Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
> > Nope. No fear.
> > Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. It won't become so, just from you saying it a hundred thousand times, you know. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Nope. No fear. >> >>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > > > It won't become so, just from you saying It already is. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Nope. No fear. >> >>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > > > It won't become so, just from you saying It already is. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > It won't become so, just from you saying
> > It already is. Why am I not quivering? Shouldn't I be shaking in my boots or something? I don't think your magic is working, Rudy. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > It won't become so, just from you saying
> > It already is. Why am I not quivering? Shouldn't I be shaking in my boots or something? I don't think your magic is working, Rudy. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > You certainly are the centre of the universe in your scenario -- > >> > anything to be special. > >> > >> It's not special to be the centre of one's universe. > > > > Yet, I find it difficult to feel compassion > > I can see that. It's rather sad. Why should I feel compassion for something that one has chosen? |
|
|||
|
|||
In article et>,
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: > >> > >> > > >>>>>The rest of us see the death of > >>>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to > >>>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his > >>>>>daily life and so on. > >>>> > >>>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same > >>>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested > >>>>development. > >>> > >>> > >>>Indeed. > >> > >>Yes. > >> > >> > >>>[snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo] > >> > >>Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are > >>unable to engage in adult discussion because you're > >>stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level. > >>You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for > >>things for which you clearly do bear responsibility. > >>You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction > >>being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a > >>disturbed and damaged child's inability to share > >>control with others. > >> > >>You're a mess. > > > > > > Again, an absence of examples > > The examples are in every post you make. Ah, you still miss me. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article et>,
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: > >> > >> > > >>>>>The rest of us see the death of > >>>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to > >>>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his > >>>>>daily life and so on. > >>>> > >>>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same > >>>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested > >>>>development. > >>> > >>> > >>>Indeed. > >> > >>Yes. > >> > >> > >>>[snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo] > >> > >>Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are > >>unable to engage in adult discussion because you're > >>stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level. > >>You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for > >>things for which you clearly do bear responsibility. > >>You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction > >>being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a > >>disturbed and damaged child's inability to share > >>control with others. > >> > >>You're a mess. > > > > > > Again, an absence of examples > > The examples are in every post you make. Ah, you still miss me. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It won't become so, just from you saying >> >>It already is. > > > Why am I not quivering? Paralysis. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>In article et>, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>>>engagement and wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>The rest of us see the death of >>>>>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal to >>>>>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his >>>>>>>daily life and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same >>>>>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested >>>>>>development. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Indeed. >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>[snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo] >>>> >>>>Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are >>>>unable to engage in adult discussion because you're >>>>stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level. >>>>You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for >>>>things for which you clearly do bear responsibility. >>>>You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction >>>>being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a >>>>disturbed and damaged child's inability to share >>>>control with others. >>>> >>>>You're a mess. >>> >>> >>>Again, an absence of examples >> >>The examples are in every post you make. > > > Ah, you still miss me. Typical Ron effort to deter adult engagement. |
|
|||
|
|||
Why do you want so badly for me to take
your test? I've never seen such obsession on the newsgroups before. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: > >>> > >>> > > >>>>>My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the > >>>>>action?" > >>>> > >>>>That is an immature view. > >>> > >>> > >>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things that > >>>are entirely or wholly within their control. > > > > > > My behaviour is within my control. > > Right. That behavior includes the choice of whether or > not to participate in a recurring chain of events that > leads to an outcome you supposedly decry. > > > > Given the evidence of your attempts to control > > Scented's behaviour through manipulation, > > No evidence. > > > > > > >>It's much more than that, but that particular view of > >>it describes Skunky to a T! > >> > >> > >>>What I type is entirely > >>>within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a > >>>demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy > >>>made me angry." > >> > >>That's lovely. It also is wholly irrelevant to the > >>idea of shared responsibility for a recurring chain of > >>events in which you play an integral role, leading to > >>an outcome you may consider "wrong". > >> > >>Try to write something relevant. > > > > > > Who is responsible when you type "homo", "stupid" or such words, Rudy? > > I am responsible for the movement of my fingers across > the keyboard. You are responsible for the post you > write to which I reply. If someone were deeply > offended at the mere appearance of the word "homo", and > IF it was a given that I always replied to every post > you write by writing the word "homo", then you would > share in the offense taken by that person. This is > obvious: the word "homo" would always and only appear > in response to your posts. As far as that person is > concerned, you are causing the offensive word "homo" to > appear. Attributing responsibility to me for your actions. A clear cut case of "he made me do it." Mom, Rudy made me type. He made me angry. It's his fault. If he didn't do X then I wouldn't type what I did. He started it. He did it first. Yes, Rudy. I am quite familiar the actions of children to avoid responsibility for their actions. Notions of shared responsibility allow you to avoid responsibility where it does belong to you and to assume responsibility where it doesn't. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of >>>>it describes Skunky to a T! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What I type is entirely >>>>>within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a >>>>>demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy >>>>>made me angry." >>>> >>>>That's lovely. It also is wholly irrelevant to the >>>>idea of shared responsibility for a recurring chain of >>>>events in which you play an integral role, leading to >>>>an outcome you may consider "wrong". >>>> >>>>Try to write something relevant. >>> >>> >>>Who is responsible when you type "homo", "stupid" or such words, Rudy? >> >>I am responsible for the movement of my fingers across >>the keyboard. You are responsible for the post you >>write to which I reply. If someone were deeply >>offended at the mere appearance of the word "homo", and >>IF it was a given that I always replied to every post >>you write by writing the word "homo", then you would >>share in the offense taken by that person. This is >>obvious: the word "homo" would always and only appear >>in response to your posts. As far as that person is >>concerned, you are causing the offensive word "homo" to >>appear. > > > Attributing responsibility to me for your actions. No. Responsibility for an outcome. Once again, you confuse action and consequence. > Yes, Rudy. I am quite familiar the actions of children to avoid > responsibility for their actions. No, Ron. You aren't. You are still engaging in it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Why do you want so badly for me to take > your test? I don't. I wanted you to take it to RE-demonstrate a point, but the point was already demonstrated, and that instance will have to do. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> Why do you want so badly for me to take > your test? I don't. I wanted you to take it to RE-demonstrate a point, but the point was already demonstrated, and that instance will have to do. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Why do you want so badly for me to take >>>your test? >> >>I don't. I wanted you to take it to RE-demonstrate a >>point, but the point was already demonstrated, and that >>instance will have to do. > > > As long as you're happy! Now we > can drop the test. Not quite. I still want to make a point of saying that the reason you won't take it is irrational fear. Also, the point the test was intended to illustrate - that "vegans" are all leftist idiots - is still true. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Why do you want so badly for me to take >>>your test? >> >>I don't. I wanted you to take it to RE-demonstrate a >>point, but the point was already demonstrated, and that >>instance will have to do. > > > As long as you're happy! Now we > can drop the test. Not quite. I still want to make a point of saying that the reason you won't take it is irrational fear. Also, the point the test was intended to illustrate - that "vegans" are all leftist idiots - is still true. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > Why do you want so badly for me to take
> > your test? > > I don't. I wanted you to take it to RE-demonstrate a > point, but the point was already demonstrated, and that > instance will have to do. As long as you're happy! Now we can drop the test. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>>You are wrong in your use of the word dilemma, Ron. >>>>You are engaging in a fallacy of equivocation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Wow, I am impressed with your ability to manipulate. >>>> >>>>On the basis of no evidence: I haven't engaged in >>>>manipulation. >>> >>> >>>Give me what I want or I will rob someone. >>>Give me what I want or it means that you are selfish. >>>Give me what I want or you are afraid. >>>Do what I want or I won't eat. >>> >>>Each are examples of how one individuals attempts to manipulate another >>>into acting in a particular way. In all 4 examples, the originator of >>>the statement is unable to accept a "no" for whatever is wanted. >> >>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > > > To assume to know her reasoning when she clearly indicates otherwise is > projection. No, it isn't. It's called piercing the veil. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: > >> > >> > >>>>More juvenile snarkiness instead of seeking honest > >>>>adult engagement. Also, more evidence of self-loathing. > >>> > >>> > >>>You are in the limelight, Rudy. Is there a reason you won't address the > >>>point that is based on your behaviour? > >> > >>Yes: because it is not seriously intended; it is > >>merely juvenile insult. > >> > >> > >>>You continue to find ways to > >>>engage me -- a known homosexual. > >> > >>And your point is? > > > > > > You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual > > engagements. > > False dilemma. I stand corrected. Rudy, you have the option of dozens, hundreds and even thousands of activities today. Your choice is to spend your time communicating with a self-acknowledge *** man. I choose to spend my time with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his sexuality. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no > >>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am > >>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is > >>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > > > > > > Nope. No fear. > > Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. Personally, I find your nature abusive. To submit to your request is only encouraging you to behave in this way. So, the choice that we seem to be making is to give you a clear message that we will not indulge you for your abusive and manipulative behaviours. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >>>It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a > >>>dilemma. > > Your use of dilemma is wrong, Ron. You are equivocating. > > > >>Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a > >>false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically), so > >>you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict > >>me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy or > >>admit to being a moron. > >> > >>Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does not > >>create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one. > > > > > > I've spent enough time on this. > > ALL the time spent was wasted, Ron, because you have > misused the word dilemma every time, and because you > have proved unable to learn from your mistakes. More manipulation. What you won't do to keep a conversation going with me. You could more assertive or direct with your request for me to spend time communication with you. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: > >> > >> > >>>In article et>, > >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>>>engagement and wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >>>>>>>The rest of us see the death of > >>>>>>>the steer as the farmer's desire and interests in killing the animal > >>>>>>>to > >>>>>>>support himself, support his family, to finance what he wants in his > >>>>>>>daily life and so on. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You are wrong. Your wrongness is fueled by the same > >>>>>>immaturity as Skunky's. You are a case of arrested > >>>>>>development. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Indeed. > >>>> > >>>>Yes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>[snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo] > >>>> > >>>>Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are > >>>>unable to engage in adult discussion because you're > >>>>stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level. > >>>>You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for > >>>>things for which you clearly do bear responsibility. > >>>>You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction > >>>>being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a > >>>>disturbed and damaged child's inability to share > >>>>control with others. > >>>> > >>>>You're a mess. > >>> > >>> > >>>Again, an absence of examples > >> > >>The examples are in every post you make. > > > > > > Ah, you still miss me. > > Typical Ron effort to deter adult engagement. I think Scented maybe onto something. One of the theories surrounding anorexia is sexual abuse. Like Dutch, you do seem to be demonstrating quite a bit of reaction to me and the topic of sexual inappropriateness towards children by adults. Sexual abuse of male children is often brushed aside. As is their complicity in the what is done to them. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: > >> > >> > >>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of > >>>>it describes Skunky to a T! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>What I type is entirely > >>>>>within in my control. To blame you for what I type would be a > >>>>>demonstration of child-like behaviour. "Mom, Rudy made me type it. Rudy > >>>>>made me angry." > >>>> > >>>>That's lovely. It also is wholly irrelevant to the > >>>>idea of shared responsibility for a recurring chain of > >>>>events in which you play an integral role, leading to > >>>>an outcome you may consider "wrong". > >>>> > >>>>Try to write something relevant. > >>> > >>> > >>>Who is responsible when you type "homo", "stupid" or such words, Rudy? > >> > >>I am responsible for the movement of my fingers across > >>the keyboard. You are responsible for the post you > >>write to which I reply. If someone were deeply > >>offended at the mere appearance of the word "homo", and > >>IF it was a given that I always replied to every post > >>you write by writing the word "homo", then you would > >>share in the offense taken by that person. This is > >>obvious: the word "homo" would always and only appear > >>in response to your posts. As far as that person is > >>concerned, you are causing the offensive word "homo" to > >>appear. > > > > > > Attributing responsibility to me for your actions. > > No. Responsibility for an outcome. > > Once again, you confuse action and consequence. > > > Yes, Rudy. I am quite familiar the actions of children to avoid > > responsibility for their actions. > > No, Ron. You aren't. You are still engaging in it. Your analysis is consistent with those who attempt to demonstrate control following experiences of abuse. By assuming control and responsibility, the person falsely believes that they can prevent what once happened from happening again. I suspect Scented is correct and it is you that experienced childhood sexual trauma. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article et>,
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: > >> > >> > >>>>You are wrong in your use of the word dilemma, Ron. > >>>>You are engaging in a fallacy of equivocation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Wow, I am impressed with your ability to manipulate. > >>>> > >>>>On the basis of no evidence: I haven't engaged in > >>>>manipulation. > >>> > >>> > >>>Give me what I want or I will rob someone. > >>>Give me what I want or it means that you are selfish. > >>>Give me what I want or you are afraid. > >>>Do what I want or I won't eat. > >>> > >>>Each are examples of how one individuals attempts to manipulate another > >>>into acting in a particular way. In all 4 examples, the originator of > >>>the statement is unable to accept a "no" for whatever is wanted. > >> > >>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no > >>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am > >>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is > >>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > > > > > > To assume to know her reasoning when she clearly indicates otherwise is > > projection. > > No, it isn't. It's called piercing the veil. Why did you let him sodomize you with a broom, Rudy? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote: >> > No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote >> > has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause >> > in the determination of any election. >> >> So you invent your own meaning for the insignicant cause fallacy and >> we're >> supposed to just go along with it? > > Look it up. I did already but here it is again... http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote >> > Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the >> > individual being important, special, or significant in some way. >> >> Individuals are important, special or significant in some way. > > Choosing to be anorexic is one way. It's a one way choice, that's the problem. >> >> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're >> >> >> clever, when you so plainly aren't? >> >> > >> >> > I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you >> >> > attach to it is your issue. >> >> >> >> You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating >> >> points, >> >> so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in >> >> years. >> > >> > I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity. >> >> Not to me. > > I demonstrated it to my satisfaction. Do you see how this works. > Demonstrating anything to your satisfaction is an endless game. [..] >> There have been numerous instances where I KNOW that you have been on the >> wrong track on issues, and in NOT ONE instance have you appeared to have >> adjusted your thinking one iota, even when given numerous irrefutable >> arguments. The 'false dilemma' is the latest in a long string of such >> instances. > > Interpretation. You mean I've disagreed with you. And you have been objectively wrong in numerous cases and have yet to acknowledge it even once. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > > "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> > No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote > >> > has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause > >> > in the determination of any election. > >> > >> So you invent your own meaning for the insignicant cause fallacy and > >> we're > >> supposed to just go along with it? > > > > Look it up. > > I did already but here it is again... > > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > "Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory > government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any > other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic or logical fallacies. IOW, this is an appeal to authority where there is none. Providing citations is appropriate in an academic setting, this however, is a usenet discussion group. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Derek > wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:38:02 -0500, Ron > wrote: >> >> >I've spent enough time on this. But I'll leave it on this note. What is >> >the dilemma in posing the question, are you an ass or an idiot? >> >> That's not a false dilemma, since no other alternatives >> can possibly exist in the real World. > > lol Yes, that was a good one. Your reaction seems to indicate that you actually DO recognize a false dilemma when you see one. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > >> > Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the > >> > individual being important, special, or significant in some way. > >> > >> Individuals are important, special or significant in some way. > > > > Choosing to be anorexic is one way. > > It's a one way choice, that's the problem. Ridiculous. Coddle the childlike behaviour if you will. But I prefer adults relationships with people who mostly act as adults most of the time. > >> >> >> Serious question, Ronnie: why do you think you're > >> >> >> clever, when you so plainly aren't? > >> >> > > >> >> > I think I have a tendency to be curious. Any other labeling that you > >> >> > attach to it is your issue. > >> >> > >> >> You are not curious, you are ego-obessed with trying to win debating > >> >> points, > >> >> so much so that you have not learned anything, apparently not in > >> >> years. > >> > > >> > I have clearly demonstrated my curiosity. > >> > >> Not to me. > > > > I demonstrated it to my satisfaction. Do you see how this works. > > Demonstrating anything to your satisfaction is an endless game. > > [..] > > >> There have been numerous instances where I KNOW that you have been on the > >> wrong track on issues, and in NOT ONE instance have you appeared to have > >> adjusted your thinking one iota, even when given numerous irrefutable > >> arguments. The 'false dilemma' is the latest in a long string of such > >> instances. > > > > Interpretation. You mean I've disagreed with you. > > And you have been objectively wrong in numerous cases and have yet to > acknowledge it even once. Logic is void of the effects of space and time and is therefore subjective. Further, disagreement with you doesn't mean that you are right and I am wrong, or that I am right and you are wrong. That is a logical fallacy. It means that we have different and similar information and have reached different conclusions. I noted that being right is important to you. I am comfortable with the reality that we can draw different conclusions. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> Ron wrote: >> >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you >> >>>are.... >> >> >> >>C'mon man use your head. >> > >> > >> > It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a >> > dilemma. >> >> It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word. > > Of course, I'll let the bait slide. Wow, I am impressed with your > ability to manipulate. But then, most children have learned and mastered > this skill by the age of 5. So when you are found to be wrong it is somebody else's fault, is that it? |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >> Ron wrote: > >> > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >>>Bush didn't state if you don't choose against terrorism then you > >> >>>are.... > >> >> > >> >>C'mon man use your head. > >> > > >> > > >> > It seems then that I agree to disagree with you on the nature of a > >> > dilemma. > >> > >> It seems that you are wrong in your use of the word. > > > > Of course, I'll let the bait slide. Wow, I am impressed with your > > ability to manipulate. But then, most children have learned and mastered > > this skill by the age of 5. > > So when you are found to be wrong it is somebody else's fault, is that it? Indeed. Who have I held accountable for my position on anything Dutch? I think you project too much. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >>>>>You continue to find ways to >>>>>engage me -- a known homosexual. >>>> >>>>And your point is? >>> >>> >>>You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual >>>engagements. >> >>False dilemma. > > > I stand corrected. Rudy, you have the option of dozens, hundreds and > even thousands of activities today. Your choice is to spend your time > communicating with a self-acknowledge *** man. So? > I choose to spend my time > with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his > sexuality. Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult thing to say. |
|
|||
|
|||
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. >>> >>> >>>Nope. No fear. >> >>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > > > Personally, I find your nature abusive. I doubt that. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>>Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a >>>>false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically), so >>>>you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict >>>>me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy or >>>>admit to being a moron. >>>> >>>>Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does not >>>>create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one. >>> >>> >>>I've spent enough time on this. >> >>ALL the time spent was wasted, Ron, because you have >>misused the word dilemma every time, and because you >>have proved unable to learn from your mistakes. > > > More manipulation. No manipulation. > What you won't do to keep a conversation going with > me. I don't have to do much of anything, Ron. I think belching or passing gas would probably suffice. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>>>>>[snip silly psychobabble from psychology-dunce homo] >>>>>> >>>>>>Ron: you are a case of arrested development. You are >>>>>>unable to engage in adult discussion because you're >>>>>>stuck at a pre-adult cognitive and emotional level. >>>>>>You have a child's wish NOT to be responsible for >>>>>>things for which you clearly do bear responsibility. >>>>>>You also clearly exhibit a child's self-satisfaction >>>>>>being disruptive and uncooperative. You have a >>>>>>disturbed and damaged child's inability to share >>>>>>control with others. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're a mess. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Again, an absence of examples >>>> >>>>The examples are in every post you make. >>> >>> >>>Ah, you still miss me. >> >>Typical Ron effort to deter adult engagement. > > > I think Scented maybe onto something. Pot. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>Attributing responsibility to me for your actions. >> >>No. Responsibility for an outcome. >> >>Once again, you confuse action and consequence. >> >> >>>Yes, Rudy. I am quite familiar the actions of children to avoid >>>responsibility for their actions. >> >>No, Ron. You aren't. You are still engaging in it. > > > Your analysis is consistent with good analysis. I know. |
|
|||
|
|||
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: >> >> >>>>>Each are examples of how one individuals attempts to manipulate another >>>>>into acting in a particular way. In all 4 examples, the originator of >>>>>the statement is unable to accept a "no" for whatever is wanted. >>>> >>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. >>> >>> >>>To assume to know her reasoning when she clearly indicates otherwise is >>>projection. >> >>No, it isn't. It's called piercing the veil. > > > Why did you let him sodomize you with a broom, Rudy? Why did you **** your grandfather in the ass for three days after he was dead, Ron? Did you have an illicit key to the funeral home? |
|
|||
|
|||
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: > >> > >>>>>You continue to find ways to > >>>>>engage me -- a known homosexual. > >>>> > >>>>And your point is? > >>> > >>> > >>>You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual > >>>engagements. > >> > >>False dilemma. > > > > > > I stand corrected. Rudy, you have the option of dozens, hundreds and > > even thousands of activities today. Your choice is to spend your time > > communicating with a self-acknowledge *** man. > > So? And you continue to provide opportunities for me to continue disucssing your sexual identity. Asking a question typically invites a response. As scented as pointed out, you do seem obsessive. I am hoping to show you that it is acceptable to disclose your sexuality publicly. > > I choose to spend my time > > with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his > > sexuality. > > Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know > you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult > thing to say. Like a small percentage of the popular, I find your behaviour similar to theirs. There is the false bravado of masculinity of being negative with *** men, only to disguise a desire to connect with them. My experience of heterosexual males is that they tolerate and accept my presence, it is only those who actively seek out my engagement that allows me to ponder the true nature of their sexuality. Understandably, we live in a sexually repressive and religiously dominated culture with all sorts of negative messages. I can understand your reluctance to declare your interest in men. Given the possibility of your prior sexual abuse having been raised, I can further understand your reluctance to be open with another male. That was then, this is now. |
|
|||
|
|||
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > > >>"Ron" > wrote >> >>"Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >>>>>No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote >>>>>has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause >>>>>in the determination of any election. >>>> >>>>So you invent your own meaning for the insignicant cause fallacy and >>>>we're >>>>supposed to just go along with it? >>> >>>Look it up. >> >>I did already but here it is again... >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as any >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > > > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic > or logical fallacies. The author of the material contained at their site IS an authority. Once again, Ron, you lose. Why did you **** your grandfather in the ass for three days after he was dead, Ron? Did you have an illicit key to the funeral home? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder | Vegan | |||
Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water | Vegan | |||
dreck nash is a crybaby liar | Vegan | |||
Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 | Vegan | |||
Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context | Vegan |