"Ron" > wrote in message
...

snips..
>> > roflmao. How many vegans have you influenced? How effective are your
>> > powers of persuasion and influence? Rudy has been at it for 5.5 years
>> > with no results.
>> ===============
>> You can back up that claim too, I sure, right queer-boy?
>>
>>
>> What are the results of your efforts.
>> ===========================
>> Exposing the hypocrisy and ignorance of veganism. Too bad that all
>> you've
>> managed to do is prove your own ignorance pansy.
>
> Evasive little ****ed up troll. You were asked a question.
=====================
And, ignorant little queer, I answered. Too bad your education was so
lacking in english and comprehension, eh pansy?



Quit acting
> like a spineless little ****ing worm and answer. What is the history of
> your success. How many ways can we spell ZERO! Acting like an
> Insignificant **** will only earn you contempt.
==================
LOL Contempt of meantal cases like queers? Wow, I'm really scared,
pansy-bot.


>
>
>> > Ineffectual little coward. Come sit on my lap. I'll make a man of you
>> > yet.
>> ======================
>> LOL Says a limp wristed queer-boy girly wannabe....

In article t>,
"rick" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> snips..
> >> > roflmao. How many vegans have you influenced? How effective are your
> >> > powers of persuasion and influence? Rudy has been at it for 5.5 years
> >> > with no results.
> >> ===============
> >> You can back up that claim too, I sure, right queer-boy?
> >>
> >>
> >> What are the results of your efforts.
> >> ===========================
> >> Exposing the hypocrisy and ignorance of veganism. Too bad that all
> >> you've
> >> managed to do is prove your own ignorance pansy.
> >
> > Evasive little ****ed up troll. You were asked a question.
> =====================
> And, ignorant little queer, I answered. Too bad your education was so
> lacking in english and comprehension, eh pansy?
>
>
>
> Quit acting
> > like a spineless little ****ing worm and answer. What is the history of
> > your success. How many ways can we spell ZERO! Acting like an
> > Insignificant **** will only earn you contempt.
> ==================
> LOL Contempt of meantal cases like queers? Wow, I'm really scared,
> pansy-bot.
>
>
> >
> >
> >> > Ineffectual little coward. Come sit on my lap. I'll make a man of you
> >> > yet.
> >> ======================
> >> LOL Says a limp wristed queer-boy girly wannabe....

Afraid of the faggot. Pitiful excuse for a man. Now go and google me
something you like ****ing worm.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > A cure to addiction today, would put countless people out of work.
> >>
> >> An end to crime would also, but we still wish for it.
> >
> > I know.
>
> Then why did you engage in that stupid circular reasoning?
>
> SN is probably committing all sorts of crime. I'm sure she is
> > just as "respectable" as any other citizen with the exception that she
> > uses a substance that is currently illegal. She's probably out there
> > raping and pillaging the entire city whilst I sleep. Who knows how many
> > laws she is breaking during the day. She likely spends a small fraction
> > of her entire earnings on a product that she desires. Big deal.
> >
> > Crime. ROFLMAO.
>
> According to your reasoning we should not seek to cure addiction because it
> would put people out of work. Why does the same principle not apply to crime
> prevention?

WHAT THE **** DOES THAT MEAN?

I stated that ONE reason for not curing addicts by selected individuals
and professions is economic. Are you stupid?

Anyone with half a ****ing brain would see the connection. SN has
already confessed. Let's have her arrested. She jaywalked. The world is
now a safe place once we get her off the streets.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >> >> > Anything from the eating disordered is suspect. Denial is a
> >> >> >> > terrible
> >> >> >> > symptom of any disorder. "Hi, I'm Dutch. I have an eating
> >> >> >> > disorder."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Did I hurt your iddy-biddy feelings somewhere, is that it? Does he
> >> >> >> need a
> >> >> >> big hug?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How could *you* hurt *my* feelings? I think you overestimate your
> >> >> > impact
> >> >> > on me.
> >> >>
> >> >> My estimate is based on clear evidence, your obsessive dogging of my
> >> >> tracks
> >> >> attempting to find holes in my arguments. You have been trying for a
> >> >> couple
> >> >> of weeks, ever since I rebuffed your first attempts convince me I was
> >> >> bullying SN.
> >> >
> >> > Once again, you overestimate your impact on me. I choose to participate
> >> > here because I choose it.
> >>
> >> That is tautological.
> >>
> >> > I choose it for a variety of reasons.
> >>
> >> That is avoidance.
> >>
> >> > That you
> >> > make yourself the centre of my world is your choice.
> >>
> >> The replies are TO ME.
> >>
> >> > We may be making headway in that you do seem to recognize that SN was
> >> > being bullied. Acknowledging that would be difficult, I imagine.
> >>
> >> Again, you cannot resolve your insistence that people be left to their
> >> own
> >> devices with your intervention in this case of so-called "bullying". SN
> >> is
> >> clearly a voluntary participant or she would simply killfile the threads.
> >> Such inconsistency is a signal that your thinking lacks a solid
> >> foundation.
> >> I referred to it before as a failure to operate from your genuine self.
> >
> > Wrong. She has clearly asked that she not be treated this way. Her
> > request has been ignored. she has clearly stated that she chooses to be
> > in this group to discuss other issues and not to be verbally abused. The
> > bullies just refuse to do what she wants.
>
> Her actions betray her words. She know how to use a killfile. She is getting
> a kick out of it.
>
> > Her choice is to participate in the group. It is coincidence that others
> > are acting in this way towards her.
>
> It is no coincidence that she continues to respond, and fails to killfile
> any of these so-called bullies.
>
> >
> > 4 bullies picking one person is just cowardice. Control freaks unite.
> > Before you misconstrue my intent, you have stated that denial needs to
> > be addressed. Feel free to continue to be abusive to SN, but I did want
> > to address your denial.
>
> She loves the attention, and you are falling for it as much as any of us.

SO-CALLED. Are you a ****ing air head. Whether she stays, goes or
killfiles, the actions are still those of bullies. Man, what a ****-tard.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > All abusive behaviour and excuses are
>> > seen by all.
>>
>> I have engaged in neither.
>
> You have been seen to be abusive, and you
> usually use the excuse that you're helping
> the person.

Telling you stuff you don't want to hear is not abusive. You can killfile me
and never hear from me again, why don't you?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > If you think you're behaviour is normal
>> > interactions-wise, I pity the people who
>> > have to deal with you in real life.
>>
>> "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
>
> How kindly you point out typos.
> Duz iht reely bawther yuou?

That was not a typo, you genuinely never learned the correct usage of your
and you're.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> >> > If you think you're behaviour is normal
> >> > interactions-wise, I pity the people who
> >> > have to deal with you in real life.
> >>
> >> "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
> >
> > How kindly you point out typos.
> > Duz iht reely bawther yuou?
>
> That was not a typo, you genuinely never learned the correct usage of your
> and you're.

Hey, **** up. Get over it.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> >> My comments to SN are none of your business, you are attempting to
>> >> > stifle a
>> >> >> debate between two adults. You offer no material constructive
>> >> >> input,
>> >> > simply
>> >> >> naysaying from the sidelines.
>> >> >
>> >> > They are everyone's business. This is a public
>> >> > forum.
>> >>
>> >> He cannot resolve his contradictory position. He harangues me
>> >> endlessly
>> >> to
>> >> abandon people to their own self-chosen fates, while those very
>> >> protestations are an example of him not leaving me to pursue mine.
>> >
>> > What contradictory position, Dutch?
>>
>> I described it right above. You expend energy *attempting* to convince me
>> to
>> change my behaviour, which I choose voluntarily, while ignoring anorexics
>> on
>> the grounds that they choose voluntarily to engage in their behaviour.
>
> There is QUITE the difference. SN's choices are in pursuit of having her
> own life. Your pursuits are the attempt to change her.

And your pursuit is trying to change *my* behaviour. Funny how that famous
inconsistency comes around to bite you on the ass.

> I am confronting
> you on this behaviour.

I have no power over how she chooses to live her life. I choose to tell her
a few of my thoughts, she chooses to listen, and claims to ignore me.
Where's the problem?

> There is no contradiction here. I am merely making a choice for the
> moment to behave as you and the others.

I see, it's not a contradiction, you're just making a temporary exception to
your non-interference rule, uh-huh..

> Who the **** do you think you are to tell anyone to behave in any way?
> Who the **** are you to think that SN in any way is obligated to follow
> your ****ed up code of ethics from a eating disordered shagger of the
> eating disordered? **** a man rather something that looks like a man.
> Who the **** are you to tell someone who smokes drugs anything when you
> have disclosed your own ****ing use of drugs.
> YOU ****ing hypocrite.

I seem to have struck a nerve here. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

> Who died and made you Queen of ****ing Everything! Now justify yourself
> instead of acting like a simpering ****.

Fallacy of false choice.


>> > What anorexic am I trying to
>> > convince to eat. I ignore anorexics.
>>
>> Why only anorexics? Why don't you ignore me? You seem to perceive I have
>> a
>> behaviour problem yet you don't ignore me.
>>
>> > Someone wanting my attention can
>> > ask for it. There are a multitude of ways to get my attention and some
>> > are even positive.
>>
>> What anorexic has asked for your attention?
>>
>> > Anorexics are easily ignored. They will tire and eat or they will
>> > starve
>> > to death, or they will find other ways to get what they want.
>>
>> What makes you think you know anything about obsessive behaviours?
>>
>>
>> [..]

"Ron" > wrote

>> You are misconstruing the situation. First of all, she is NOT being
>> bullied,
>> because she has the option to end the discussions at any moment at her
>> own
>> discression, she chooses to engage. Secondly it's not "gang" anything,
>> it's
>> forums that many people read and several people happen to find her
>> contributions worthy of responses. They have nothing to do with me.
>>
>> > She has clearly stated she
>> > lacks the desire to eat meat and that she won't. 4 of you seem to have
>> > great difficulty with that choice.
>>
>> I have told her at least five times that I don't care if she eats meat.
>> Now
>> you know.
>
> Her ability to kill file does not change the fact that bullying is going
> on.

Yes it absolutely does. Bullying does not apply under these circumstances,
to say so diminishes the *real* meaning of the term. It is her *choice* to
engage us.

Or are you suggesting that she is actually responding out of some obsessive
need? In that case what about your "let 'em die" policy? There's that gamous
inconsistency again.

> Are you ****ed up? Are you that ****ing stupid not to know that?
> What kind of a sick control freak are you.

Fallacy of... can't think of the name of it, and my wife just made tea...

> Quit acting like a ****ing manish anorexic and take some responsibility
> for what you do. Acting like a simpering little **** only earns you
> contempt.
>
> How about this...shove a ****ing sandwich in your wife's face and leave
> SN to her own life. Acting like a simpering pathetic **** is only making
> you annoying to the rest of the world.

Give 'em hell Rono, that's more like it. This is closer to the real you than
that fake logic shit.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> >> My comments to SN are none of your business, you are attempting to
> >> >> > stifle a
> >> >> >> debate between two adults. You offer no material constructive
> >> >> >> input,
> >> >> > simply
> >> >> >> naysaying from the sidelines.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They are everyone's business. This is a public
> >> >> > forum.
> >> >>
> >> >> He cannot resolve his contradictory position. He harangues me
> >> >> endlessly
> >> >> to
> >> >> abandon people to their own self-chosen fates, while those very
> >> >> protestations are an example of him not leaving me to pursue mine.
> >> >
> >> > What contradictory position, Dutch?
> >>
> >> I described it right above. You expend energy *attempting* to convince me
> >> to
> >> change my behaviour, which I choose voluntarily, while ignoring anorexics
> >> on
> >> the grounds that they choose voluntarily to engage in their behaviour.
> >
> > There is QUITE the difference. SN's choices are in pursuit of having her
> > own life. Your pursuits are the attempt to change her.
>
> And your pursuit is trying to change *my* behaviour. Funny how that famous
> inconsistency comes around to bite you on the ass.

I'm only doing what Rudy does to SN but to you.

Tell me I'm wrong, you sick little ****. Who the **** are you to tell
anyone what to do. Who the **** are you, you poor excuse for a ****ing
man. Now go **** the anorexic. Maybe the two of you can shoot up and
feel good for a while.


> > I am confronting
> > you on this behaviour.
>
> I have no power over how she chooses to live her life. I choose to tell her
> a few of my thoughts, she chooses to listen, and claims to ignore me.
> Where's the problem?

No one asked for your ****ing thoughts. Your thoughts are nothing more
than what you google you ****ing goggle queen. You have not one original
idea in your head.

> > There is no contradiction here. I am merely making a choice for the
> > moment to behave as you and the others.
>
> I see, it's not a contradiction, you're just making a temporary exception to
> your non-interference rule, uh-huh..
>
> > Who the **** do you think you are to tell anyone to behave in any way?
> > Who the **** are you to think that SN in any way is obligated to follow
> > your ****ed up code of ethics from a eating disordered shagger of the
> > eating disordered? **** a man rather something that looks like a man.
> > Who the **** are you to tell someone who smokes drugs anything when you
> > have disclosed your own ****ing use of drugs.
> > YOU ****ing hypocrite.
>
> I seem to have struck a nerve here. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Answer the ****ing question you pathetic ****ing worm. Such fear when a
faggot gets in your face -- closeted little cocksuckers. Now go **** the
anorexic. She needs you, we don't.

> > Who died and made you Queen of ****ing Everything! Now justify yourself
> > instead of acting like a simpering ****.
>
> Fallacy of false choice.

Justify your ****ing actions simpleton. Pathetic excuse for intellect.
Did you google that too queer bait. Try an academic source if you want
to impress us.

> >> > What anorexic am I trying to
> >> > convince to eat. I ignore anorexics.
> >>
> >> Why only anorexics? Why don't you ignore me? You seem to perceive I have
> >> a
> >> behaviour problem yet you don't ignore me.
> >>
> >> > Someone wanting my attention can
> >> > ask for it. There are a multitude of ways to get my attention and some
> >> > are even positive.
> >>
> >> What anorexic has asked for your attention?
> >>
> >> > Anorexics are easily ignored. They will tire and eat or they will
> >> > starve
> >> > to death, or they will find other ways to get what they want.
> >>
> >> What makes you think you know anything about obsessive behaviours?
> >>
> >>
> >> [..]

Editing. You spineless ****. Address me like a man. Or bend over and
take it like one. Or go **** the anorexic. You are worhtless to us here.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> You are misconstruing the situation. First of all, she is NOT being
> >> bullied,
> >> because she has the option to end the discussions at any moment at her
> >> own
> >> discression, she chooses to engage. Secondly it's not "gang" anything,
> >> it's
> >> forums that many people read and several people happen to find her
> >> contributions worthy of responses. They have nothing to do with me.
> >>
> >> > She has clearly stated she
> >> > lacks the desire to eat meat and that she won't. 4 of you seem to have
> >> > great difficulty with that choice.
> >>
> >> I have told her at least five times that I don't care if she eats meat.
> >> Now
> >> you know.
> >
> > Her ability to kill file does not change the fact that bullying is going
> > on.
>
> Yes it absolutely does. Bullying does not apply under these circumstances,
> to say so diminishes the *real* meaning of the term. It is her *choice* to
> engage us.
>
> Or are you suggesting that she is actually responding out of some obsessive
> need? In that case what about your "let 'em die" policy? There's that gamous
> inconsistency again.
>
> > Are you ****ed up? Are you that ****ing stupid not to know that?
> > What kind of a sick control freak are you.
>
> Fallacy of... can't think of the name of it, and my wife just made tea...
>
> > Quit acting like a ****ing manish anorexic and take some responsibility
> > for what you do. Acting like a simpering little **** only earns you
> > contempt.
> >
> > How about this...shove a ****ing sandwich in your wife's face and leave
> > SN to her own life. Acting like a simpering pathetic **** is only making
> > you annoying to the rest of the world.
>
> Give 'em hell Rono, that's more like it. This is closer to the real you than
> that fake logic shit.

Tea. roflmao. Come on little wannabe faggot. Eat my ****ing dick. But
before you do, answer the ****ing question. Who the **** are you to tell
anyone anything. No one asked for your opinion you worthless little
piece of ****ing shit. Now go **** the anorexic. You keep insisting that
you are straight. Do something straight. Pathetic excuse for a ****ing
man.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > A cure to addiction today, would put countless people out of work.
>> >>
>> >> An end to crime would also, but we still wish for it.
>> >
>> > I know.
>>
>> Then why did you engage in that stupid circular reasoning?
>>
>> SN is probably committing all sorts of crime. I'm sure she is
>> > just as "respectable" as any other citizen with the exception that she
>> > uses a substance that is currently illegal. She's probably out there
>> > raping and pillaging the entire city whilst I sleep. Who knows how many
>> > laws she is breaking during the day. She likely spends a small fraction
>> > of her entire earnings on a product that she desires. Big deal.
>> >
>> > Crime. ROFLMAO.
>>
>> According to your reasoning we should not seek to cure addiction because
>> it
>> would put people out of work. Why does the same principle not apply to
>> crime
>> prevention?
>
> WHAT THE **** DOES THAT MEAN?

Exactly what it says.
>
> I stated that ONE reason for not curing addicts by selected individuals
> and professions is economic. Are you stupid?

No, I'm intelligent. You just think you are.

> Anyone with half a ****ing brain would see the connection.

Fallacy of poisoning the well.

> SN has
> already confessed. Let's have her arrested. She jaywalked. The world is
> now a safe place once we get her off the streets.

Irrational response.

"Ron" > wrote

>> She loves the attention, and you are falling for it as much as any of us.
>
> SO-CALLED. Are you a ****ing air head. Whether she stays, goes or
> killfiles, the actions are still those of bullies. Man, what a ****-tard.

Nope, not bullying. She's an adult participating voluntarily.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >, "Dutch"
>> >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My comments to SN are none of your business, you are attempting
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> > stifle a
>> >> >> >> debate between two adults. You offer no material constructive
>> >> >> >> input,
>> >> >> > simply
>> >> >> >> naysaying from the sidelines.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > They are everyone's business. This is a public
>> >> >> > forum.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He cannot resolve his contradictory position. He harangues me
>> >> >> endlessly
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> abandon people to their own self-chosen fates, while those very
>> >> >> protestations are an example of him not leaving me to pursue mine.
>> >> >
>> >> > What contradictory position, Dutch?
>> >>
>> >> I described it right above. You expend energy *attempting* to convince
>> >> me
>> >> to
>> >> change my behaviour, which I choose voluntarily, while ignoring
>> >> anorexics
>> >> on
>> >> the grounds that they choose voluntarily to engage in their behaviour.
>> >
>> > There is QUITE the difference. SN's choices are in pursuit of having
>> > her
>> > own life. Your pursuits are the attempt to change her.
>>
>> And your pursuit is trying to change *my* behaviour. Funny how that
>> famous
>> inconsistency comes around to bite you on the ass.
>
> I'm only doing what Rudy does to SN but to you.
>
> Tell me I'm wrong, you sick little ****. Who the **** are you to tell
> anyone what to do. Who the **** are you, you poor excuse for a ****ing
> man. Now go **** the anorexic. Maybe the two of you can shoot up and
> feel good for a while.

You need to have a sound argument as a basis, otherwise it's just a rant,
and that's pathetic.

>> > I am confronting
>> > you on this behaviour.
>>
>> I have no power over how she chooses to live her life. I choose to tell
>> her
>> a few of my thoughts, she chooses to listen, and claims to ignore me.
>> Where's the problem?
>
> No one asked for your ****ing thoughts.

That's OK, I share them anyway. If you don't like it killfile me.

> Your thoughts are nothing more
> than what you google you ****ing goggle queen. You have not one original
> idea in your head.

Ooh, the bad man insulted me.

>
>> > There is no contradiction here. I am merely making a choice for the
>> > moment to behave as you and the others.
>>
>> I see, it's not a contradiction, you're just making a temporary exception
>> to
>> your non-interference rule, uh-huh..
>>
>> > Who the **** do you think you are to tell anyone to behave in any way?
>> > Who the **** are you to think that SN in any way is obligated to follow
>> > your ****ed up code of ethics from a eating disordered shagger of the
>> > eating disordered? **** a man rather something that looks like a man.
>> > Who the **** are you to tell someone who smokes drugs anything when you
>> > have disclosed your own ****ing use of drugs.
>> > YOU ****ing hypocrite.
>>
>> I seem to have struck a nerve here. Maybe there's hope for you yet.
>
> Answer the ****ing question you pathetic ****ing worm. Such fear when a
> faggot gets in your face -- closeted little cocksuckers. Now go **** the
> anorexic. She needs you, we don't.

The question "Who the **** do you think you are.." is rhetorical.

>> > Who died and made you Queen of ****ing Everything! Now justify yourself
>> > instead of acting like a simpering ****.
>>
>> Fallacy of false choice.
>
> Justify your ****ing actions simpleton. Pathetic excuse for intellect.
> Did you google that too queer bait. Try an academic source if you want
> to impress us.

I don't justify anything to clowns.

>> >> > What anorexic am I trying to
>> >> > convince to eat. I ignore anorexics.
>> >>
>> >> Why only anorexics? Why don't you ignore me? You seem to perceive I
>> >> have
>> >> a
>> >> behaviour problem yet you don't ignore me.
>> >>
>> >> > Someone wanting my attention can
>> >> > ask for it. There are a multitude of ways to get my attention and
>> >> > some
>> >> > are even positive.
>> >>
>> >> What anorexic has asked for your attention?
>> >>
>> >> > Anorexics are easily ignored. They will tire and eat or they will
>> >> > starve
>> >> > to death, or they will find other ways to get what they want.
>> >>
>> >> What makes you think you know anything about obsessive behaviours?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [..]
>
> Editing. You spineless ****. Address me like a man. Or bend over and
> take it like one. Or go **** the anorexic. You are worhtless to us here.

Answer the question bozo. What makes you think you know anything about
obsessive behaviours?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> You are misconstruing the situation. First of all, she is NOT being
>> >> bullied,
>> >> because she has the option to end the discussions at any moment at her
>> >> own
>> >> discression, she chooses to engage. Secondly it's not "gang" anything,
>> >> it's
>> >> forums that many people read and several people happen to find her
>> >> contributions worthy of responses. They have nothing to do with me.
>> >>
>> >> > She has clearly stated she
>> >> > lacks the desire to eat meat and that she won't. 4 of you seem to
>> >> > have
>> >> > great difficulty with that choice.
>> >>
>> >> I have told her at least five times that I don't care if she eats
>> >> meat.
>> >> Now
>> >> you know.
>> >
>> > Her ability to kill file does not change the fact that bullying is
>> > going
>> > on.
>>
>> Yes it absolutely does. Bullying does not apply under these
>> circumstances,
>> to say so diminishes the *real* meaning of the term. It is her *choice*
>> to
>> engage us.
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that she is actually responding out of some
>> obsessive
>> need? In that case what about your "let 'em die" policy? There's that
>> gamous
>> inconsistency again.
>>
>> > Are you ****ed up? Are you that ****ing stupid not to know that?
>> > What kind of a sick control freak are you.
>>
>> Fallacy of... can't think of the name of it, and my wife just made tea...
>>
>> > Quit acting like a ****ing manish anorexic and take some responsibility
>> > for what you do. Acting like a simpering little **** only earns you
>> > contempt.
>> >
>> > How about this...shove a ****ing sandwich in your wife's face and leave
>> > SN to her own life. Acting like a simpering pathetic **** is only
>> > making
>> > you annoying to the rest of the world.
>>
>> Give 'em hell Rono, that's more like it. This is closer to the real you
>> than
>> that fake logic shit.
>
> Tea. roflmao. Come on little wannabe faggot. Eat my ****ing dick. But
> before you do, answer the ****ing question. Who the **** are you to tell
> anyone anything. No one asked for your opinion you worthless little
> piece of ****ing shit. Now go **** the anorexic. You keep insisting that
> you are straight. Do something straight. Pathetic excuse for a ****ing
> man.

I thought at first this "angry Ron" was a sign of something real coming out,
but I was mistaken. You're still big fat phoney ZERO. You're a poseur Rono,
a paper cutout. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> > If you think you're behaviour is normal
>> >> > interactions-wise, I pity the people who
>> >> > have to deal with you in real life.
>> >>
>> >> "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
>> >
>> > How kindly you point out typos.
>> > Duz iht reely bawther yuou?
>>
>> That was not a typo, you genuinely never learned the correct usage of
>> your
>> and you're.
>
> Hey, **** up. Get over it.

Tipped a few tonight eh Rono, looks like you're about to crash.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> > > All abusive behaviour and excuses are
> > > seen by all.
> >
> > I have engaged in neither.
>
> You have been seen to be abusive, and you
> usually use the excuse that you're helping
> the person.

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant
springs; when he first appears, he is a protector."
- Plato, circa 400 BC

> >> "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
> >
> > How kindly you point out typos.
> > Duz iht reely bawther yuou?
>
> That was not a typo, you genuinely never learned the correct usage of
your
> and you're.

Their, they're, calm down.

If it wasn't a typo, you would have seen
it a lot more than once. It's funny how
you always want to assume the worst
though.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> Telling you stuff you don't want to hear is not abusive. You can
killfile me
> and never hear from me again, why don't you?

If you were truly a mature person, you could
make your points without the need to insult.

I don't killfile anyone. I like to see the whole
picture, even when parts of it are ugly.


--
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 in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > A cure to addiction today, would put countless people out of work.
> >> >>
> >> >> An end to crime would also, but we still wish for it.
> >> >
> >> > I know.
> >>
> >> Then why did you engage in that stupid circular reasoning?
> >>
> >> SN is probably committing all sorts of crime. I'm sure she is
> >> > just as "respectable" as any other citizen with the exception that she
> >> > uses a substance that is currently illegal. She's probably out there
> >> > raping and pillaging the entire city whilst I sleep. Who knows how many
> >> > laws she is breaking during the day. She likely spends a small fraction
> >> > of her entire earnings on a product that she desires. Big deal.
> >> >
> >> > Crime. ROFLMAO.
> >>
> >> According to your reasoning we should not seek to cure addiction because
> >> it
> >> would put people out of work. Why does the same principle not apply to
> >> crime
> >> prevention?
> >
> > WHAT THE **** DOES THAT MEAN?
>
> Exactly what it says.
> >
> > I stated that ONE reason for not curing addicts by selected individuals
> > and professions is economic. Are you stupid?
>
> No, I'm intelligent. You just think you are.
>
> > Anyone with half a ****ing brain would see the connection.
>
> Fallacy of poisoning the well.
>
> > SN has
> > already confessed. Let's have her arrested. She jaywalked. The world is
> > now a safe place once we get her off the streets.
>
> Irrational response.

Eat a sandwich, **** up. Google us some factoid about how SN is going to
commit crime because she smokes some weed. And I repeat, who the ****
are you to lecture her about drug use. Who died and made you queen of
****ing google?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> She loves the attention, and you are falling for it as much as any of us.
> >
> > SO-CALLED. Are you a ****ing air head. Whether she stays, goes or
> > killfiles, the actions are still those of bullies. Man, what a ****-tard.
>
> Nope, not bullying. She's an adult participating voluntarily.

****tard. Participation in bullying is still bullying. Voluntary or
involuntary participation in bullying is still bullying. ****ing flawed
reject.

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:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> My comments to SN are none of your business, you are attempting
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> > stifle a
> >> >> >> >> debate between two adults. You offer no material constructive
> >> >> >> >> input,
> >> >> >> > simply
> >> >> >> >> naysaying from the sidelines.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > They are everyone's business. This is a public
> >> >> >> > forum.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He cannot resolve his contradictory position. He harangues me
> >> >> >> endlessly
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> abandon people to their own self-chosen fates, while those very
> >> >> >> protestations are an example of him not leaving me to pursue mine.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What contradictory position, Dutch?
> >> >>
> >> >> I described it right above. You expend energy *attempting* to convince
> >> >> me
> >> >> to
> >> >> change my behaviour, which I choose voluntarily, while ignoring
> >> >> anorexics
> >> >> on
> >> >> the grounds that they choose voluntarily to engage in their behaviour.
> >> >
> >> > There is QUITE the difference. SN's choices are in pursuit of having
> >> > her
> >> > own life. Your pursuits are the attempt to change her.
> >>
> >> And your pursuit is trying to change *my* behaviour. Funny how that
> >> famous
> >> inconsistency comes around to bite you on the ass.
> >
> > I'm only doing what Rudy does to SN but to you.
> >
> > Tell me I'm wrong, you sick little ****. Who the **** are you to tell
> > anyone what to do. Who the **** are you, you poor excuse for a ****ing
> > man. Now go **** the anorexic. Maybe the two of you can shoot up and
> > feel good for a while.
>
> You need to have a sound argument as a basis, otherwise it's just a rant,
> and that's pathetic.
>
> >> > I am confronting
> >> > you on this behaviour.
> >>
> >> I have no power over how she chooses to live her life. I choose to tell
> >> her
> >> a few of my thoughts, she chooses to listen, and claims to ignore me.
> >> Where's the problem?
> >
> > No one asked for your ****ing thoughts.
>
> That's OK, I share them anyway. If you don't like it killfile me.
>
> > Your thoughts are nothing more
> > than what you google you ****ing goggle queen. You have not one original
> > idea in your head.
>
> Ooh, the bad man insulted me.
>
> >
> >> > There is no contradiction here. I am merely making a choice for the
> >> > moment to behave as you and the others.
> >>
> >> I see, it's not a contradiction, you're just making a temporary exception
> >> to
> >> your non-interference rule, uh-huh..
> >>
> >> > Who the **** do you think you are to tell anyone to behave in any way?
> >> > Who the **** are you to think that SN in any way is obligated to follow
> >> > your ****ed up code of ethics from a eating disordered shagger of the
> >> > eating disordered? **** a man rather something that looks like a man.
> >> > Who the **** are you to tell someone who smokes drugs anything when you
> >> > have disclosed your own ****ing use of drugs.
> >> > YOU ****ing hypocrite.
> >>
> >> I seem to have struck a nerve here. Maybe there's hope for you yet.
> >
> > Answer the ****ing question you pathetic ****ing worm. Such fear when a
> > faggot gets in your face -- closeted little cocksuckers. Now go **** the
> > anorexic. She needs you, we don't.
>
> The question "Who the **** do you think you are.." is rhetorical.
>
> >> > Who died and made you Queen of ****ing Everything! Now justify yourself
> >> > instead of acting like a simpering ****.
> >>
> >> Fallacy of false choice.
> >
> > Justify your ****ing actions simpleton. Pathetic excuse for intellect.
> > Did you google that too queer bait. Try an academic source if you want
> > to impress us.
>
> I don't justify anything to clowns.
>
> >> >> > What anorexic am I trying to
> >> >> > convince to eat. I ignore anorexics.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why only anorexics? Why don't you ignore me? You seem to perceive I
> >> >> have
> >> >> a
> >> >> behaviour problem yet you don't ignore me.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Someone wanting my attention can
> >> >> > ask for it. There are a multitude of ways to get my attention and
> >> >> > some
> >> >> > are even positive.
> >> >>
> >> >> What anorexic has asked for your attention?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Anorexics are easily ignored. They will tire and eat or they will
> >> >> > starve
> >> >> > to death, or they will find other ways to get what they want.
> >> >>
> >> >> What makes you think you know anything about obsessive behaviours?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> [..]
> >
> > Editing. You spineless ****. Address me like a man. Or bend over and
> > take it like one. Or go **** the anorexic. You are worhtless to us here.
>
> Answer the question bozo. What makes you think you know anything about
> obsessive behaviours?

Who the **** are you to lecture anyone about anything, fucdtard? You
were asked a question, now respond. Be a ****ing a man already, stand up
and be counted. If you think you are so ****ing superior then prove you
sick little ****.

So how many animals did you kill before they carted you off and
medicated you?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> You are misconstruing the situation. First of all, she is NOT being
> >> >> bullied,
> >> >> because she has the option to end the discussions at any moment at her
> >> >> own
> >> >> discression, she chooses to engage. Secondly it's not "gang" anything,
> >> >> it's
> >> >> forums that many people read and several people happen to find her
> >> >> contributions worthy of responses. They have nothing to do with me.
> >> >>
> >> >> > She has clearly stated she
> >> >> > lacks the desire to eat meat and that she won't. 4 of you seem to
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > great difficulty with that choice.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have told her at least five times that I don't care if she eats
> >> >> meat.
> >> >> Now
> >> >> you know.
> >> >
> >> > Her ability to kill file does not change the fact that bullying is
> >> > going
> >> > on.
> >>
> >> Yes it absolutely does. Bullying does not apply under these
> >> circumstances,
> >> to say so diminishes the *real* meaning of the term. It is her *choice*
> >> to
> >> engage us.
> >>
> >> Or are you suggesting that she is actually responding out of some
> >> obsessive
> >> need? In that case what about your "let 'em die" policy? There's that
> >> gamous
> >> inconsistency again.
> >>
> >> > Are you ****ed up? Are you that ****ing stupid not to know that?
> >> > What kind of a sick control freak are you.
> >>
> >> Fallacy of... can't think of the name of it, and my wife just made tea...
> >>
> >> > Quit acting like a ****ing manish anorexic and take some responsibility
> >> > for what you do. Acting like a simpering little **** only earns you
> >> > contempt.
> >> >
> >> > How about this...shove a ****ing sandwich in your wife's face and leave
> >> > SN to her own life. Acting like a simpering pathetic **** is only
> >> > making
> >> > you annoying to the rest of the world.
> >>
> >> Give 'em hell Rono, that's more like it. This is closer to the real you
> >> than
> >> that fake logic shit.
> >
> > Tea. roflmao. Come on little wannabe faggot. Eat my ****ing dick. But
> > before you do, answer the ****ing question. Who the **** are you to tell
> > anyone anything. No one asked for your opinion you worthless little
> > piece of ****ing shit. Now go **** the anorexic. You keep insisting that
> > you are straight. Do something straight. Pathetic excuse for a ****ing
> > man.
>
> I thought at first this "angry Ron" was a sign of something real coming out,
> but I was mistaken. You're still big fat phoney ZERO. You're a poseur Rono,
> a paper cutout. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

Go **** an anorexic. Prove your ****ing credentials to argue about drug
use or diet. Blow me. You can use my keyboard and google while you do it.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> > If you think you're behaviour is normal
> >> >> > interactions-wise, I pity the people who
> >> >> > have to deal with you in real life.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
> >> >
> >> > How kindly you point out typos.
> >> > Duz iht reely bawther yuou?
> >>
> >> That was not a typo, you genuinely never learned the correct usage of
> >> your
> >> and you're.
> >
> > Hey, **** up. Get over it.
>
> Tipped a few tonight eh Rono, looks like you're about to crash.

Anorexic ****ing pothead is one to talk about anyone else's anything.
Tell us again what responsible drug use is defective one. I'd call you a
know it all, but then google doesn't count does it princess. How about I
loan you a book.

"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
> > >> What makes you think you know anything about obsessive behaviours?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [..]
>
> Editing. You spineless ****. Address me like a man. Or bend over and
> take it like one. Or go **** the anorexic. You are worhtless to us here.

(I very strongly suspect, in short <googled!>

'These people will go in early and usually set up camp
as "friends of the newsgroup". They will become trusted
and participate by joining previous discussions or starting
non- controversial ones themselves.
...
trolls and (even more) shills are very often de facto and/or
de jure just lackeys of the commercial powers that be.
What all trolls have in common is that they flood newsgroups
with inappropriate material in an effort to suppress discussion
they don't want taking place.
...
In the case of shills the best method is - instead - to boldly
counterattack: stalk them (sometime a simple reversing of
their language patterns will be enough) and debunk them.
If you can individuate (or even suspect, eheh) the
group/industry they have been working for, they are dead
and everything they have damaged will be reversed :-) '

http://www.searchlores.org/trolls.htm

In article >,
"pearl" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> > > >> What makes you think you know anything about obsessive behaviours?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> [..]
> >
> > Editing. You spineless ****. Address me like a man. Or bend over and
> > take it like one. Or go **** the anorexic. You are worhtless to us here.
>
> (I very strongly suspect, in short <googled!>

Thank you for not giving your tacit approval to such behaviour. I am
currently engaged in a demonstration with Dutch though.

Skanky the Toronto whore/marginal wrote:
>>>>>All abusive behaviour and excuses are
>>>>>seen by all.
>>>>
>>>>I have engaged in neither.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have been seen to be abusive
>>
>>I haven't. You're just thin-skinned and prickly.
>>That's a common trait among teenagers who are having
>>problems growing up.
>
>
> If you think you're

YOUR, you ignorant slut, not "you're". "You're" is not
the possessive of "you", stupid ****.

> behaviour is normal
> interactions-wise,

Only with lying ignorant whores like you.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>If you think you're behaviour is normal
>>>interactions-wise, I pity the people who
>>>have to deal with you in real life.
>>
>>"Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
>
>
> How kindly you point out typos.

It's not a typo, you ignorant whore. It's entirely the
wrong word.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>If you think you're behaviour is normal
>>>interactions-wise, I pity the people who
>>>have to deal with you in real life.
>>>========================
>>
>>I don't know about him, but yes, in real life I don't suffer fools
>
> like you
>
>>any different. Those that are terminally ignorant, like you, have no
>
> place
>
>>in my group of acquaintances. You spew your idiocy and you get what
>
> you
>
>>are begging for, killer. Your stupidity begs for the truth, to not
>
> oblige
>
>>you would be rude of us.
>>
>>Now, have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite...
>
>
> I'll bet you're a real delight in person.

Actually, I'll bet he is, too. I've had some debate
differences with him here, but I imagine in person he's
a good guy to be around. I also expect he's a good
citizen and contributes to his community. You, on the
other hand, are a leech.

pearl wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>
>>>>All abusive behaviour and excuses are
>>>>seen by all.
>>>
>>>I have engaged in neither.
>>
>>You have been seen to be abusive, and you
>>usually use the excuse that you're helping
>>the person.
>
>
> "This and no other is the root from which a tyrant
> springs; when he first appears, he is a protector."
> - Plato, circa 400 BC

I am Cincinnatus and Garibaldi.

> > I'll bet you're a real delight in person.
>
> Actually, I'll bet he is, too. I've had some debate
> differences with him here, but I imagine in person he's
> a good guy to be around. I also expect he's a good
> citizen and contributes to his community. You, on the
> other hand, are a leech.

What a load of crap. Nothing left to debate?
All yer coming up with are insults!


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> >>"Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
> >
> >
> > How kindly you point out typos.
>
> It's not a typo, you ignorant whore. It's entirely the
> wrong word.

Are these better?

Your mama is an ignorant whore.

I'm very sorry that you're so stupid that
you can't get my meaning anyway.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> > If you think you're
>
> YOUR, you ignorant slut, not "you're". "You're" is not
> the possessive of "you", stupid ****.
>
> > behaviour is normal
> > interactions-wise,
>
> Only with lying ignorant whores like you.

They're their, calm down. You're insult
mode is on full blast. Your gonna
explode or something.


--
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:
> > > > "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
> > >
> > > How kindly you point out typos.
> > > Duz iht reely bawther yuou?
> >
> > That wasn't a typo, stoner ****. It was your drug-raddled
marginalism
> > rearing its ugly head again. You just ****ed up, and you're too
> > juvenile to admit it.
>
>
> Wow, it really does bug you, doesn't
> it! You're an angry, snarly, little thing,
> aren't you?

Not at all. I find you pretty amusing, in fact. You're a skanky,
marginally literate Toronto dopehead with delusions of grandeur.
You're funny as hell.

>
> --
> 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 .com>,
"Abner Hale" > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > "Your," not "you're," you mariginally literate ****.
> > > >
> > > > How kindly you point out typos.
> > > > Duz iht reely bawther yuou?
> > >
> > > That wasn't a typo, stoner ****. It was your drug-raddled
> marginalism
> > > rearing its ugly head again. You just ****ed up, and you're too
> > > juvenile to admit it.
> >
> >
> > Wow, it really does bug you, doesn't
> > it! You're an angry, snarly, little thing,
> > aren't you?
>
> Not at all. I find you pretty amusing, in fact. You're a skanky,
> marginally literate Toronto dopehead with delusions of grandeur.
> You're funny as hell.

Don't forget jaywalker too. SN is just pure evil. Now that Martha
Stewart is in jail, get SN in there too and the world will be a safe
place.

> > Wow, it really does bug you, doesn't
> > it! You're an angry, snarly, little thing,
> > aren't you?
>
> Not at all. I find you pretty amusing, in fact. You're a skanky,
> marginally literate Toronto dopehead with delusions of grandeur.
> You're funny as hell.


You have nothing to debate so you resort
to insults. That's not surprising. Your other
half, Rudy is at the same place today. You
two should get together and have yerselves
a party.

--
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

>> > Wow, it really does bug you, doesn't
>> > it! You're an angry, snarly, little thing,
>> > aren't you?
>>
>> Not at all. I find you pretty amusing, in fact. You're a skanky,
>> marginally literate Toronto dopehead with delusions of grandeur.

> You have nothing to debate so you resort
> to insults.

If it's any consolation, I don't think you're skanky.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > Wow, it really does bug you, doesn't
> > > it! You're an angry, snarly, little thing,
> > > aren't you?
> >
> > Not at all. I find you pretty amusing, in fact. You're a skanky,
> > marginally literate Toronto dopehead with delusions of grandeur.
> > You're funny as hell.
>
>
> You have nothing to debate so you resort
> to insults. That's not surprising. Your other
> half, Rudy is at the same place today. You
> two should get together and have yerselves
> a party.

You haven't offered any intelligent debate, Skanky. You, Ray in all
his various forms, and the other "ar" and "vegan" clowns are strictly
intellectual flyweights.

You don't rate serious debate.


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> You haven't offered any intelligent debate, Skanky. You, Ray in all
> his various forms, and the other "ar" and "vegan" clowns are strictly
> intellectual flyweights.

Then why are you still here, if it's that bad?

> You don't rate serious debate.

Good. Then I shall consider myself
undebatable.



--
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:
> > You haven't offered any intelligent debate, Skanky. You, Ray in
all
> > his various forms, and the other "ar" and "vegan" clowns are
strictly
> > intellectual flyweights.
>
> Then why are you still here, if it's that bad?

Because you're funny as hell.

>
> > You don't rate serious debate.
>
> Good. Then I shall consider myself
> undebatable.

Pot-induced "logic" in action. You stoners are a riot.

>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.