line. > > >> > In the world that I've designed for myself, I can eat. I can live and > >> I > >> > can surround myself with "healthy" individuals. > >> > >> I'm all right Jack. > > > > The evidence suggests otherwise. Someone with an eating disorder married > > to someone with an eating disorder contradicts your claims of wellness. > > That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude towards > people you perceive as "weak". Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being "all right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all right. > You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a difference. I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. You choose other behaviour and relationships. That is a choice that you make. Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their lives. Although, if you do consider these people to be weak, I also consider why you would seek out weak people, let alone marry someone who you view as weak. > >> > It seems you constructed > >> > a different world/reality for yourself. Funny how that is. > >> > >> Non sequitor and distraction. See below. > >> > >> >> you see false dilemmas where none > >> >> exist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote >> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong. > > It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong. Conventional ideas are not more likely to be wrong than unconventional ones, they're just not as cool. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > >> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong. > > > > It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong. > > Conventional ideas are not more likely to be wrong than unconventional ones, > they're just not as cool. Dutch, this is your issue. I've rarely, if ever, used the term right or wrong when referring to subject material that we've been discussing. I've merely stated some disagreements. That you believe X is true and I believe Y is true, is merely evidence that two sets of beliefs can and do exist. That you must make assessments of the rightness or wrongness of those beliefs is entirely up to you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote >> That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude >> towards >> people you perceive as "weak". > > Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being "all > right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all right. I don't follow. >> You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? > > I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > difference. Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. You > choose other behaviour and relationships. No I don't. > That is a choice that you > make. No it is not. >Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my > view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I > don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I > view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their > lives. Yes but your perceptions are as we have all seen, a MESS. You fail to understand basic concepts, basic logic. You advocate locking up sick people and throwing away the key. Your judgement is HIGHLY dubious. > Although, if you do consider these people to be weak, I also consider > why you would seek out weak people, let alone marry someone who you view > as weak. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this personal attack strategy a result of your repeated failure to support any of your arguments? [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong. >> > >> > It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong. >> >> Conventional ideas are not more likely to be wrong than unconventional >> ones, >> they're just not as cool. > > Dutch, this is your issue. No it's not. > I've rarely, if ever, used the term right or > wrong when referring to subject material that we've been discussing. > I've merely stated some disagreements. That you believe X is true and I > believe Y is true, is merely evidence that two sets of beliefs can and > do exist. That you must make assessments of the rightness or wrongness > of those beliefs is entirely up to you. You have repeatedly attempted to dismiss statements I have made by using terms like "spoon-fed" and others similiar as if the fact that you have heard a certain ideas many times before, or that it is a commonly held idea, that only a dope would believe it. This is where I learned that you operate under an inverted version of "argumentum ad populum". You seem to have learned early on that you can't believe everything you hear, and you took that to mean that everything you hear is erroneous. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > >> That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude > >> towards > >> people you perceive as "weak". > > > > Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being "all > > right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all right. > > I don't follow. Understandable when you snip. You made the statement that you are all right. I questioned your self-assessment. A person who seeks out an anorexic, in my opinion, is not all right. A person who feels a compulsion to fix and heal them is not all right in my estimation. A person who seeks out a person who, by their own definition has no control over their actions, is disordered and is in need of help is not all right, in my view. > >> You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? > > > > I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > > difference. > > Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality being connected to anorexia are out there, but of course, they conflict with how you need to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Likewise for a woman experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. > > I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. You > > choose other behaviour and relationships. > > No I don't. Is true or false that you have declared yourself and your wife with an eating disorder? > > That is a choice that you > > make. > > No it is not. Yes, it is. The choice to have an anorexic for a spouse is a choice. Just as the choice for me to be with a man who may be between lean and slightly muscular is a choice. Just as it is a choice when I notice that someone can eat versus someone who can't or won't eat. I have far more concerns for the emotional well-being and stability of someone who chooses an anorexic than someone someone who is anorexic. > >Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my > > view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I > > don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I > > view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their > > lives. > > Yes but your perceptions are as we have all seen, a MESS. You fail to > understand basic concepts, basic logic. You advocate locking up sick people > and throwing away the key. Your judgement is HIGHLY dubious. Anorexics aren't sick. They are people who intentionally starve themselves to death. Labeling them as sick only allows them to further avoid responsibility for their choice to starve and die. > > Although, if you do consider these people to be weak, I also consider > > why you would seek out weak people, let alone marry someone who you view > > as weak. > > I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this personal attack strategy a > result of your repeated failure to support any of your arguments? I must confess to questioning your ability to make assessments. I made this statement long ago. But the evidence is mounting against you. Even as a former eating disordered person, your perceptions can be questioned. As one who continues to be married to one with an eating disorder your perceptions can be questioned. So long as you choose to be with someone who wants to die through starvation, I question your emotional stability. If the statement is true that you wife is anorexic then I question you. Why does a heterosexual man choose to be with a woman who physically resembles a man with the loss of breast tissue, the loss of shape, the loss of sexual functioning, the loss of biological functioning? You might as well be with a man. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude >> >> towards >> >> people you perceive as "weak". >> > >> > Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being "all >> > right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all >> > right. >> >> I don't follow. > > Understandable when you snip. > > You made the statement that you are all right. No I didn't. I charcterized you as an "I'm all right Jack" kind of person. It a descriptive phrase for people who's only focus is their own well-being, and who poo-poo other people's problems. > I questioned your > self-assessment. A person who seeks out an anorexic, in my opinion, is > not all right. A person who feels a compulsion to fix and heal them is > not all right in my estimation. A person who seeks out a person who, by > their own definition has no control over their actions, is disordered > and is in need of help is not all right, in my view. Your view is clearly myopic. >> >> You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? >> > >> > I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a >> > difference. >> >> Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > being connected to anorexia are out there, but of course, they conflict > with how you need to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Likewise for a woman > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. I'm not denying that specifically, I said your whole approach is full of holes. >> > I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. You >> > choose other behaviour and relationships. >> >> No I don't. > > Is true or false that you have declared yourself and your wife with an > eating disorder? That's false. >> > That is a choice that you >> > make. >> >> No it is not. > > Yes, it is. The choice to have an anorexic for a spouse is a choice. > Just as the choice for me to be with a man who may be between lean and > slightly muscular is a choice. Just as it is a choice when I notice that > someone can eat versus someone who can't or won't eat. > > I have far more concerns for the emotional well-being and stability of > someone who chooses an anorexic than someone someone who is anorexic. You're lying, you have no concern for anyone but Ron. >> >Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my >> > view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I >> > don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I >> > view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their >> > lives. >> >> Yes but your perceptions are as we have all seen, a MESS. You fail to >> understand basic concepts, basic logic. You advocate locking up sick >> people >> and throwing away the key. Your judgement is HIGHLY dubious. > > Anorexics aren't sick. They are people who intentionally starve > themselves to death. You have neither the evidence nor the credentials to make that judgement. > Labeling them as sick only allows them to further > avoid responsibility for their choice to starve and die. See above. >> > Although, if you do consider these people to be weak, I also consider >> > why you would seek out weak people, let alone marry someone who you >> > view >> > as weak. >> >> I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this personal attack >> strategy a >> result of your repeated failure to support any of your arguments? > > I must confess to questioning your ability to make assessments. I made > this statement long ago. But the evidence is mounting against you. Even > as a former eating disordered person, your perceptions can be > questioned. As one who continues to be married to one with an eating > disorder your perceptions can be questioned. So long as you choose to be > with someone who wants to die through starvation, I question your > emotional stability. > > If the statement is true that you wife is anorexic then I question you. > Why does a heterosexual man choose to be with a woman who physically > resembles a man with the loss of breast tissue, the loss of shape, the > loss of sexual functioning, the loss of biological functioning? You > might as well be with a man. You must be on drugs man. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > >> >> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong. > >> > > >> > It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong. > >> > >> Conventional ideas are not more likely to be wrong than unconventional > >> ones, > >> they're just not as cool. > > > > Dutch, this is your issue. > > No it's not. > > > I've rarely, if ever, used the term right or > > wrong when referring to subject material that we've been discussing. > > I've merely stated some disagreements. That you believe X is true and I > > believe Y is true, is merely evidence that two sets of beliefs can and > > do exist. That you must make assessments of the rightness or wrongness > > of those beliefs is entirely up to you. > > You have repeatedly attempted to dismiss statements I have made by using > terms like "spoon-fed" and others similiar as if the fact that you have > heard a certain ideas many times before, or that it is a commonly held idea, > that only a dope would believe it. This is where I learned that you operate > under an inverted version of "argumentum ad populum". You seem to have > learned early on that you can't believe everything you hear, and you took > that to mean that everything you hear is erroneous. You might want to recheck the archives. Where I have used expressions like spoon-fed is where you avoid responsibility and attribute your own thinking to others. Any assumptions about the past, especially my past are purely speculative on your part. Besides, who made any mention of hearing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong. >> >> > >> >> > It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong. >> >> >> >> Conventional ideas are not more likely to be wrong than unconventional >> >> ones, >> >> they're just not as cool. >> > >> > Dutch, this is your issue. >> >> No it's not. >> >> > I've rarely, if ever, used the term right or >> > wrong when referring to subject material that we've been discussing. >> > I've merely stated some disagreements. That you believe X is true and I >> > believe Y is true, is merely evidence that two sets of beliefs can and >> > do exist. That you must make assessments of the rightness or wrongness >> > of those beliefs is entirely up to you. >> >> You have repeatedly attempted to dismiss statements I have made by using >> terms like "spoon-fed" and others similiar as if the fact that you have >> heard a certain ideas many times before, or that it is a commonly held >> idea, >> that only a dope would believe it. This is where I learned that you >> operate >> under an inverted version of "argumentum ad populum". You seem to have >> learned early on that you can't believe everything you hear, and you took >> that to mean that everything you hear is erroneous. > > You might want to recheck the archives. Where I have used expressions > like spoon-fed is where you avoid responsibility and attribute your own > thinking to others. Nope, you have used it repatedly as a catch-all dismissal of anything that sounds "normal" in place of an actual argument. > Any assumptions about the past, especially my past are purely > speculative on your part. That's right, but why else would someone get like you? Besides, who made any mention of hearing. Hearing, reading, seeing... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > >> >> That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude > >> >> towards > >> >> people you perceive as "weak". > >> > > >> > Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being "all > >> > right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all > >> > right. > >> > >> I don't follow. > > > > Understandable when you snip. > > > > You made the statement that you are all right. > > No I didn't. I charcterized you as an "I'm all right Jack" kind of person. > It a descriptive phrase for people who's only focus is their own well-being, > and who poo-poo other people's problems. I have been through this enough time with you. Whose problem is it? Whose responsibility is it to fix? > > I questioned your > > self-assessment. A person who seeks out an anorexic, in my opinion, is > > not all right. A person who feels a compulsion to fix and heal them is > > not all right in my estimation. A person who seeks out a person who, by > > their own definition has no control over their actions, is disordered > > and is in need of help is not all right, in my view. > > Your view is clearly myopic. I am accepting your argument and you claim me as being myopic. You have stated the eating disordered has perceptual problems. Is this true or not? > >> >> You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? > >> > > >> > I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > >> > difference. > >> > >> Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > > > > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > > being connected to anorexia are out there, but of course, they conflict > > with how you need to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Likewise for a woman > > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. > > I'm not denying that specifically, I said your whole approach is full of > holes. Fair enough. You don't like my presentation. You don't like that I don't ooze sympanthy and pity for the anorexic. You don't like that I hold the anorexic accountable and disagree that they have no control over their life. > >> > I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. You > >> > choose other behaviour and relationships. > >> > >> No I don't. > > > > Is true or false that you have declared yourself and your wife with an > > eating disorder? > > That's false. Then how could you view my comments as a personal attack? > >> > That is a choice that you > >> > make. > >> > >> No it is not. > > > > Yes, it is. The choice to have an anorexic for a spouse is a choice. > > Just as the choice for me to be with a man who may be between lean and > > slightly muscular is a choice. Just as it is a choice when I notice that > > someone can eat versus someone who can't or won't eat. > > > > I have far more concerns for the emotional well-being and stability of > > someone who chooses an anorexic than someone someone who is anorexic. > > You're lying, you have no concern for anyone but Ron. The evidence of my daily life would suggest otherwise. I will acknowledge that I come first, those I care about come next and then what I might describe as concentric rings where my caring is further diminished the further one is away from me. > >> >Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my > >> > view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I > >> > don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I > >> > view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their > >> > lives. > >> > >> Yes but your perceptions are as we have all seen, a MESS. You fail to > >> understand basic concepts, basic logic. You advocate locking up sick > >> people > >> and throwing away the key. Your judgement is HIGHLY dubious. > > > > Anorexics aren't sick. They are people who intentionally starve > > themselves to death. > > You have neither the evidence nor the credentials to make that judgement. I have the ability to draw conclusions based on evidence. > > Labeling them as sick only allows them to further > > avoid responsibility for their choice to starve and die. > > See above. You continue to allow them off the hook for their actions. > >> > Although, if you do consider these people to be weak, I also consider > >> > why you would seek out weak people, let alone marry someone who you > >> > view > >> > as weak. > >> > >> I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this personal attack > >> strategy a > >> result of your repeated failure to support any of your arguments? > > > > I must confess to questioning your ability to make assessments. I made > > this statement long ago. But the evidence is mounting against you. Even > > as a former eating disordered person, your perceptions can be > > questioned. As one who continues to be married to one with an eating > > disorder your perceptions can be questioned. So long as you choose to be > > with someone who wants to die through starvation, I question your > > emotional stability. > > > > If the statement is true that you wife is anorexic then I question you. > > Why does a heterosexual man choose to be with a woman who physically > > resembles a man with the loss of breast tissue, the loss of shape, the > > loss of sexual functioning, the loss of biological functioning? You > > might as well be with a man. > > You must be on drugs man. Please describe the physiological results of anorexia and the appearance of an anorexic? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a >>>difference. >> >>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > > > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > being connected to anorexia are out there, You are not a professional in this area, and you have no academic background in it. You are dogmatically repeating some uninformed cult view. > but of course, they conflict > with how you need Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > Likewise for a woman > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a >>>difference. >> >>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > > > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > being connected to anorexia are out there, You are not a professional in this area, and you have no academic background in it. You are dogmatically repeating some uninformed cult view. > but of course, they conflict > with how you need Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > Likewise for a woman > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > >>>difference. > >> > >>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > > > > > > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > > being connected to anorexia are out there, > > You are not a professional in this area, and you have > no academic background in it. You are dogmatically > repeating some uninformed cult view. More manipulation to discover personal information about me. I choose to let the bait slide. > > but of course, they conflict > > with how you need > > Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, > not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I reassessed the information. > > to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. > > Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, > unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. I don't deal in citations in public forums. That is behaviour that is inappropriate to a social venue, but may be appropriate if you were a professor providing academic credit for my research. Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting condemns the anorexic to their fate. An anorexic who can address their sexuality looses interest in harming themselves through obesity or starvation. > > Likewise for a woman > > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > >>>difference. > >> > >>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > > > > > > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > > being connected to anorexia are out there, > > You are not a professional in this area, and you have > no academic background in it. You are dogmatically > repeating some uninformed cult view. More manipulation to discover personal information about me. I choose to let the bait slide. > > but of course, they conflict > > with how you need > > Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, > not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I reassessed the information. > > to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. > > Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, > unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. I don't deal in citations in public forums. That is behaviour that is inappropriate to a social venue, but may be appropriate if you were a professor providing academic credit for my research. Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting condemns the anorexic to their fate. An anorexic who can address their sexuality looses interest in harming themselves through obesity or starvation. > > Likewise for a woman > > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article >, "Dutch" > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a >>>>>difference. >>>> >>>>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. >>> >>> >>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality >>>being connected to anorexia are out there, >> >>You are not a professional in this area, and you have >>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically >>repeating some uninformed cult view. > > > More manipulation No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting to note that you are irrationally concerned with being manipulated. >>>but of course, they conflict >>>with how you need >> >>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, >>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > > > My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what > Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories > that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I > reassessed the information. Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other mental disorders. You are simply spouting your uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but it's bigotry and ignorance. > > >>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult >>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to >>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. >> >>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, >>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > > Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, when you are using references to homosexuality as a means to insult other men, are indicative of your self-loathing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article >, "Dutch" > >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a >>>>>difference. >>>> >>>>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. >>> >>> >>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality >>>being connected to anorexia are out there, >> >>You are not a professional in this area, and you have >>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically >>repeating some uninformed cult view. > > > More manipulation No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting to note that you are irrationally concerned with being manipulated. >>>but of course, they conflict >>>with how you need >> >>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, >>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > > > My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what > Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories > that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I > reassessed the information. Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other mental disorders. You are simply spouting your uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but it's bigotry and ignorance. > > >>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult >>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to >>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. >> >>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, >>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > > Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, when you are using references to homosexuality as a means to insult other men, are indicative of your self-loathing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article >, "Dutch" > > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > >>>>>difference. > >>>> > >>>>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > >>> > >>> > >>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > >>>being connected to anorexia are out there, > >> > >>You are not a professional in this area, and you have > >>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically > >>repeating some uninformed cult view. > > > > > > More manipulation > > No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting > to note that you are irrationally concerned with being > manipulated. Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to control Scented's behaviour. Funny how that works. > >>>but of course, they conflict > >>>with how you need > >> > >>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, > >>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > > > > > > My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what > > Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories > > that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I > > reassessed the information. > > Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other > mental disorders. You are simply spouting your > uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly > more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to > dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but > it's bigotry and ignorance. More baiting for personal information. > >>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > >>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > >>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. > >> > >>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, > >>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > > > > Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting > > Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I > view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as > attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, > when you are using references to homosexuality as a > means to insult other men, are indicative of your > self-loathing. You feel insulted. That's your issue. I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. The issue was your purported sexuality and the evidence that is either consistent or inconsistent with that assertion. You are free to present conflicting evidence, but it does seem that you have some desire to stay in contact with me, a known heterosexual. I wonder if we were to review what constitutes heterosexuality and masculinity, how consistent your behaviour is within this context. Many heterosexual males will indulge me in some way or another based on the social situation, however, you are making the choice to open my posts, to respond, and by asking questions providing a means for me to respond. You could offer another explanation for your behaviour to choose and on a daily basis to stay in contact with a homosexual male, but I notice you don't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article >, "Dutch" > > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > >>>>>difference. > >>>> > >>>>Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > >>> > >>> > >>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > >>>being connected to anorexia are out there, > >> > >>You are not a professional in this area, and you have > >>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically > >>repeating some uninformed cult view. > > > > > > More manipulation > > No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting > to note that you are irrationally concerned with being > manipulated. Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to control Scented's behaviour. Funny how that works. > >>>but of course, they conflict > >>>with how you need > >> > >>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, > >>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > > > > > > My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what > > Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories > > that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I > > reassessed the information. > > Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other > mental disorders. You are simply spouting your > uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly > more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to > dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but > it's bigotry and ignorance. More baiting for personal information. > >>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > >>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > >>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. > >> > >>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, > >>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > > > > Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting > > Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I > view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as > attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, > when you are using references to homosexuality as a > means to insult other men, are indicative of your > self-loathing. You feel insulted. That's your issue. I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. The issue was your purported sexuality and the evidence that is either consistent or inconsistent with that assertion. You are free to present conflicting evidence, but it does seem that you have some desire to stay in contact with me, a known heterosexual. I wonder if we were to review what constitutes heterosexuality and masculinity, how consistent your behaviour is within this context. Many heterosexual males will indulge me in some way or another based on the social situation, however, you are making the choice to open my posts, to respond, and by asking questions providing a means for me to respond. You could offer another explanation for your behaviour to choose and on a daily basis to stay in contact with a homosexual male, but I notice you don't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Huw wrote:
> "Oz" > wrote in message > ... > >>Larry Caldwell > writes >> >>>In article >, (Jim >>>Webster) says... >>> >>> >>>>If it is assumed that BSE jumped from sheep to cattle in the 1980s then >>>>in >>>>the UK we have been eating them for nearly a generation. >>> >>>I always suspected that CJD jumped from humans to cattle through the >>>mechanism of a modern Sweeny Todd who happened to work in a livestock >>>feed plant. Instead of ending up in sausage, his victims ended up in >>>livestock feed. >> >>Indeed, something I considered some while ago. >> >>Given the high exposure and low pathogenicity in humans this is not a >>viable hypothesis. >> > > > Unless modern Mr Todd has a high output production line. Look how long > Shipman got away with it. Of course he didn't have a meat packing plant. But > if he did? > > Huw > > It appears to very difficult for both cows and humans to catch so it seem more like to come from other animal. The Antelope/feline disease out of Africa that Oz put forth a long time a time ago seems more reasonable than any other theory I have heard of. Gordon Couger Stillwater, OK www.TakeThisOUTcouger.com/gcouger |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Huw wrote:
> "Oz" > wrote in message > ... > >>Larry Caldwell > writes >> >>>In article >, (Jim >>>Webster) says... >>> >>> >>>>If it is assumed that BSE jumped from sheep to cattle in the 1980s then >>>>in >>>>the UK we have been eating them for nearly a generation. >>> >>>I always suspected that CJD jumped from humans to cattle through the >>>mechanism of a modern Sweeny Todd who happened to work in a livestock >>>feed plant. Instead of ending up in sausage, his victims ended up in >>>livestock feed. >> >>Indeed, something I considered some while ago. >> >>Given the high exposure and low pathogenicity in humans this is not a >>viable hypothesis. >> > > > Unless modern Mr Todd has a high output production line. Look how long > Shipman got away with it. Of course he didn't have a meat packing plant. But > if he did? > > Huw > > It appears to very difficult for both cows and humans to catch so it seem more like to come from other animal. The Antelope/feline disease out of Africa that Oz put forth a long time a time ago seems more reasonable than any other theory I have heard of. Gordon Couger Stillwater, OK www.TakeThisOUTcouger.com/gcouger |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> > >> >> >> Then stop assuming that "conventional wisdom" is always wrong. > >> >> > > >> >> > It is definitely conventional and it is sometimes wrong. > >> >> > >> >> Conventional ideas are not more likely to be wrong than unconventional > >> >> ones, > >> >> they're just not as cool. > >> > > >> > Dutch, this is your issue. > >> > >> No it's not. > >> > >> > I've rarely, if ever, used the term right or > >> > wrong when referring to subject material that we've been discussing. > >> > I've merely stated some disagreements. That you believe X is true and I > >> > believe Y is true, is merely evidence that two sets of beliefs can and > >> > do exist. That you must make assessments of the rightness or wrongness > >> > of those beliefs is entirely up to you. > >> > >> You have repeatedly attempted to dismiss statements I have made by using > >> terms like "spoon-fed" and others similiar as if the fact that you have > >> heard a certain ideas many times before, or that it is a commonly held > >> idea, > >> that only a dope would believe it. This is where I learned that you > >> operate > >> under an inverted version of "argumentum ad populum". You seem to have > >> learned early on that you can't believe everything you hear, and you took > >> that to mean that everything you hear is erroneous. > > > > You might want to recheck the archives. Where I have used expressions > > like spoon-fed is where you avoid responsibility and attribute your own > > thinking to others. > > Nope, you have used it repatedly as a catch-all dismissal of anything that > sounds "normal" in place of an actual argument. > > > Any assumptions about the past, especially my past are purely > > speculative on your part. > > That's right, but why else would someone get like you? This type of question expresses a dissatisfaction with the self. Why am I the way that I am is irrelevant to the fact that I am who I am. Looking for reasons why I am the way that I am is to distance one's self from responsibility. Like the anorexic, looking for the "cause" of the anorexia distances them from any responsibility for their PRESENT choice to starve themselves and to death. > Besides, who made any mention of hearing. > > Hearing, reading, seeing... My senses only provide information. It is the cognitive aspect of me that provides assessments as to the meaning of the information. I hear what I hear. What assessments I attach to what I hear come from me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>In article et>, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality >>>>>being connected to anorexia are out there, >>>> >>>>You are not a professional in this area, and you have >>>>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically >>>>repeating some uninformed cult view. >>> >>> >>>More manipulation >> >>No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting >>to note that you are irrationally concerned with being >>manipulated. > > > Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to > control Scented's behaviour. The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at manipulation. The discussion has included silly statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. There's a big difference. >>>>>but of course, they conflict >>>>>with how you need >>>> >>>>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, >>>>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. >>> >>> >>>My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what >>>Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories >>>that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I >>>reassessed the information. >> >>Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other >>mental disorders. You are simply spouting your >>uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly >>more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to >>dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but >>it's bigotry and ignorance. > > > More baiting for personal information. No, a statement of fact. You do not have any expertise or even above-average lay knowledge about anorexia or any other mental disorders. > > >>>>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult >>>>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to >>>>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. >>>> >>>>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, >>>>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. >>> >>>Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting >> >>Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I >>view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as >>attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, >>when you are using references to homosexuality as a >>means to insult other men, are indicative of your >>self-loathing. > > > You feel insulted. No, I simply can tell when you are trying to be insulting, and I can correctly analyze your means. > > I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. No. You asserted your bigoted beliefs, dressed up in psychology-talk. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>In article et>, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality >>>>>being connected to anorexia are out there, >>>> >>>>You are not a professional in this area, and you have >>>>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically >>>>repeating some uninformed cult view. >>> >>> >>>More manipulation >> >>No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting >>to note that you are irrationally concerned with being >>manipulated. > > > Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to > control Scented's behaviour. The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at manipulation. The discussion has included silly statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. There's a big difference. >>>>>but of course, they conflict >>>>>with how you need >>>> >>>>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, >>>>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. >>> >>> >>>My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what >>>Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories >>>that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I >>>reassessed the information. >> >>Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other >>mental disorders. You are simply spouting your >>uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly >>more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to >>dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but >>it's bigotry and ignorance. > > > More baiting for personal information. No, a statement of fact. You do not have any expertise or even above-average lay knowledge about anorexia or any other mental disorders. > > >>>>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult >>>>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to >>>>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. >>>> >>>>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, >>>>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. >>> >>>Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting >> >>Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I >>view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as >>attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, >>when you are using references to homosexuality as a >>means to insult other men, are indicative of your >>self-loathing. > > > You feel insulted. No, I simply can tell when you are trying to be insulting, and I can correctly analyze your means. > > I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. No. You asserted your bigoted beliefs, dressed up in psychology-talk. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article et>, > >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > >>>>>being connected to anorexia are out there, > >>>> > >>>>You are not a professional in this area, and you have > >>>>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically > >>>>repeating some uninformed cult view. > >>> > >>> > >>>More manipulation > >> > >>No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting > >>to note that you are irrationally concerned with being > >>manipulated. > > > > > > Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to > > control Scented's behaviour. > > The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at > manipulation. The discussion has included silly > statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. > > There's a big difference. Please manipulate me more and I might tell you my address, phone number, CV, etc. The psycho- and sociopaths that one must endure to have a discussion on usenet. > >>>>>but of course, they conflict > >>>>>with how you need > >>>> > >>>>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, > >>>>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > >>> > >>> > >>>My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what > >>>Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories > >>>that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I > >>>reassessed the information. > >> > >>Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other > >>mental disorders. You are simply spouting your > >>uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly > >>more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to > >>dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but > >>it's bigotry and ignorance. > > > > > > More baiting for personal information. > > No, a statement of fact. You do not have any expertise > or even above-average lay knowledge about anorexia or > any other mental disorders. I am fine with you holding that opinion. > >>>>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > >>>>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > >>>>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. > >>>> > >>>>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, > >>>>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > >>> > >>>Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting > >> > >>Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I > >>view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as > >>attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, > >>when you are using references to homosexuality as a > >>means to insult other men, are indicative of your > >>self-loathing. > > > > > > You feel insulted. > > No, I simply can tell when you are trying to be > insulting, and I can correctly analyze your means. > > > > > I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. > > No. You asserted your bigoted beliefs, dressed up in > psychology-talk. I am quite comfortable being *** and you CONTINUE to engage me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article et>, > >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > >>>>>being connected to anorexia are out there, > >>>> > >>>>You are not a professional in this area, and you have > >>>>no academic background in it. You are dogmatically > >>>>repeating some uninformed cult view. > >>> > >>> > >>>More manipulation > >> > >>No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting > >>to note that you are irrationally concerned with being > >>manipulated. > > > > > > Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to > > control Scented's behaviour. > > The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at > manipulation. The discussion has included silly > statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. > > There's a big difference. Please manipulate me more and I might tell you my address, phone number, CV, etc. The psycho- and sociopaths that one must endure to have a discussion on usenet. > >>>>>but of course, they conflict > >>>>>with how you need > >>>> > >>>>Your view is based on how YOU need to view the world, > >>>>not any sort of research or reasoned analysis. > >>> > >>> > >>>My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what > >>>Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories > >>>that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I > >>>reassessed the information. > >> > >>Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other > >>mental disorders. You are simply spouting your > >>uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly > >>more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to > >>dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but > >>it's bigotry and ignorance. > > > > > > More baiting for personal information. > > No, a statement of fact. You do not have any expertise > or even above-average lay knowledge about anorexia or > any other mental disorders. I am fine with you holding that opinion. > >>>>>to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > >>>>>for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > >>>>>anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. > >>>> > >>>>Your assertion of sexuality behind anorexia is vague, > >>>>unsupported, and intended once again only to insult others. > >>> > >>>Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting > >> > >>Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I > >>view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as > >>attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, > >>when you are using references to homosexuality as a > >>means to insult other men, are indicative of your > >>self-loathing. > > > > > > You feel insulted. > > No, I simply can tell when you are trying to be > insulting, and I can correctly analyze your means. > > > > > I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. > > No. You asserted your bigoted beliefs, dressed up in > psychology-talk. I am quite comfortable being *** and you CONTINUE to engage me. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude >> >> >> towards >> >> >> people you perceive as "weak". >> >> > >> >> > Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being >> >> > "all >> >> > right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all >> >> > right. >> >> >> >> I don't follow. >> > >> > Understandable when you snip. >> > >> > You made the statement that you are all right. >> >> No I didn't. I charcterized you as an "I'm all right Jack" kind of >> person. >> It a descriptive phrase for people who's only focus is their own >> well-being, >> and who poo-poo other people's problems. > > I have been through this enough time with you. Evidently not, up till a moment ago you had construed what I said. > Whose problem is it? Whoever has the problem and everyone esle in their life. > Whose responsibility is it to fix? Whoever chooses to accept the responsibility. >> > I questioned your >> > self-assessment. A person who seeks out an anorexic, in my opinion, is >> > not all right. A person who feels a compulsion to fix and heal them is >> > not all right in my estimation. A person who seeks out a person who, by >> > their own definition has no control over their actions, is disordered >> > and is in need of help is not all right, in my view. >> >> Your view is clearly myopic. > > I am accepting your argument and you claim me as being myopic. You didn't accept my argument, you asserted that a person who expresses concern for people with eating disorders has "a compulsion". That's not my view. > You have > stated the eating disordered has perceptual problems. Is this true or > not? Certainly. >> >> >> You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? >> >> > >> >> > I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a >> >> > difference. >> >> >> >> Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. >> > >> > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality >> > being connected to anorexia are out there, but of course, they conflict >> > with how you need to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult >> > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to >> > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Likewise for a woman >> > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. >> >> I'm not denying that specifically, I said your whole approach is full of >> holes. > > Fair enough. You don't like my presentation. You don't like that I don't > ooze sympanthy and pity for the anorexic. You are free to not care about them that's your privledge. The problem is that you don't even recognize that have a disorder. > You don't like that I hold the > anorexic accountable That's false, I believe it is essential to hold them accountable, I have said so already. > and disagree that they have no control over their > life. In their current state of mind they lack control over their eating habits, but that is not and should not be viewed as a death sentence. >> >> > I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. >> >> > You >> >> > choose other behaviour and relationships. >> >> >> >> No I don't. >> > >> > Is true or false that you have declared yourself and your wife with an >> > eating disorder? >> >> That's false. > > Then how could you view my comments as a personal attack? Personal attacks don't have to be accurate, they usually aren't.. >> >> > That is a choice that you >> >> > make. >> >> >> >> No it is not. >> > >> > Yes, it is. The choice to have an anorexic for a spouse is a choice. >> > Just as the choice for me to be with a man who may be between lean and >> > slightly muscular is a choice. Just as it is a choice when I notice >> > that >> > someone can eat versus someone who can't or won't eat. >> > >> > I have far more concerns for the emotional well-being and stability of >> > someone who chooses an anorexic than someone someone who is anorexic. >> >> You're lying, you have no concern for anyone but Ron. > > The evidence of my daily life would suggest otherwise. I only have access to what you say here, and it's all "I'm all right and **** the rest of you.." > I will > acknowledge that I come first, those I care about come next and then > what I might describe as concentric rings where my caring is further > diminished the further one is away from me. Which of your rings would a person need to inhabit before you would listen to cries for help with an eating disorder? >> >> >Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my >> >> > view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I >> >> > don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I >> >> > view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their >> >> > lives. >> >> >> >> Yes but your perceptions are as we have all seen, a MESS. You fail to >> >> understand basic concepts, basic logic. You advocate locking up sick >> >> people >> >> and throwing away the key. Your judgement is HIGHLY dubious. >> > >> > Anorexics aren't sick. They are people who intentionally starve >> > themselves to death. >> >> You have neither the evidence nor the credentials to make that judgement. > > I have the ability to draw conclusions based on evidence. As I have already demonstrated, the all the evidence points to it being an actual disorder. >> > Labeling them as sick only allows them to further >> > avoid responsibility for their choice to starve and die. >> >> See above. > > You continue to allow them off the hook for their actions. No I absolutely do not, I simply acknowledge that they have a problem, a problem for which THEY must play the primary role in reaching the solution. -snip- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> > >> >> >> That was a colloquial phrase referring to your dismissive attitude > >> >> >> towards > >> >> >> people you perceive as "weak". > >> >> > > >> >> > Weakness has nothing to do with the issue. We we discussing being > >> >> > "all > >> >> > right". The choices that you've made suggest that you are not all > >> >> > right. > >> >> > >> >> I don't follow. > >> > > >> > Understandable when you snip. > >> > > >> > You made the statement that you are all right. > >> > >> No I didn't. I charcterized you as an "I'm all right Jack" kind of > >> person. > >> It a descriptive phrase for people who's only focus is their own > >> well-being, > >> and who poo-poo other people's problems. > > > > I have been through this enough time with you. > > Evidently not, up till a moment ago you had construed what I said. > > > Whose problem is it? > > Whoever has the problem and everyone esle in their life. And this is why it continues to be a problem. So long as someone else is willing to assume responsibility the person with the problem doesn't have to do anything about it. > > Whose responsibility is it to fix? > > Whoever chooses to accept the responsibility. Which robs the individual of their motivation to do something for themselves. Why should the anorexic change their behaviour when so many make them out to be incompetent and incapable. > >> > I questioned your > >> > self-assessment. A person who seeks out an anorexic, in my opinion, is > >> > not all right. A person who feels a compulsion to fix and heal them is > >> > not all right in my estimation. A person who seeks out a person who, by > >> > their own definition has no control over their actions, is disordered > >> > and is in need of help is not all right, in my view. > >> > >> Your view is clearly myopic. > > > > I am accepting your argument and you claim me as being myopic. > > You didn't accept my argument, you asserted that a person who expresses > concern for people with eating disorders has "a compulsion". That's not my > view. That is untrue. I was referring to one who selects a mate with an eating disorder which is a far cry from merely experiencing concern. Concern can be experienced without having to marry and fix someone. It is the fixing that is the compulsive behaviour. Fixing only compounds the problem. Some view it as a sign of caring. The rest of us realize that fixing only reinforces the notion that someone is incapable of fixing the problem the themselves. > > You have > > stated the eating disordered has perceptual problems. Is this true or > > not? > > Certainly. > > >> >> >> You fail to grasp many, many concepts, what IS your problem? > >> >> > > >> >> > I disagree with your opinions on a number of issue. There IS a > >> >> > difference. > >> >> > >> >> Not in this case, your ideas are full of holes. > >> > > >> > No. You choose to selectively believe what you do. Notions of sexuality > >> > being connected to anorexia are out there, but of course, they conflict > >> > with how you need to view the world so you ignore them. it's difficult > >> > for a man to acknowledge the issue of sexuality with respect to > >> > anorexia, otherwise he wouldn't be anorexic. Likewise for a woman > >> > experiencing difficulty with her sexuality. > >> > >> I'm not denying that specifically, I said your whole approach is full of > >> holes. > > > > Fair enough. You don't like my presentation. You don't like that I don't > > ooze sympanthy and pity for the anorexic. > > You are free to not care about them that's your privledge. The problem is > that you don't even recognize that have a disorder. > > > You don't like that I hold the > > anorexic accountable > > That's false, I believe it is essential to hold them accountable, I have > said so already. > > > and disagree that they have no control over their > > life. > > In their current state of mind they lack control over their eating habits, > but that is not and should not be viewed as a death sentence. > > >> >> > I am an adult and prefer people who are adult and interdependent. > >> >> > You > >> >> > choose other behaviour and relationships. > >> >> > >> >> No I don't. > >> > > >> > Is true or false that you have declared yourself and your wife with an > >> > eating disorder? > >> > >> That's false. > > > > Then how could you view my comments as a personal attack? > > Personal attacks don't have to be accurate, they usually aren't.. > > >> >> > That is a choice that you > >> >> > make. > >> >> > >> >> No it is not. > >> > > >> > Yes, it is. The choice to have an anorexic for a spouse is a choice. > >> > Just as the choice for me to be with a man who may be between lean and > >> > slightly muscular is a choice. Just as it is a choice when I notice > >> > that > >> > someone can eat versus someone who can't or won't eat. > >> > > >> > I have far more concerns for the emotional well-being and stability of > >> > someone who chooses an anorexic than someone someone who is anorexic. > >> > >> You're lying, you have no concern for anyone but Ron. > > > > The evidence of my daily life would suggest otherwise. > > I only have access to what you say here, and it's all "I'm all right and > **** the rest of you.." > > > I will > > acknowledge that I come first, those I care about come next and then > > what I might describe as concentric rings where my caring is further > > diminished the further one is away from me. > > Which of your rings would a person need to inhabit before you would listen > to cries for help with an eating disorder? > > >> >> >Adults seeking to be taken care of are weak in your view and in my > >> >> > view they are merely passive aggressive as I've stated all along. I > >> >> > don't view passive aggressive as being weak -- quite the contrary. I > >> >> > view passive aggressive as merely refusing to take control of their > >> >> > lives. > >> >> > >> >> Yes but your perceptions are as we have all seen, a MESS. You fail to > >> >> understand basic concepts, basic logic. You advocate locking up sick > >> >> people > >> >> and throwing away the key. Your judgement is HIGHLY dubious. > >> > > >> > Anorexics aren't sick. They are people who intentionally starve > >> > themselves to death. > >> > >> You have neither the evidence nor the credentials to make that judgement. > > > > I have the ability to draw conclusions based on evidence. > > As I have already demonstrated, the all the evidence points to it being an > actual disorder. something outside of their control. Is there a reason for wanting to have a person reliant and dependent on another. I believe that an anorexic have full control over the action and their inaction. We could look at all the causes and attribute blame as to why they are the way they are, we can do all sorts of labeling, or we can allow the anorexic to simply be held accountable for their continued starvation. > >> > Labeling them as sick only allows them to further > >> > avoid responsibility for their choice to starve and die. > >> > >> See above. > > > > You continue to allow them off the hook for their actions. > > No I absolutely do not, I simply acknowledge that they have a problem, a > problem for which THEY must play the primary role in reaching the solution. You've demonstrated your desire to fix Scented of your perception of her alleged eating disorder. I suspect this is a pattern. The evidence suggests otherwise that you simply acknowledge that anyone has a problem. I acknolwedge that an eating disorder belongs to the person who starves themselves. I leave the issue wholly with them to resolve. As we've been discussing, we create out own world. In my world, I experience relationships with people who want to live and go about the daily activities of eating to sustain their lives. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting >>>>to note that you are irrationally concerned with being >>>>manipulated. >>> >>> >>>Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to >>>control Scented's behaviour. >> >>The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at >>manipulation. The discussion has included silly >>statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. >> >>There's a big difference. > > > Please manipulate me more I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. >>>>>My position, with respect to anorexia is based on being aware of what >>>>>Dutch thinks I don't know, combined with a variety of other theories >>>>>that are in place. Given there is contradictory information, I >>>>>reassessed the information. >>>> >>>>Ron: you have never studied anorexia, or any other >>>>mental disorders. You are simply spouting your >>>>uninformed and, frankly, bigoted view. You're slightly >>>>more articulate than most bigots, so you're able to >>>>dress up your bigotry in pseudo-psychology talk, but >>>>it's bigotry and ignorance. >>> >>> >>>More baiting for personal information. >> >>No, a statement of fact. You do not have any expertise >>or even above-average lay knowledge about anorexia or >>any other mental disorders. > > > I am fine with you holding that opinion. It isn't merely an opinion. It is a fact. >>>>>Of course, your view that sexuality is insulting >>>> >>>>Strawman, Ron. I don't view sexuality as insulting. I >>>>view YOUR snide references to others' sexuality as >>>>attempts at being insulting. They are. They also, >>>>when you are using references to homosexuality as a >>>>means to insult other men, are indicative of your >>>>self-loathing. >>> >>> >>>You feel insulted. >> >>No, I simply can tell when you are trying to be >>insulting, and I can correctly analyze your means. >> >> >>>I clearly provided an argument based on evidence. >> >>No. You asserted your bigoted beliefs, dressed up in >>psychology-talk. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>No manipulation attempted, Ron, but it is interesting > >>>>to note that you are irrationally concerned with being > >>>>manipulated. > >>> > >>> > >>>Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to > >>>control Scented's behaviour. > >> > >>The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at > >>manipulation. The discussion has included silly > >>statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. > >> > >>There's a big difference. > > > > > > Please manipulate me more > > I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't > attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. Let's review where you were educated and what credentials that you received to have any opinion on the various topics that have been raised. Let's see who Rudy really is. What are your academic credentials that give you some authority to be citing google searches rather than actual academic works and appropriately identified journals of the recognized experts in the recognized field of enquiry. No manipulation at all. LOL |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >>>>>Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to >>>>>control Scented's behaviour. >>>> >>>>The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at >>>>manipulation. The discussion has included silly >>>>statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. >>>> >>>>There's a big difference. >>> >>> >>>Please manipulate me more >> >>I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't >>attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. > > > Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are > your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. You first, homo. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >>>>>Odd. I seem to recall this discussion was about how attempts are made to > >>>>>control Scented's behaviour. > >>>> > >>>>The discussion has not been ABOUT any real attempts at > >>>>manipulation. The discussion has included silly > >>>>statements by you alleging attempted manipulation. > >>>> > >>>>There's a big difference. > >>> > >>> > >>>Please manipulate me more > >> > >>I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't > >>attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. > > > > > > Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are > > your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. > > You first, homo. No, you first Rudy. Let's see you respond to the manipulation and request for personal information. I am currently manipulating you Rudy. Of course, now that you've made it an issue everyone will see how you hide now. Like a cockroach, once the light is pointed in your direction you will scamper away to avoid being detected. You are now in a difficult position of having to declare your credentials or be exposed for your manipulative behaviour. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>Please manipulate me more >>>> >>>>I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't >>>>attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. >>> >>> >>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are >>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. >> >>You first, homo. > > > No, you first Rudy. No, you first, homo Ron. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>Please manipulate me more > >>>> > >>>>I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't > >>>>attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. > >>> > >>> > >>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are > >>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. > >> > >>You first, homo. > > > > > > No, you first Rudy. > > No, you first, homo Ron. Well, I was educated at....lol, whatever Rudy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't >>>>>>attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are >>>>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. >>>> >>>>You first, homo. >>> >>> >>>No, you first Rudy. >> >>No, you first, homo Ron. > > > Well, I was educated at You were not educated. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>I CAN'T manipulate you "more", Ron, because I haven't > >>>>>>attempted to manipulate you AT ALL. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are > >>>>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. > >>>> > >>>>You first, homo. > >>> > >>> > >>>No, you first Rudy. > >> > >>No, you first, homo Ron. > > > > > > Well, I was educated at > > You were not educated. I'm not required to prove my education to you, Rudy. Despite your request for intimate details of my life -- I continue to decline. But continue with the manipulations if it makes you happy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are >>>>>>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. >>>>>> >>>>>>You first, homo. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, you first Rudy. >>>> >>>>No, you first, homo Ron. >>> >>> >>>Well, I was educated at >> >>You were not educated. > > > I'm not required to prove my education to you You have none, Ron. You're an uneducated cocksucker. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are > >>>>>>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You first, homo. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>No, you first Rudy. > >>>> > >>>>No, you first, homo Ron. > >>> > >>> > >>>Well, I was educated at > >> > >>You were not educated. > > > > > > I'm not required to prove my education to you > > You have none, Ron. You're an uneducated cocksucker. That's your best shot. I am disappointed, Rudy. Maybe we can google the National Enquirer about your sexuality while were at it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote more juvenile sarcasm: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>>Oh, I hate when I need to take the longer route. Okay, Rudy? What are >>>>>>>>>your qualifications to be discussing this topic. Let's review your CV. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You first, homo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, you first Rudy. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you first, homo Ron. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well, I was educated at >>>> >>>>You were not educated. >>> >>> >>>I'm not required to prove my education to you >> >>You have none, Ron. You're an uneducated cocksucker. > > > That's your You have no qualifications and no education, Ron. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Another previously reputable company bites the dust... | General Cooking | |||
| chicken organs | General Cooking | |||
| Report: Prions cling to surgical equipment | Vegan | |||
| New Study on Prions | Vegan | |||
| Prions in Breast Milk | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
