In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >>>wanted
> >> >> >
> >> >> > it
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
> >> >> > to the boats group.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
> >> >> polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
> >> >> responsible.
> >> >
> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it his
> >> > responsibility to remove it.
> >>
> >> You want him to remove crossposts from YOUR posts? How is he supposed to
> >> do
> >> that?
> >
> > A nice alteration.
>
> That won't work.
>
> > He is the one experiencing the difficulty. It is up
> > to him to decide on how he proceeds or what his actions will be as a
> > result of his difficulty. Of course, he can end his experience of the
> > crossposting in several ways.
>
> "removing the crosspost" isn't one of them.

Why would I do this for him? He's angry. Let him deal with it.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > 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:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
> >> >> >>>crosspost
> >> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
> >> >> >>>headers.
> >> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
> >> >> >>>there,
> >> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
> >> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
> >> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
> >> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
> >> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
> >> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
> >> >> >>any responsibility for it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >> >>
> >> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >>
> >> >> You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >
> >> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone not
> >> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
> >> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
> >> > newsgroup.
> >>
> >> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
> >> expert
> >> at something.
> >
> > I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
> > responsibility accurately.
>
> That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.
>
> > Admiral has many means at his disposal to
> > address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
> > thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
> > crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
> > refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.
>
> Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.

Like the eating disordered, you excluded the action and others and
placed me as the nexus point. As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
of the universe. I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
events and outcomes.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who wanted
> >> >>>>>it there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
> >> >>>to the boats group.
> >> >>
> >> >>Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
> >> >>polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
> >> >>responsible.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it his
> >> > responsibility to remove it.
> >>
> >> You are the one posting with rec.boats in your headers.
> >> You are responsible for where your posts go.
> >>
> >> Why are you trying to blame others for your actions, Ron?
> >
> > Correction. My ISP is responsible for where they route the responses
> > that I post.
>
> Blaming others again Ron?

Of course, whatever you say, Dutch. Have you decided to let your
inner-homo out yet?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article et>,
>> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
>> >> >> >>>wanted
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
>> >> >> >>>another.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> >> >>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> >> >>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> >> >>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>You're responsible, Ron.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
>> >> >> > to the boats group.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
>> >> >> polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
>> >> >> responsible.
>> >> >
>> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it his
>> >> > responsibility to remove it.
>> >>
>> >> You want him to remove crossposts from YOUR posts? How is he supposed
>> >> to
>> >> do
>> >> that?
>> >
>> > A nice alteration.
>>
>> That won't work.
>>
>> > He is the one experiencing the difficulty. It is up
>> > to him to decide on how he proceeds or what his actions will be as a
>> > result of his difficulty. Of course, he can end his experience of the
>> > crossposting in several ways.
>>
>> "removing the crosspost" isn't one of them.
>
> Why would I do this for him? He's angry. Let him deal with it.

I'm not suggesting you do, I merely commented that your suggestions for how
to do it make no sense. Maybe computers aren't your thing...

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >
> >> > He has a point. I asked you to agree to compare all available foods
> >> against
> >> > one another, regardless of food type or category, a very reasonable
> >> request,
> >> > and something one would think a person in your position would be
> >> anxious to
> >> > do. You refused. Your excuse was that it "isn't fair", but nobody is
> >> buying
> >> > that. Just as with this survey, you are afraid that you won't like the
> >> > results.
> >>
> >> First of all, there's no data telling us
> >> the death toll of individual foods. Next
> >> you consistantly only want to compare
> >> the 'best' of meats to the 'worst' of vegan.
> >> When you want to compare like to like,
> >> I'll play the game too.
> >
> > They are relentless, aren't they?
>
> No more relentless in our search to uncover the truth than her determination
> to hide from it.

Who covered it up?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > 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:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
>> >> >> >>>crosspost
>> >> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
>> >> >> >>>headers.
>> >> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
>> >> >> >>>there,
>> >> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
>> >> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
>> >> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
>> >> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
>> >> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
>> >> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
>> >> >> >>any responsibility for it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
>> >> >> > wanted
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're responsible, Ron.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone
>> >> > not
>> >> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
>> >> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
>> >> > newsgroup.
>> >>
>> >> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
>> >> expert
>> >> at something.
>> >
>> > I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
>> > responsibility accurately.
>>
>> That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.
>>
>> > Admiral has many means at his disposal to
>> > address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
>> > thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
>> > crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
>> > refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.
>>
>> Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.
>
> Like the eating disordered, you excluded the action and others and
> placed me as the nexus point.

Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would anyone but
you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?

> As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> of the universe.

You are the centre of *yours*.

> I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> events and outcomes.

Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and share
no responsibility in the death of the animal.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
>> >> >>>>>wanted
>> >> >>>>>it there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
>> >> >>>>>another.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> >>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> >>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> >>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>You're responsible, Ron.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
>> >> >>>to the boats group.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
>> >> >>polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
>> >> >>responsible.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it his
>> >> > responsibility to remove it.
>> >>
>> >> You are the one posting with rec.boats in your headers.
>> >> You are responsible for where your posts go.
>> >>
>> >> Why are you trying to blame others for your actions, Ron?
>> >
>> > Correction. My ISP is responsible for where they route the responses
>> > that I post.
>>
>> Blaming others again Ron?
>
> Of course, whatever you say, Dutch.

NO, whatever YOU say, Ron, reveals how inconsistent you are. There's a
reason for that and I have good idea what it is, and I know it pains you to
hear that.

> Have you decided to let your
> inner-homo out yet?

Touché! I'm dazzled by your wit.

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 et>,
> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >> >>>wanted
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
> >> >> >> >>>another.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >> >>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >> >>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >> >>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
> >> >> >> > to the boats group.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
> >> >> >> polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
> >> >> >> responsible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it his
> >> >> > responsibility to remove it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You want him to remove crossposts from YOUR posts? How is he supposed
> >> >> to
> >> >> do
> >> >> that?
> >> >
> >> > A nice alteration.
> >>
> >> That won't work.
> >>
> >> > He is the one experiencing the difficulty. It is up
> >> > to him to decide on how he proceeds or what his actions will be as a
> >> > result of his difficulty. Of course, he can end his experience of the
> >> > crossposting in several ways.
> >>
> >> "removing the crosspost" isn't one of them.
> >
> > Why would I do this for him? He's angry. Let him deal with it.
>
> I'm not suggesting you do, I merely commented that your suggestions for how
> to do it make no sense. Maybe computers aren't your thing...

Uh, he can remove the cross post. He can open the file which, he is
doing anyway. He can remove the header for his group that is causing him
his displeasure and send it back (he sent a response anyway). Any
responses to the post will not be routed through the ISP back to him. He
can solve his own problem. If he is unwilling to solve his problem, why
should I do it for him? (Help me, take care of me, do it for me.)

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 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:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>I think it the responsibility of the person who places the
> >> >> >> >>>crosspost
> >> >> >> >>>there to remove the cross post. That is the reason I don't trim
> >> >> >> >>>headers.
> >> >> >> >>>They put it there, let them remove it. If they didn't want it
> >> >> >> >>>there,
> >> >> >> >>>they wouldn't have placed it there.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>This is interesting, Ron. Someone in rec.boats asks to
> >> >> >> >>have his group removed. You COULD do it, easily, but
> >> >> >> >>you choose not to do it. You **** off someone you
> >> >> >> >>don't even know by refusing to acceded to his polite
> >> >> >> >>request. You are now in the position of DIRECTLY doing
> >> >> >> >>something that antagonizes someone, but you disclaim
> >> >> >> >>any responsibility for it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >> > wanted
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in another.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >> have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >> deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >> removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why should I do for others what they can do for themselves? Anyone
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > wanting the posts in rec.boat can easily trim the header and send it
> >> >> > back and avoid the continuation of the post being viewed in that
> >> >> > newsgroup.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have a knack for getting EVERYTHING wrong Ron. At least you're an
> >> >> expert
> >> >> at something.
> >> >
> >> > I'm human. What I do seem to have ability to get RIGHT is to assess
> >> > responsibility accurately.
> >>
> >> That is one of the things you get the most WRONG.
> >>
> >> > Admiral has many means at his disposal to
> >> > address his dislike. Which include but are not limited to, killing the
> >> > thread, the author, the newsgroup, not opening the thread, removing the
> >> > crosspost when he opens it, refraining from reading the newsgroup,
> >> > refraining from using all newsgroups, and so on.
> >>
> >> Immaterial, you proposed an illogical solution and I pointed it out.
> >
> > Like the eating disordered, you excluded the action and others and
> > placed me as the nexus point.
>
> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would anyone but
> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
>
> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> > of the universe.
>
> You are the centre of *yours*.
>
> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> > events and outcomes.
>
> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and share
> no responsibility in the death of the animal.

I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course, one
who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same way.

> He's revolting.

It's your many fantasies about kids and dead
people that's revolting.


--
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 et>,
> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
> >> >> engagement and wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article et>,
> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >>>>>wanted
> >> >> >>>>>it there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
> >> >> >>>>>another.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
> >> >> >>>to the boats group.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
> >> >> >>polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
> >> >> >>responsible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it his
> >> >> > responsibility to remove it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are the one posting with rec.boats in your headers.
> >> >> You are responsible for where your posts go.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you trying to blame others for your actions, Ron?
> >> >
> >> > Correction. My ISP is responsible for where they route the responses
> >> > that I post.
> >>
> >> Blaming others again Ron?
> >
> > Of course, whatever you say, Dutch.
>
> NO, whatever YOU say, Ron, reveals how inconsistent you are. There's a
> reason for that and I have good idea what it is, and I know it pains you to
> hear that.

Yes, I have been know to be inconsistent. In fact, some even call me
morally relativistic. Go figure. Who knew?

> > Have you decided to let your
> > inner-homo out yet?
>
> Touché! I'm dazzled by your wit.

Bringing out your inner-homo is much easier in a social setting. But in
this case, I must wait on you to come to terms with your own desires.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
> > > Considering your fantasies, from pedophilia
> > > to necrophilia and that they both have anal
> > > penetration in common, I'd say that your
> > > a little off the normal paths.
> >
> > Oh, and did I mention that both your exposed
> > fantasies were males as the receivers of the
> > penetration. Is there something you're trying
> > to say?
>
> Rudy and bottom are synonymous.

A little into the rough stuff.
Think up a safety word, 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.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
> > > > You're the defective one, Rudy.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > Considering your fantasies, from pedophilia
> > to necrophilia and that they both have anal
> > penetration in common, I'd say that your
> > a little off the normal paths.
>
> Hi inner-homo is calling out to us.

Helloooo Rudy's inner-homo! )

> > My responding has nothing to do with
> > the fact he was fixated.
>
> I beg to differ. Your responses are all that are visible here, without
them
> nobody will have anything on which to fixate. You're thriving on all
the
> attention, admit it.

The attention amuses me. The fixation
surprises me. At least it's never
boring here!


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

> OK, as I have said before, I will gladly compare like to like, I am
not
> refusing ANY comparison. Now will you agree to compare all food, just
as it
> exists in the real world?

I will also compare when there is data.
We need to know how many cds and
ids for each food. For instance, in
a grassfield for grassfed beef, was
a broadleaf herbicide used and did
that effect or kill any animals. Did
the lack of plant variety cause any
deaths? So many questions.


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

> We do not agree, Ron. It is almost inconceivable we
> could agree. All the other participants in this
> newsgroup do agree with me that you're a marginal, a
> mental defective, and a shitbag.

Everyone in the news group other than trolls
would not agree with you.


--
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 >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Considering your fantasies, from pedophilia
> > > > to necrophilia and that they both have anal
> > > > penetration in common, I'd say that your
> > > > a little off the normal paths.
> > >
> > > Oh, and did I mention that both your exposed
> > > fantasies were males as the receivers of the
> > > penetration. Is there something you're trying
> > > to say?
> >
> > Rudy and bottom are synonymous.
>
> A little into the rough stuff.
> Think up a safety word, Rudy!

roflmgao!!!!!

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> >>>They are relentless, aren't they?
> >>
> >>They go in circles and my head spins!
> >>All that misspent energy.
> >
> >
> > Believe it or not, they've been at it for ~years~!
> >
> > I've seen their 'arguments' trashed _repeatedly_.
>
> Not once, Lesley. But we have seen YOU trashed
> repeatedly for your weird, irrational, STUPID CRACKPOT
> belief in:

<proven fraudulent list> True to form..

'a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
...
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and seamlessly
follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of counter-criticism
or counter-allegation, often based on distortion or fabrication. Lying,
deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are the hallmarks of this stage.
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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 et>,
>> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
>> >> >> >> >>>wanted
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
>> >> >> >> >>>another.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> >> >> >>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> >> >> >>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> >> >> >>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>You're responsible, Ron.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
>> >> >> >> > to the boats group.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
>> >> >> >> polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
>> >> >> >> responsible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > responsibility to remove it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You want him to remove crossposts from YOUR posts? How is he
>> >> >> supposed
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> do
>> >> >> that?
>> >> >
>> >> > A nice alteration.
>> >>
>> >> That won't work.
>> >>
>> >> > He is the one experiencing the difficulty. It is up
>> >> > to him to decide on how he proceeds or what his actions will be as a
>> >> > result of his difficulty. Of course, he can end his experience of
>> >> > the
>> >> > crossposting in several ways.
>> >>
>> >> "removing the crosspost" isn't one of them.
>> >
>> > Why would I do this for him? He's angry. Let him deal with it.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting you do, I merely commented that your suggestions for
>> how
>> to do it make no sense. Maybe computers aren't your thing...
>
> Uh, he can remove the cross post. He can open the file which, he is
> doing anyway. He can remove the header for his group that is causing him
> his displeasure and send it back (he sent a response anyway). Any
> responses to the post will not be routed through the ISP back to him. He
> can solve his own problem. If he is unwilling to solve his problem, why
> should I do it for him? (Help me, take care of me, do it for me.)

That would not solve the problem he has identified, it would merely form a
short dead-end branch off the main thread. I agree that he should deal with
his problem himself, I am simply telling you that your solution is not a
solution.

"Ron" > wrote

>> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would anyone
>> but
>> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
>>
>> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
>> > of the universe.
>>
>> You are the centre of *yours*.
>>
>> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
>> > events and outcomes.
>>
>> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and
>> share
>> no responsibility in the death of the animal.
>
> I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
> others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course, one
> who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same way.

Your universe is defined by what you know, feel and perceive, and how you
react to it all. It is also defined by what effect those actions have on
others. When you expire it all disppears with you. That makes you the centre
of your universe.

pearl wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>
> <..>
>
>>>>>They are relentless, aren't they?
>>>>
>>>>They go in circles and my head spins!
>>>>All that misspent energy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, they've been at it for ~years~!
>>>
>>>I've seen their 'arguments' trashed _repeatedly_.
>>
>>Not once, Lesley. But we have seen YOU trashed
>>repeatedly for your weird, irrational, STUPID CRACKPOT
>>belief in:
>
>
> <proven fraudulent list>

Restore of established factual list:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence


You are a marginal, Lesley. A willfully stupid marginal.

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:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article et>,
> >> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >> >> >>>wanted
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>>there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
> >> >> >> >> >>>another.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >> >> >>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >> >> >>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >> >> >>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
> >> >> >> >> > to the boats group.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
> >> >> >> >> polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
> >> >> >> >> responsible.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it
> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> > responsibility to remove it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You want him to remove crossposts from YOUR posts? How is he
> >> >> >> supposed
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> do
> >> >> >> that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A nice alteration.
> >> >>
> >> >> That won't work.
> >> >>
> >> >> > He is the one experiencing the difficulty. It is up
> >> >> > to him to decide on how he proceeds or what his actions will be as a
> >> >> > result of his difficulty. Of course, he can end his experience of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > crossposting in several ways.
> >> >>
> >> >> "removing the crosspost" isn't one of them.
> >> >
> >> > Why would I do this for him? He's angry. Let him deal with it.
> >>
> >> I'm not suggesting you do, I merely commented that your suggestions for
> >> how
> >> to do it make no sense. Maybe computers aren't your thing...
> >
> > Uh, he can remove the cross post. He can open the file which, he is
> > doing anyway. He can remove the header for his group that is causing him
> > his displeasure and send it back (he sent a response anyway). Any
> > responses to the post will not be routed through the ISP back to him. He
> > can solve his own problem. If he is unwilling to solve his problem, why
> > should I do it for him? (Help me, take care of me, do it for me.)
>
> That would not solve the problem he has identified, it would merely form a
> short dead-end branch off the main thread. I agree that he should deal with
> his problem himself, I am simply telling you that your solution is not a
> solution.


Rudy wants to be a shit disturber as they say. I am allowing him to do
so. Anyone having difficulties can take the issue up with him. Rudy
wants the posts to arrive there, at least it seems that way, so who am I
to interfere? Why would I inhibit his speech by determining for him
where his words went?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would anyone
> >> but
> >> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
> >>
> >> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> >> > of the universe.
> >>
> >> You are the centre of *yours*.
> >>
> >> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> >> > events and outcomes.
> >>
> >> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and
> >> share
> >> no responsibility in the death of the animal.
> >
> > I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
> > others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course, one
> > who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same way.
>
> Your universe is defined by what you know, feel and perceive, and how you
> react to it all. It is also defined by what effect those actions have on
> others. When you expire it all disppears with you. That makes you the centre
> of your universe.

When you die, I will continue, or when I die, you will continue. The
universe existed before I was born and it will continue to do so after I
die. I am one part of the whole.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message k.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > <..>
> >
> >>>>>They are relentless, aren't they?
> >>>>
> >>>>They go in circles and my head spins!
> >>>>All that misspent energy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Believe it or not, they've been at it for ~years~!
> >>>
> >>>I've seen their 'arguments' trashed _repeatedly_.
> >>
> >>Not once, Lesley. But we have seen YOU trashed
> >>repeatedly for your weird, irrational, STUPID CRACKPOT
> >>belief in:
> >
> >
> > <proven fraudulent list>
>
> Restore proven fraudulent list, ... my precious..

Eh, ball, you foolish Golumn. < http://tinyurl.com/3lqlu >

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> > We do not agree, Ron. It is almost inconceivable we
> > could agree. All the other participants in this
> > newsgroup do agree with me that you're a marginal, a
> > mental defective, and a shitbag.
>
> Everyone in the news group other than trolls
> would not agree with you.

Count me in with the the non-trolls. .

Ball is just projecting, as usual...

pearl wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message k.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>>>They are relentless, aren't they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They go in circles and my head spins!
>>>>>>All that misspent energy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Believe it or not, they've been at it for ~years~!
>>>>>
>>>>>I've seen their 'arguments' trashed _repeatedly_.
>>>>
>>>>Not once, Lesley. But we have seen YOU trashed
>>>>repeatedly for your weird, irrational, STUPID CRACKPOT
>>>>belief in:
>>>
>>>
>>><proven fraudulent list>
>>
>>Restore proven

accurate list

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence


You are a marginal, Lesley. A willfully stupid marginal.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> pearl wrote:
>
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Restore proven
>
>
> accurate list
>
> "veganism"
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth"
> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction: wrong cause
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucer
> Zapper
> Foot massage (as cure-all)

These 10 are more than sufficient, and ALL are proved
to be among Lesley's nutty beliefs. The best of all,
of course, is "inner earth beings": ****witted
Lesley's bizarre, nut-case belief that there is a
"master race" of advanced beings living deep under Mt.
Shasta in northern California. That tells you
ALLLLLLLL you need to know about stupid foot-rubbing
Lesley.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would
>> >> anyone
>> >> but
>> >> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
>> >>
>> >> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
>> >> > of the universe.
>> >>
>> >> You are the centre of *yours*.
>> >>
>> >> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
>> >> > events and outcomes.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and
>> >> share
>> >> no responsibility in the death of the animal.
>> >
>> > I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
>> > others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course, one
>> > who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same way.
>>
>> Your universe is defined by what you know, feel and perceive, and how you
>> react to it all. It is also defined by what effect those actions have on
>> others. When you expire it all disppears with you. That makes you the
>> centre
>> of your universe.
>
> When you die, I will continue, or when I die, you will continue. The
> universe existed before I was born and it will continue to do so after I
> die. I am one part of the whole.

That's THE universe, not YOUR universe.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would
> >> >> anyone
> >> >> but
> >> >> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
> >> >>
> >> >> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> >> >> > of the universe.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are the centre of *yours*.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> >> >> > events and outcomes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat and
> >> >> share
> >> >> no responsibility in the death of the animal.
> >> >
> >> > I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
> >> > others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course, one
> >> > who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same way.
> >>
> >> Your universe is defined by what you know, feel and perceive, and how you
> >> react to it all. It is also defined by what effect those actions have on
> >> others. When you expire it all disppears with you. That makes you the
> >> centre
> >> of your universe.
> >
> > When you die, I will continue, or when I die, you will continue. The
> > universe existed before I was born and it will continue to do so after I
> > die. I am one part of the whole.
>
> That's THE universe, not YOUR universe.

Death and the loss of these things is something that is part of the
universe, Dutch. What it makes is for self-centred people who desire to
be the centre of the universe. My universe includes other people where I
am comfortable sharing centre-stage. When I include family, friends,
social contacts and professional contacts, my world includes hundreds of
people. To make it all about me, is just self-centred. Everything
doesn't revolve around me, we all revolve around each other.

What most of us realize is that we have a finite amount of time. Some of
us pursue quality of life and other pursue quantity of life and some
even attempt both at the same time. Delaying, foot dragging, time
wasting, etc. are all signs of those who fear death and hope to delay
the relativistic nature of time. Time flys when one is having fun -- as
they say. By slowing time, the inevitable is staved of. Of course,
logically, the same amount of time between now and death remains the
same, only the perception of having it slowed down is present.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> >> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would
>> >> >> anyone
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
>> >> >> > of the universe.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are the centre of *yours*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
>> >> >> > events and outcomes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> share
>> >> >> no responsibility in the death of the animal.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
>> >> > others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course,
>> >> > one
>> >> > who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same
>> >> > way.
>> >>
>> >> Your universe is defined by what you know, feel and perceive, and how
>> >> you
>> >> react to it all. It is also defined by what effect those actions have
>> >> on
>> >> others. When you expire it all disppears with you. That makes you the
>> >> centre
>> >> of your universe.
>> >
>> > When you die, I will continue, or when I die, you will continue. The
>> > universe existed before I was born and it will continue to do so after
>> > I
>> > die. I am one part of the whole.
>>
>> That's THE universe, not YOUR universe.
>
> Death and the loss of these things is something that is part of the
> universe, Dutch. What it makes is for self-centred people who desire to
> be the centre of the universe. My universe includes other people where I
> am comfortable sharing centre-stage. When I include family, friends,
> social contacts and professional contacts, my world includes hundreds of
> people. To make it all about me, is just self-centred. Everything
> doesn't revolve around me, we all revolve around each other.

Each in his own private universe.

> What most of us realize is that we have a finite amount of time. Some of
> us pursue quality of life and other pursue quantity of life and some
> even attempt both at the same time. Delaying, foot dragging, time
> wasting, etc. are all signs of those who fear death and hope to delay
> the relativistic nature of time. Time flys when one is having fun -- as
> they say. By slowing time, the inevitable is staved of. Of course,
> logically, the same amount of time between now and death remains the
> same, only the perception of having it slowed down is present.

I don't agree with the old saying "time flies when you're having fun", I
think the days, weeks and years fly by when one is living a monotonous life.
When one is having fun and days are full of a variety of interests and
diversion, time is extended. There, I dispute conventional wisdom, aren't
you proud?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your suggestion was the focus of my comment *to you*. Why would
> >> >> >> anyone
> >> >> >> but
> >> >> >> you be the nexus of a comment about *your* suggestion?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > As i've pointed out, I am not the centre
> >> >> >> > of the universe.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are the centre of *yours*.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I share a role as one of several actors in a series of
> >> >> >> > events and outcomes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Interesting comment from someone who believes he can purchase meat
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> share
> >> >> >> no responsibility in the death of the animal.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am not the centre of my universe. My universe includes billions of
> >> >> > others. I am but one as part of the whole -- a gestalt. Of course,
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > who views the world in this way is likely to view others the same
> >> >> > way.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your universe is defined by what you know, feel and perceive, and how
> >> >> you
> >> >> react to it all. It is also defined by what effect those actions have
> >> >> on
> >> >> others. When you expire it all disppears with you. That makes you the
> >> >> centre
> >> >> of your universe.
> >> >
> >> > When you die, I will continue, or when I die, you will continue. The
> >> > universe existed before I was born and it will continue to do so after
> >> > I
> >> > die. I am one part of the whole.
> >>
> >> That's THE universe, not YOUR universe.
> >
> > Death and the loss of these things is something that is part of the
> > universe, Dutch. What it makes is for self-centred people who desire to
> > be the centre of the universe. My universe includes other people where I
> > am comfortable sharing centre-stage. When I include family, friends,
> > social contacts and professional contacts, my world includes hundreds of
> > people. To make it all about me, is just self-centred. Everything
> > doesn't revolve around me, we all revolve around each other.
>
> Each in his own private universe.
>
> > What most of us realize is that we have a finite amount of time. Some of
> > us pursue quality of life and other pursue quantity of life and some
> > even attempt both at the same time. Delaying, foot dragging, time
> > wasting, etc. are all signs of those who fear death and hope to delay
> > the relativistic nature of time. Time flys when one is having fun -- as
> > they say. By slowing time, the inevitable is staved of. Of course,
> > logically, the same amount of time between now and death remains the
> > same, only the perception of having it slowed down is present.
>
> I don't agree with the old saying "time flies when you're having fun", I
> think the days, weeks and years fly by when one is living a monotonous life.
> When one is having fun and days are full of a variety of interests and
> diversion, time is extended. There, I dispute conventional wisdom, aren't
> you proud?

VERY! But I don't believe. Good effort though. Claiming something to be
fun and "full of a variety of interests" and monotonous is a
contradiction. Monotony, by definition is a lack of variety.

"Ron" > wrote

>> I don't agree with the old saying "time flies when you're having fun", I
>> think the days, weeks and years fly by when one is living a monotonous
>> life.
>> When one is having fun and days are full of a variety of interests and
>> diversion, time is extended. There, I dispute conventional wisdom, aren't
>> you proud?
>
> VERY! But I don't believe. Good effort though. Claiming something to be
> fun and "full of a variety of interests" and monotonous is a
> contradiction. Monotony, by definition is a lack of variety.

You misread my statement.

Time flies when life is monotonous. Every day becomes like every other, the
pages of the calendar fly off like a device in a B movie.

Time expands when one's days are full of a variety of interesting
activities.

JohnH wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:27:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"JohnH" > wrote
> >
> >> Rudy, could you be so kind as to remove rec.boats from the list of
> >> sites you're cross posting this thread to?
> >>
> >> We'd appreciate it, for sure.
> >>
> >> John H
> >
> >John
> >
> >I understand your frustration, but can't you simply kill the thread
in your
> >newsreader?
> >
> >The problem with your suggestion is that you have presumed to speak
for
> >every single person reading rec.boats, and I am sure that some of
them have
> >a few interests other than boats.
> >
> >
> Yes, of course you're probably right. I'm sure there is at least one
> person in rec.boats who wants to know which of you, Rudy, and Ron are
> queer for the other.
>
> John H
>
Man, are you drinking again? You've gone way over the edge, now your
acting homophobic.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
>with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
>and a shitbag.

False.

Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
> >and a shitbag.
>
> False.

No, true.

On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:58 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
>> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
>> >and a shitbag.
>>
>> False.
>
>No, true.

I'm included in "All the other participants in this newsgroup",
yet I don't agree with you, and that alone proves your above
assertion must be a false one.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Cuckold wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:58 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:
> >>
> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
> >> >and a shitbag.
> >>
> >> False.
> >
> >No, true.
>
> I'm included in "All the other participants in this newsgroup"

Yes, you are. You agree that Lesley the deranged foot-rubbing whore is
a marginal, a mental defective, and a shitbag.

On 31 Jan 2005 09:07:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:58 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
>> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
>> >> >and a shitbag.
>> >>
>> >> False.
>> >
>> >No, true.
>>
>> I'm included in "All the other participants in this newsgroup"
>
>Yes, you are.

Then your above assertion is false, being that I
don't agree with you.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 09:07:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >> On 31 Jan 2005 08:32:58 -0800, "Rudy Canoza"
>wrote:
> >> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
> >> >> >and a shitbag.
> >> >>
> >> >> False.
> >> >
> >> >No, true.
> >>
> >> I'm included in "All the other participants in this newsgroup"
> >
> >Yes, you are.
>
> Then your above assertion is

True.

On 31 Jan 2005 11:02:15 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
>> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
>> >> >> >and a shitbag.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> False.
>
>True.

How can your above statement be true while I exist as
a participant here and disagree with you at the same
time? You claim to be able to think critically, yet this
little demonstration shows the opposite must be true.