"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .

> 1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you
> spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are
> raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance.
So, you "balance" their lies with your own?? Note that you can not
provide any scientifically-credible support for your inane rants.

> 2. I enjoy discussing these issues.
No, you are totally incapable of "discussing", which embraces facts and
logic; you really enjoy insulting people, calling them names, and evading
the issues, thus denigrating yourself. The question remains: "Why do you
attack yourself like this on continuing basis? Too stupid to understand
that you are making a fool out of yourself, or, more likely, revealing your
foolishness?

> 3. I'm amused by goofy twits like you and Skanky.
Name-calling, the basis of the scientific method.

> It's more than potential, dummy.
In addition to potential, you name-call incessantly. Never got out of
the fourth grade??

Laurie

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .

> I think it's apropos and fair to compare veganism to cults. While veganism
> may not be as systematic as, say, Scientology, it similarly defrauds its
> adherents, fosters an "us versus them" attitude, and gets them to
> aggressively proselytize others.
Hey, that is exactly what the rabid anti-vegans, like you and noBalls,
do.

Laurie

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .

> ... your development arrested, which appears to have occurred some time
> between age 13 and age 17.
At least that is considerably more developed than usual, who apparently
is stuck in the 4th grade school yard bully stage.

Laurie

"Laurie" > wrote
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> 1. I want to make sure people aren't deluded by the lies people like you
>> spread about diet, health, nutrition, the conditions in which animals are
>> raised, etc., so I'm here to add some balance.
> So, you "balance" their lies with your own?? Note that you can not
> provide any scientifically-credible support for your inane rants.
>
>> 2. I enjoy discussing these issues.
> No, you are totally incapable of "discussing", which embraces facts and
> logic; you really enjoy insulting people, calling them names, and evading
> the issues, thus denigrating yourself. The question remains: "Why do you
> attack yourself like this on continuing basis? Too stupid to understand
> that you are making a fool out of yourself, or, more likely, revealing
> your foolishness?
>
>> 3. I'm amused by goofy twits like you and Skanky.
> Name-calling, the basis of the scientific method.
>
>> It's more than potential, dummy.
> In addition to potential, you name-call incessantly. Never got out of
> the fourth grade??

"Too stupid to understand that you are making a fool out of yourself.."

Hmm, the irony here is delightful..

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> ... your development arrested, which appears to have occurred some time
>> between age 13 and age 17.
> At least that is considerably more developed than usual, who apparently
> is stuck in the 4th grade school yard bully stage.

Yes Mr Suspect, you should learn to insult by condescension like a grown-up.

> >>>you a steak?
> >>
> >>Explain what?
> >
> > That you can't eat it
>
> When did I write that I *can't*?

We know you claim that you 'don't'.
So answer please. How do you
explain to them that you 'won't' eat
it?.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Usual has claimed that people
> > should accept food that others
> > have made and not worry what's
> > in them. He give's away his
> > neighbour's gift cake behind her
> > back, and says that people
> > should not turn down food that
> > was made for them out of love
> > and stuff. So, this got me to
> > wondering.
> >
> > Usual, what do you (as a food
> > definition vegan) do when the
> > following occurs. You are
> > invited over to someone's
> > place for dinner. You are
> > served a big steak and a
> > small side of potatoes. What
> > do you do? Eat the meat?
> > Not eat the meat? If not, how
> > do you explain it to them?
>
> I'm waaaaaiiiiittting. If you object
> to the wording of the 'as a food
> definition vegan', then just leave
> it out. The question still remains.
> And so does the steak.

Still waiting. How do you explain
that you won't eat the steak?

> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>
>
>

Scented Liar wrote:
> How do you explain
> that you won't eat the steak?

How do you know I won't eat it?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Liar wrote:
> > How do you explain
> > that you won't eat the steak?
>
> How do you know I won't eat it?

You have already admitted that
you find it aesthetically displeasing.
Are you saying you WOULD eat it
now?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:24:23 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>> > How do you explain that you won't eat the steak?
>>
>> How do you know I won't eat it?
>
>You have already admitted that
>you find it aesthetically displeasing.
>Are you saying you WOULD eat it
>now?

All back-sliders start off by declaring they can't
abide meat, to varying degrees;

"I can't even look at meat anymore after 17
years, the aversion is in full control."
Dutch Mar 27 2001 http://tinyurl.com/8u3s5

"Now after 18 years without meat, I can hardly
stand the sight and smell of it, for good reason,
it would make me sick if I ate it, no more
adaptation."
Dutch Dec 25 2001 http://tinyurl.com/ayghu

And 'usual suspect' was no different to 'Dutch' where
lying about his dislike for meat was concerned;

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: ..."
usual suspect Sep 9 2002 http://tinyurl.com/aohwv

They were either lying then or they're lying now.
Either way, I don't believe a word they write here.

Beach Runner wrote:
> I think your are dangerous.

I think you're a gutless punk.

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>>> GIVES, not "give's", you illiterate ****.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't take much to give you
>>>>> a case of the freak-outs, does it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No "freak-outs". I like pointing out how goddamned stupid you are.
>>>> It's fun.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone else that is more documented in psychology could come
>>> up for a word to describe this behavior.
>>
>>
>>
>> WTF does "more documented in psychology" mean?
>
> A certified psychologist.

You're certifiable.

>>> I see it as mean, nasty, and when it give someone pleasure to hurt
>>> someone, a sign of sickness and even potentially dangerous.
>>
>> What about the danger you pose to others, Bob?
>>
>> You're simply an asshole who deserves to
>> get his ass kicked.
>> -- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml
>
> Did I say I would do it. I said deserves.

Now you're just a pussy who thinks *someone else* should do it for you.

> You also challenged me saying I don't have the balls.

Given your candy-assed tap-dancing about not doing it yourself, I stand
by that assessment.

>> Why do you threaten violence but take offense when others point out
>> your and Skanky's lunacy and idiocy?
>
> No because your say things to be mean and insult them. You even diagnose
> psychological conditions based on newsgroups.
>
> I still contend you are nasty and potentially dangerous.

I still contend you're a pussy who wishes he had the balls to carry out
his own threats:

You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Larry Fruity wrote:
>>... your development arrested, which appears to have occurred some time
>>between age 13 and age 17.
>
> At least

I was cutting the bitch some slack, Larry, but it IS possible her
development arrested in adolescence.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:24:23 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote:
> >"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >> > How do you explain that you won't eat the steak?
> >>
> >> How do you know I won't eat it?
> >
> >You have already admitted that
> >you find it aesthetically displeasing.
> >Are you saying you WOULD eat it
> >now?
>
> All back-sliders start off by declaring they can't
> abide meat, to varying degrees;
>
> "I can't even look at meat anymore after 17
> years, the aversion is in full control."
> Dutch Mar 27 2001 http://tinyurl.com/8u3s5
>
> "Now after 18 years without meat, I can hardly
> stand the sight and smell of it, for good reason,
> it would make me sick if I ate it, no more
> adaptation."
> Dutch Dec 25 2001 http://tinyurl.com/ayghu
>
> And 'usual suspect' was no different to 'Dutch' where
> lying about his dislike for meat was concerned;
>
> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
> are overwhelmingly health-oriented: ..."
> usual suspect Sep 9 2002 http://tinyurl.com/aohwv
>
> They were either lying then or they're lying now.
> Either way, I don't believe a word they write here.

Good point. I won't believe it either.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Skanky Nutball wrote:
>>>>>you a steak?
>>>>
>>>>Explain what?
>>>
>>>That you can't eat it
>>
>>When did I write that I *can't*?
>
> We know you claim that you 'don't'.

"We"?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky Nutball wrote:
> >>>>>you a steak?
> >>>>
> >>>>Explain what?
> >>>
> >>>That you can't eat it
> >>
> >>When did I write that I *can't*?
> >
> > We know you claim that you 'don't'.
>
> "We"?

Yes. We, meaning the whole
newsgroups. So, tap, tap, tap,
would you eat the steak? You
seem to be avoiding the
question.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:21:44 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:24:23 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > How do you explain that you won't eat the steak?
>> >>
>> >> How do you know I won't eat it?
>> >
>> >You have already admitted that
>> >you find it aesthetically displeasing.
>> >Are you saying you WOULD eat it
>> >now?
>>
>> All back-sliders start off by declaring they can't
>> abide meat, to varying degrees;
>>
>> "I can't even look at meat anymore after 17
>> years, the aversion is in full control."
>> Dutch Mar 27 2001 http://tinyurl.com/8u3s5
>>
>> "Now after 18 years without meat, I can hardly
>> stand the sight and smell of it, for good reason,
>> it would make me sick if I ate it, no more
>> adaptation."
>> Dutch Dec 25 2001 http://tinyurl.com/ayghu
>>
>> And 'usual suspect' was no different to 'Dutch' where
>> lying about his dislike for meat was concerned;
>>
>> "I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
>> are overwhelmingly health-oriented: ..."
>> usual suspect Sep 9 2002 http://tinyurl.com/aohwv
>>
>> They were either lying then or they're lying now.
>> Either way, I don't believe a word they write here.
>
>Good point. I won't believe it either.

I reckon you've gathered that for yourself already.
Everyone does after a while. A very short while..

Hypocrisy-Scented Liar wrote:
>>>How do you explain
>>>that you won't eat the steak?
>>
>>How do you know I won't eat it?
>
> You have already admitted that
> you find it aesthetically displeasing.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't eat it.

Claire's fat Uncle Derek wrote:
> All back-sliders

BACKSLI'DER, n. An apostate; one who falls from the faith and
practice of religion. Prov.xiv.
2. One who neglects his vows of obedience and falls into sin.
http://dictionary.christianpost.com/...backslider.htm

Further evidence veganism IS a religion with rigid dogma and true
believers (Nash, Skanky, et al) who are duty-bound to assail and impugn
anyone who dares question said vegan dogma.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Hypocrisy-Scented Liar wrote:
> >>>How do you explain
> >>>that you won't eat the steak?
> >>
> >>How do you know I won't eat it?
> >
> > You have already admitted that
> > you find it aesthetically displeasing.
>
> That doesn't mean I wouldn't eat it.

It makes it a lot more likely that
you wouldn't. If it were something
you gag at the thought of, I doubt
you're going to eat it. In fact if you
ever did, I'm sure you would start
a brand new post here just to tell
everyone "hey look at me, I'm not
being vegan, so don't call me one".


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
. ..
> Claire's fat Uncle Derek wrote:
> > All back-sliders
>
> BACKSLI'DER, n. An apostate; one who falls from the faith and
> practice of religion. Prov.xiv.
> 2. One who neglects his vows of obedience and falls into sin.
> http://dictionary.christianpost.com/...backslider.htm
>
> Further evidence veganism IS a religion with rigid dogma and true
> believers (Nash, Skanky, et al) who are duty-bound to assail and impugn
> anyone who dares question said vegan dogma.

Well, damnit, if it IS a religion, I'm
declaring myself a high priestess.
What the ****, why not. I will reign
with a gentle and friendly hand, but
defend against anti-vegans with
weapons of mass destruction!!! )
That's right, I'm gonna make them
eat tofu plain.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:07:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> All back-sliders

I would've been disappointed had you NOT known
which or what type of followers use that term when
addressing apostates, back-slider. You've been
called it before, haven't you? Although not here.

> BACKSLI'DER, n. An apostate; one who falls from the faith and
> practice of religion. Prov.xiv.
> 2. One who neglects his vows of obedience and falls into sin.
> http://dictionary.christianpost.com/...backslider.htm
>
>Further evidence veganism IS a religion with rigid dogma and true
>believers (Nash, Skanky, et al) who are duty-bound to assail and impugn
>anyone who dares question said vegan dogma.

You've not stood by your principles, and you've lied
about your taste for flesh. Those facts are certain.
If you've read anything else into the words I've
written while confirming those facts, then so be it.

Claire's hypocritical rights-violating Uncle Dreck wrote:

> You've not stood by your principles,

Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
international copyRIGHT laws.

My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
are being ignored for convenience.
-- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
[just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]

I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
-- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej

Why do you "respect" animal rights (about which there is profound
disagreement and your views are representative of a very marginal
fringe) but blatantly disregard copyright laws about which there is not
only consensus but international agreements? Why are you such a rank
hypocrite when it comes to the issue of rights? Maybe you should shore
up your own phony "principles" before taking on others.

Hypocrisy-Scented Liar wrote:
>>>>>How do you explain
>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
>>>>
>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
>>>
>>>You have already admitted that
>>>you find it aesthetically displeasing.
>>
>>That doesn't mean I wouldn't eat it.
>
> It makes it a lot more likely

Non sequitur. I find you even more "aesthetically displeasing" than I
find beef, yet I humor you by responding to your incessantly boring posts.

Pot-Scented Liar wrote:
>>>All back-sliders
>>
>>BACKSLI'DER, n. An apostate; one who falls from the faith and
>>practice of religion. Prov.xiv.
>>2. One who neglects his vows of obedience and falls into sin.
>>http://dictionary.christianpost.com/...backslider.htm
>>
>>Further evidence veganism IS a religion with rigid dogma and true
>>believers (Nash, Skanky, et al) who are duty-bound to assail and impugn
>>anyone who dares question said vegan dogma.
>
> Well, damnit, if it IS a religion, I'm
> declaring myself a high priestess.

You certainly have the "high" part down, dopey.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:19:31 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>
>> You've not stood by your principles,
>
>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>international copyRIGHT laws.
>
> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
> are being ignored for convenience.
> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>
> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>
>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws

Because copyright laws are vastly different to the proposition
of animal rights, back-slider. Bad effort, and a bad dodge. And
besides, to show that my views on downloading material from
the web are consistent with my actions, read the following
conversation and follow the link to it's short thread.

[start - me]
> >I've a host of other mathematical programs which I've written mainly for electronic
> >enthusiasts, but they also include other tasks such as finding unknowns in
> >simultaneous equations, a quadratic equation solver, a cubic equation solver
> >and a full math program including a huge library of formulas which I've found very
> >helpful. My full math program is too large to bring here but I will gladly send it
> >to anyone willing to bug check it and offer some help on how to improve it.
[Eric]
> If you don't have access to a web site on which you could host
> your various programs, I'd be happy to host them.
[me]
I do intend them for freeware use but I've been hoping to polish them up
a bit beforehand with the help of some heftier program writers with
some experience in bug checking to head off any problems that might be
encountered by the end user.
[end]
Derek Dec 21 2002 http://tinyurl.com/chccl

Since then I've been writing freeware for years. Go to the link.

Claire's hypocritical Uncle Dreck tried to spin:
>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>
>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>
>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>> are being ignored for convenience.
>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>
>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>
>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>
> Because copyright laws are vastly different

IOW, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
"animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
international law.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:42:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote:

>>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>>
>>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>>
>>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>>> are being ignored for convenience.
>>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>>
>>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>>
>>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>>
>> Because copyright laws are vastly different
>
>IOW

No, in my words, back-slider.
<unsnip>
Bad effort, and a bad dodge. And besides, to show that my
views on downloading material from the web are consistent
with my actions, read the following conversation and follow
the link to it's short thread.

[start - me]
> >I've a host of other mathematical programs which I've written mainly for electronic
> >enthusiasts, but they also include other tasks such as finding unknowns in
> >simultaneous equations, a quadratic equation solver, a cubic equation solver
> >and a full math program including a huge library of formulas which I've found very
> >helpful. My full math program is too large to bring here but I will gladly send it
> >to anyone willing to bug check it and offer some help on how to improve it.
[Eric]
> If you don't have access to a web site on which you could host
> your various programs, I'd be happy to host them.
[me]
I do intend them for freeware use but I've been hoping to polish them up
a bit beforehand with the help of some heftier program writers with
some experience in bug checking to head off any problems that might be
encountered by the end user.
[end]
Derek Dec 21 2002 http://tinyurl.com/chccl

Since then I've been writing freeware for years. Go to the link.
<end restore>

Go to the beginning of the thread in that link to see a small
example;

[start]
Hello group. I've been trying to develop a small program that draws a triangle
including its dimensions etc. for the 5mx. When the program starts a triangle
is shown. Pressing "a" toggles angle "A" to be moved around the screen by
using the pen. Pressing "b" toggles angle "B" to move etc.

[..]
PROC Triangle:
LOCAL w1%,w2%,z$(20),a%,b&(16),Holde*vent&(16),s%,p&
LOCAL ax%,ay%,bx%,by%,cx%,cy%,a,b,c,*s&,x&,j,h,ab,ac,aa, bb,cc,area
loop::
w1%=gCREATE (0,0,640,240,1)
ax%=320 :ay%=30 :bx%=600 :by%=200 :cx%=60 :cy%=200 :s&=10 :x&=1 :j=s&/x&
gCLS
p&=3
WHILE a%<>27
gSETPENWIDTH p&
gAT ax%,ay% :gLINETO bx%,by% :gLINETO cx%,cy% :gLINETO ax%,ay%
j=s&/x&
h=220-ay% :ab=bx%-ax% :ac=ax%-cx%
a=(bx%-cx%)*x&
b=(SQR(h**2+ac**2))*x&
c=(SQR(h**2+ab**2))*x&
aa=DEG(ACOS((b**2+c**2-a**2)/(*2*b*c)))
bb=DEG(ACOS((a**2+c**2-b**2)/(*2*a*c)))
cc=DEG(ACOS((a**2+b**2-c**2)/(*2*a*b)))
area=h*0.5*a*x&
gAT 10,20 :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "Area ="+FIX$(area,1,20)+"²",150
gAT 10,40 :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "a = "+FIX$(a,1,8),100
gAT 10,60 :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "b = "+FIX$(b,1,8),100
gAT 10,80 :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "c = "+FIX$(c,1,8),100
gAT 40,235 :gFONT 6 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "Press m for menu: Del to restart: Esc to Quit:",620
gAT ax%+20,ay% :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "A ="+FIX$(aa,1,8)+"°",100
gAT bx%-40,by%-20 :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "B ="+FIX$(bb,1,8)+"°",100
gAT cx%,cy%-20 :gFONT 8 :gSTYLE 1 :gPRINTB "C ="+FIX$(cc,1,8)+"°",100
GETEVENT32 b&()
Holdevent&(1)=b&(1)
Holdevent&(2)=b&(2)
Holdevent&(3)=b&(3)
Holdevent&(4)=b&(4)
Holdevent&(5)=b&(5)
Holdevent&(6)=b&(6)
Holdevent&(7)=b&(7)
IF Holdevent&(1)<128
a%=Holdevent&(1)
If a%=8
Goto loop::
ENDIF
IF a%=%m
dINIT "Menu"
dLONG p&,"Pen",1,50
dLONG x&, "Scale",1,50
dBUTTONS "Cancel",27,"OK",13
DIALOG
ENDIF
ELSEIF Holdevent&(1)=&408
IF b&(4)=6 AND a%=%a
BUSY "A"
ax%=b&(6) :ay%=b&(7)-2
gCLS
ELSEIF b&(4)=6 AND a%=%b
BUSY "B"
bx%=b&(6) :by%=b&(7)-2
gCLS
ELSEIF b&(4)=6 AND a%=%c
BUSY "C"
cx%=b&(6) :cy%=b&(7)-2
gCLS
ENDIF
ELSEIF Holdevent&(1)=&404
ENDIF
ENDWH
WHILE TESTEVENT
GETEVENT32 b&()
ENDWH
ENDP


Thanks in advance.
Derek.
[end]
http://tinyurl.com/cde4v

I've improved on it since writing that, and I've been writing
freeware ever since.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Hypocrisy-Scented Liar wrote:
> >>>>>How do you explain
> >>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
> >>>>
> >>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
> >>>
> >>>You have already admitted that
> >>>you find it aesthetically displeasing.
> >>
> >>That doesn't mean I wouldn't eat it.
> >
> > It makes it a lot more likely
>
> Non sequitur. I find you even more "aesthetically displeasing" than I
> find beef, yet I humor you by responding to your incessantly boring posts.

You're still dodging. Would you eat
the steak? If not, how would you
explain to your gracious hosts? Two
simple questions.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:19:31 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
> >Derek wrote:
> >
> >> You've not stood by your principles,
> >
> >Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
> >fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
> >holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
> >international copyRIGHT laws.
> >
> > My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
> > are being ignored for convenience.
> > -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
> > [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
> >
> > I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
> > watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
> > -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
> >
> >Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>
> Because copyright laws are vastly different to the proposition
> of animal rights, back-slider. Bad effort, and a bad dodge. And
> besides, to show that my views on downloading material from
> the web are consistent with my actions, read the following
> conversation and follow the link to it's short thread.
>
> [start - me]
> > >I've a host of other mathematical programs which I've written mainly for electronic
> > >enthusiasts, but they also include other tasks such as finding unknowns in
> > >simultaneous equations, a quadratic equation solver, a cubic equation solver
> > >and a full math program including a huge library of formulas which I've found very
> > >helpful. My full math program is too large to bring here but I will gladly send it
> > >to anyone willing to bug check it and offer some help on how to improve it.
> [Eric]
> > If you don't have access to a web site on which you could host
> > your various programs, I'd be happy to host them.
> [me]
> I do intend them for freeware use but I've been hoping to polish them up
> a bit beforehand with the help of some heftier program writers with
> some experience in bug checking to head off any problems that might be
> encountered by the end user.
> [end]
> Derek Dec 21 2002 http://tinyurl.com/chccl
>
> Since then I've been writing freeware for years. Go to the link.



Write something that will draw a cage to keep ~jonnie~ Goober in.

Claire's copyright-violating Uncle Derk wrote:
>>>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>>>
>>>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>>>
>>>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>>>> are being ignored for convenience.
>>>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>>>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>>>
>>>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>>>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>>>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>>>
>>>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>>>
>>>Because copyright laws are vastly different
>>
>>IOW
>
> No,

Yes, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
"animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
international law.

Your biggest problem, Nash, is that your "principles" are a sham. This
became clear when you lied that you you "realised" black olives do
something they don't. You further lied (and even try to spin one of my
posts into your tangled web) when you wrote it wasn't a "realization,"
_per se_, but rather that you were "reliably told" olives do something
they don't. "Reliably told" by whom, shitbag?

These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches
the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture
and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of
cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During
the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air
bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark
color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added
to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to
fade after the cans are stored.

Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt
brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are
heat sterilized under strict California State health rules.
http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html

Regardless, as you're wont to do, you avoid one food you previously
enjoyed without guilt on the flimsiest of grounds AND YOU DO SO BECAUSE
IT MAKES YOU FEEL VIRTUOUS AND MORE ETHICAL. Such belief and action is
consistent with orthorexia. Why do you not do the same with respect to
other foods you overeat, fatso, instead of pass the buck on to food
producers?

Your sham "virtue" is as hollow as the bullshit about "squid ink" you
base it upon and the hair-splitting sophistry you prate in defending
animal rights while you're wantonly violating the rights of other humans
so you can add to your porno collection. You're a rank hypocrite and
I'll point it out every time you respond to my posts.

Hypocrisy-Scented Liar wrote:
>>>>>>>How do you explain
>>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
>>>>>
>>>>>You have already admitted that
>>>>>you find it aesthetically displeasing.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't mean I wouldn't eat it.
>>>
>>>It makes it a lot more likely
>>
>>Non sequitur. I find you even more "aesthetically displeasing" than I
>>find beef, yet I humor you by responding to your incessantly boring posts.
>
> You're still

As I wrote earlier today, I find you repugnant and repulsive but I put
that aside when I respond to your inane posts.

On 23 Aug 2005 13:41:45 -0700, "Ron" > wrote:

[..]
>Write something that will draw a cage to keep ~jonnie~ Goober in.

Something along the lines using Kirchoff's law would be
my starting point. Knowing that;

"The algebraic sum of knowledge flowing into and out
of Jon's brain equals zero." would give us;

PROC cage:
LOCAL Jon%,cage%,x%,y%,z%
Jon%=1 :cage%=1 :x%=knowledge in :y%=knowledge out :z%=0
IF x%+y%=0
DO
Jon%=Jon%+cage%
z%=z%+0
gAT 20,30 :gPRINT "Jon has retained no knowledge and must stay in his cage"
UNTIL z%>0
ELSEIF x%+y%>0
DO
Jon%=Jon%-cage%
z%=z%+1
gAT 20,30 :gPRINT "Jon has retained some knowledge and can leave his cage"
UNTIL z%=0
ENDIF
ENDP

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:08:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>>>>
>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>>>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>>>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>>>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>>>>> are being ignored for convenience.
>>>>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>>>>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>>>>
>>>>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>>>>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>>>>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>>>>
>>>>Because copyright laws are vastly different
>>>
>>>IOW
>>
>> No,
>
>Yes

No, back-slider. In my words - not yours. You don't get
to put words in my mouth, you closet queer.

Copyright laws are vastly different to the proposition
of animal rights, back-slider, and breaking copyright
laws says nothing about my stated principles regarding
animal rights. Your stupidity is akin to saying that, if one
should ever blow their horn on a Sunday morning at 8am,
then he is showing a contempt for animal rights. Your
stupidity is always laughable, back-slider.

Claire's lard-assed, hypocritical Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>>>>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>>>>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>>>>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>>>>>> are being ignored for convenience.
>>>>>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>>>>>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>>>>>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>>>>>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>>>>>
>>>>>Because copyright laws are vastly different
>>>>
>>>>IOW
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes
>
> No,

Yes, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
"animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
international law.

Your biggest problem, Nash, is that your "principles" are a sham. This
became clear when you lied that you "realised" black olives do something
they don't. You further lied (and even try to spin one of my posts into
your tangled web) when you wrote it wasn't a "realization," _per se_,
but rather that you were "reliably told" olives do something they don't.
"Reliably told" by whom, shitbag?

These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches
the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture
and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of
cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During
the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air
bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark
color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added
to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to
fade after the cans are stored.

Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt
brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are
heat sterilized under strict California State health rules.
http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html

Regardless, as you're wont to do, you avoid one food you previously
enjoyed without guilt on the flimsiest of grounds AND YOU DO SO BECAUSE
IT MAKES YOU FEEL VIRTUOUS AND MORE ETHICAL. Such belief and action is
consistent with orthorexia. Why do you not do the same with respect to
other foods you overeat, fatso, instead of pass the buck on to food
producers?

Your sham "virtue" is as hollow as the bullshit about "squid ink" you
base it upon and the hair-splitting sophistry you prate in defending
animal rights while you're wantonly violating the rights of other humans
so you can add to your pirated porno collection. You're a rank hypocrite
and I'll point it out every time you respond to my posts.

Closet queer usual suspect > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>>>>>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>>>>>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>>>>>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>>>>>>> are being ignored for convenience.
>>>>>>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>>>>>>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>>>>>>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>>>>>>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because copyright laws are vastly different
>>>>>
>>>>>IOW
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>>Yes
>>
>> No,
>
>Yes

No, back-slider. In my words - not yours. You don't get
to put words in my mouth, you closet queer.

Copyright laws are vastly different to the proposition
of animal rights, back-slider, and breaking copyright
laws says nothing about my stated principles regarding
animal rights. Your stupidity is akin to saying that, if one
should ever blow their horn on a Sunday morning at 8am,
then he is showing a contempt for animal rights. Your
stupidity is always laughable, back-slider.

Serial cuckold and perpetual shit-stirring hypocrite Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>You've not stood by your principles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pot calling the kettle black, and *exceedingly* rich coming from such a
>>>>>>>>fat **** whose hair-splitting sophistry about animals being "rights
>>>>>>>>holders" is patently inconsistent with his wanton violations of
>>>>>>>>international copyRIGHT laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My belief is that they [animals] do hold rights, but that they
>>>>>>>> are being ignored for convenience.
>>>>>>>> -- First of Twits: http://tinyurl.com/bbxqq
>>>>>>>> [just one example from MANY such BS posts about rights holders]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
>>>>>>>> watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
>>>>>>>> -- Derk "******" Nash, http://snipurl.com/6zej
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because copyright laws are vastly different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IOW
>>>>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>>>Yes
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes
>
> No

Yes, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
"animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
international law.

Your biggest problem, Nash, is that your "principles" are a sham -- you
don't believe in any sense rights, the issue is just a folly for you to
stir some shit and try to come across as something of a philosopher (and
you're not). This became clear when you lied that you "realised" black
olives do something they don't. You further lied (and even try to spin
one of my posts into your tangled web) when you wrote it wasn't a
"realization," _per se_, but rather that you were "reliably told" olives
do something they don't. "Reliably told" by whom, shitbag?

These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches
the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture
and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of
cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During
the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air
bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark
color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added
to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to
fade after the cans are stored.

Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt
brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are
heat sterilized under strict California State health rules.
http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html

Regardless, as you're wont to do, you avoid one food you previously
enjoyed without guilt on the flimsiest of grounds AND YOU DO SO BECAUSE
IT MAKES YOU FEEL VIRTUOUS AND MORE ETHICAL. Such belief and action is
consistent with orthorexia. Why do you not do the same with respect to
other foods you overeat, fatso, instead of pass the buck on to food
producers?

Your sham "virtue" is as hollow as the bullshit about "squid ink" you
base it upon and the hair-splitting sophistry you prate in defending
animal rights while you're wantonly violating the rights of other humans
so you can add to your pirated porno collection. You're a rank hypocrite
and I'll point it out every time you respond to my posts.

Closet queer usual suspect > wrote:
>
>Why do you "respect" animal rights [] but blatantly disregard copyright laws

Copyright laws are vastly different to the proposition
of animal rights, back-slider, and breaking copyright
laws says nothing about my stated principles regarding
animal rights. Your stupidity is akin to saying that, if one
should ever blow their horn on a Sunday morning at 8am,
then he is showing a contempt for animal rights. Your
stupidity is always laughable, back-slider.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hypocrisy-Scented Liar wrote:
> >>>>>>>How do you explain
> >>>>>>>that you won't eat the steak?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>How do you know I won't eat it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You have already admitted that
> >>>>>you find it aesthetically displeasing.
> >>>>
> >>>>That doesn't mean I wouldn't eat it.
> >>>
> >>>It makes it a lot more likely
> >>
> >>Non sequitur. I find you even more "aesthetically displeasing" than I
> >>find beef, yet I humor you by responding to your incessantly boring
posts.
> >
> > You're still
>
> As I wrote earlier today, I find you repugnant and repulsive but I put
> that aside when I respond to your inane posts.

You're still dodging. Would you eat
the steak? If not, how would you
explain to your gracious hosts? Two
simple questions. There is no reason
not to answer, is there?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> You're still dodging. Would you eat
> the steak? If not, how would you
> explain to your gracious hosts? Two
> simple questions. There is no reason
> not to answer, is there?

Maybe he doesn't know what he would do, it's a bit of a no-win situation
isn't it? You don't like a certain food, yet you find it served to you by a
gracious host. If you eat it, that's not good due to the yuk factor, and if
you leave it, you risk insulting your hostess, that's even worse. What do
you do, tell them that you think meat is murder? Lie and say you're
allergic? That's weak. To the best of my knowledge, Buddhist monks who are
strict vegetarians will eat meat if it is served to them for this reason.

"usual suspect" ps wrote in message ...
...
> Yes, you prefer to "respect" marginal BS hair-splitting sophistry about
> "animal rights" supported by very few misguided people rather than
> observe and respect the rights of your fellow man upheld by
> international law.

'International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation

This sections examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq.
Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General
stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would
"not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts
now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating
international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct
of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK
of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also
looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.
.....
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...k/lawindex.htm

Comment, 'usual suspect'?

> Your sham "virtue" is as hollow as the bullshit about "squid ink" you
> base it upon and the hair-splitting sophistry you prate in defending
> animal rights while you're wantonly violating the rights of other humans
> so you can add to your pirated porno collection. You're a rank hypocrite
> and I'll point it out every time you respond to my posts.

'This event was 100% legal. They had every permit the city told
them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance
policy for the event. They had licensed security guards at the
gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes,
they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should
mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession.

Oh another interesting fact.. the police did not have a warrant.
The owner of the land already has a lawsuit against the city for
something similar. A few months ago, she rented her land for
a party and the police raided that as well. And catch this, the
police forced her to LEAVE HER OWN PERSONAL
PROPERTY. That's right. They didnt arrest her, but made
her leave her own property!!!

Don't get it twisted, this is all going down in probably THE
most conservative state in the USA. And this is scary.. a
gross violation of our civil liberties. The police wanted this
party shut down, so they made it happen. Even though
everything about this event was legal. The promoters spent
over $ 20,000 on this show and did everything they had to
to make it legit, only to have it taken away from them by
a group of radical neo-con's with an agenda.
...........
<video at this link>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...05utahrave.htm

Comment, 'usual suspect'?

Here's a bonus piece, just for you:
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...cle&sid= 1143