FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Where's everybody gone? (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/96820-wheres-everybody-gone.html)

[email protected] 10-08-2006 08:02 PM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
chico chupacabra wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>
> >>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of
> >>animal behavior. Your background is that of a history major with a
> >>series of serious failures in your family and work life: abandoning a
> >>child, in and out of marriages, living in some goofy dress-up commune,
> >>and chucking everything to indulge yourself in every form of
> >>perversion and self-debasement you could find in LA and SF.

> >
> >
> > 825 CALLE MEJIA SANTA FE NM, to be precise.


Not exactly a lush garden, is it? http://tinyurl.com/gav22

Looks as if a tornado must have blown the trailer to Kansas.

Back when the trailer was still there, I'm sure the noise from that
highway was very soothing.


> >
> > Karen Winter - http://tinyurl.com/phzan
> > Sylvia Stevens - http://tinyurl.com/puaj9
> >
> > And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their
> > hovel on Calle Mejia to their closest Episcopal church, Church
> > of the Holy Faith: http://tinyurl.com/ncea2.
> >
> > [..]

>
>
> It's not a hovel, it's a trailer. And whatever you may have done over at
> Google, your message is still bouncing around usenet.



dh@. 10-08-2006 08:45 PM

an observation about "the side"
 
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>> OBSERVATIONS...

>
>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>..
>Violence/rape by definition causes harm, where is the harm in ****ing a sheep?
>
>09 August 2006 19:56 GMT
>
>> Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members

>than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others
>on "the side." Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge
>> others by the company they keep.

>
>"You, you stupid semi-literate dog-eating ****ing
>cocksucker.
>
>See if you can explain, little dog-eating cocksucking
>arrogant prickcheese,
>
>Your task, little ****ing dog-eater,
>
>Shut your ****ing ignorant yap
>
>****witted, ignorant, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers theorizing."
>
>Your buddy-pal ball, chumpo. Aren't you proud?


You "aras" all agree with Goo's claims that:

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

" There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first
place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

dh@. 10-08-2006 08:45 PM

an observation about "the side"
 
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:13:34 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:

>OBSERVATIONS...
>
>> > > > > >>>Good grief, Karen Winter! The OBVIOUS and CORRECT thing to
>> > > > > >>>do would have been to adopt a FEMALE cockatiel! *That* would
>> > > > > >>>have been the *respectful* thing to do.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>Since when has Karen been respectful of anyone or anything?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Since always.

>
>This is patently untrue, Lesley. Her insincerity rings in every post. And neither is she a particularly nice person: I remind you this is the same Karen Winter who threatened a couple summers ago to unleash some violent anarchist friends on another person who posts to these groups (and his family). She threatened that they were already watching him and his family, and that he was in danger.
>
>> > > > > No. Never.
>> > > >
>> > > > You don't even know the meaning of the word.
>> > >
>> > > Someone who would call other people
>> >
>> > You're not a person

>>
>> You cut slack for someone who jacks off a little, defenseless bird
>> and you call me evil, loathsome, fascist, etc. Nice.

>
>This is the more important point: once again, "the side" has shown they'll circle the wagons to protect their own no matter how warped, depraved, insane, violent, nutty, or loony someone is or becomes. Even though Lesley has finally come around to the position that sex between humans and animals is aberrant and weird, she still embraces Karen as a comrade-in-arms because Karen, while thinking it's perfectly fine and normal to have sexual relations with animals, opposes eating them. In many instances involving "normal" people, this alone would be enough for someone to be ostracized among her peers; for "the side," though, it's a small bump down the queer path of life.
>
>The same "circling the wagons" exists with respect to Lesley and her crazy posts about inner earth beings and all the rest of the stuff that would, in circumstances involving NORMAL people, result in calls for immediate psychiatric treatment. Instead, others on "the side" see her as some kind of asset.
>
>One exception: Derek has demonstrated that he won't turn a blind eye to Karen's sexual depravity.


Well he accepts and promotes Goo's dishonesty, so that puts
him on the same bus.

>On the other hand, he has waffled between endorsing Lesley as some kind of expert on nutrition when her qualifications (graduate of a foot-rub course in London) are quite lacking and once or twice calling her out for her wild claims about reflexology and curing her sister with it. Nevermind that her knowledge of nutrition is based on pseudoscience from crackpot "vegan" websites, too. The side was ultimately more important than tales of chemtrails and little people beneath Mount Shasta.
>
>Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others on "the side."


We've also seen that they will promote veg*nism even when it
results in more animal deaths than grass raised animal products.

>Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge others by the company they keep.



Leif Erikson[_2_] 10-08-2006 09:24 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message . net...
> > lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
> > > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Back to Bohemian Grove and the satanic rituals conducted there,
> > >>>you know - Skull & Bones, Bush, Hitler.. are you a member too?
> > >>
> > >>The stuff at Bohemian Grove isn't satanic (and has nothing to do with
> > >>Hitler -- invoking Godwin). It's like a frat=house reunion, where people
> > >>do silly things they would never do near prying eyes (juvenile stunts,
> > >>not anything untoward). The "Cremation of Care" ritual is mock-pagan,
> > >>not satanic, and is about leaving the dull cares of the world behind. I
> > >>find all the conspiracy theories about it quite amusing, nevermind the
> > >>fact that Alex has turned it into a cottage industry.
> > >
> > >
> > > 'The German Brotherhood
> > >
> > > [snip evidence I can't address]

> >
> > There is no connection between any "German Brotherhood"
> > <guffaw> and Yale's Skull and Bones.

>
> 'Rosenbaum discovered documents which detailed the origins of Bones back
> to Germany.


No, he didn't.

[snip remaining shit-hemorrhage]


Derek[_2_] 10-08-2006 10:59 PM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:03:42 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>
>>>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of
>>>animal behavior. Your background is that of a history major with a
>>>series of serious failures in your family and work life: abandoning a
>>>child, in and out of marriages, living in some goofy dress-up commune,
>>>and chucking everything to indulge yourself in every form of
>>>perversion and self-debasement you could find in LA and SF.

>>
>> 825 CALLE MEJIA SANTA FE NM, to be precise.
>>
>> Karen Winter - http://tinyurl.com/phzan
>> Sylvia Stevens - http://tinyurl.com/puaj9
>>
>> And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their
>> hovel on Calle Mejia to their closest Episcopal church, Church
>> of the Holy Faith: http://tinyurl.com/ncea2.
>>
>> [..]

>
>It's not a hovel, it's a trailer. And whatever you may have done over at
>Google, your message is still bouncing around usenet.


Rest assured knowing 'my message' is bouncing around in
far greater and more powerful circles than Usenet, chico.
She's a dangerous predator actively seeking positions where
she can come into close, unsupervised contact with children,
and I've already made my move to remove that threat.

pearl[_1_] 11-08-2006 12:17 AM

NEW IMPETUS TO CHUMPO'S CRASH
 
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > > > > The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
> > > > > into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do
> > > > > that?
> > >
> > > Answer the question,

> >
> > And before you say "gravity" again,

>
> It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.


Only if the support is broken at multiple points throughout the
height of the three (3) structures. There were 47 huge central
steel support columns embedded within concrete (and with an
external layer of insulation) in WTC 1 & 2, and 24 in WTC 7.

We know that:

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So what went wrong, 'chico'? Tell us how you think it happened.






pearl[_1_] 11-08-2006 12:29 AM

NEW ADDITION TO LESLEY'S INSANITY
 
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > pearl wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
> > > > > > into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that?
> > >
> > > Gravity. It's the law.
> > > http://tinyurl.com/fttvl

> >
> > I knew it.

>
> Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of
> gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.


Apparently you're rejecting the law of STEEL, chumpo.



pearl[_1_] 11-08-2006 12:30 AM

NEW ADDITION TO chumpo'S INSANITY
 
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > Gotta correct the Subject line..


Man. ...

> It's your entire lack of substance and your infamiliarity with science
> and engineering that needs correction, sweetheart, not your subject
> lines.


LOL!! Let's see you ENLIGHTEN us all then, Chumpo.



pearl[_1_] 11-08-2006 12:37 AM

NEW ADDITION TO chumpo'S INSANITY
 
"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote:
> >
> > > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
> > > > > > > into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that?
> > > >
> > > > Gravity. It's the law.
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/fttvl
> > >
> > > I knew it.

> >
> > Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of
> > gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.

>
> Apparently you're rejecting the law of STEEL, chumpo.


It would be funny if t'weren't so tragic and sad.



pearl[_1_] 11-08-2006 01:15 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on


Guess.





Leif Erikson[_2_] 11-08-2006 02:26 AM

an observation about "the side"
 
****wi David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober
cracker, lied:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:04 +0100, lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
>
> >"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> >> OBSERVATIONS...

> >
> >"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> >..
> >Violence/rape by definition causes harm, where is the harm in ****ing a sheep?
> >
> >09 August 2006 19:56 GMT
> >
> >> Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members

> >than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others
> >on "the side." Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge
> >> others by the company they keep.

> >
> >
> >Your buddy-pal Leif, chumpo. Aren't you proud?

>
> You "aras" all agree with Leif's claims that:


The below are all true statements, ****wit.


>
> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
> consideration." - Leif
>
> "We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Leif
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it." - Leif
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Leif
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them." - Leif
>
> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Leif
>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Leif
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Leif
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Leif
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Leif
>
> " There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - Leif
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Leif
>
> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first
> place is the ethically superior choice." - Leif
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Leif
>
> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice." - Leif
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Leif
>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Leif
>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals." - Leif
>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions." - Leif



chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 04:27 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky wrote:

>>You're the grown woman with a "dream" of one day getting five acres and a pickup truck but lacking the ambition and means to acquire any of it -- beyond hoping that you get "lucky" and win a lottery.

>
> A lottery would be necessary to do it


For you, pot-smoking slacker.

> Did I ever mention a pickup truck?


Please supply the money needed to buy my
own land and the pickup truck I'll need.
-- Skanky Panhandler, 20 Jan 2005
http://tinyurl.com/mx3gq

That was one of three hits (and the easiest I could find). You kept
going off on a tangent about moving away from Toronto and that you'd
need a pickup. Things like that, especially coming from someone who
takes the bus, tend to stick out.

>>>Please prove all of these conclusively.

>>
>>Feel free to review the archives for threads in which your lack of ambition was fully discussed and established.

>
> You mean


It was all very well established.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 04:29 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky wrote:

>>>>>>How long has it been since you gave some guy booty so you could
>>>>>>score some weed?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yesterday. Twice.
>>>>
>>>>Figures.
>>>
>>>Yeah, it figures

>>
>>Still, it's the most ambition you've shown in all your 46 years. Twice is double the effort (and cooze) you usually put out.

>
> I am not 46,


Forty-four. Forty-five. You're getting pretty dang close to 46. And "the
change," if you're not going through it now.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 04:43 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky wrote:

>>>>Thanks for sharing your little anecdotes about your cat humping your
>>>>hand and cankles. TMI.
>>>
>>>I have never had a cat do that to me. Care to try again?

>>
>>Why are you so defensive about it?

>
> I'm not.


Yes, you are.

>>>You just don't like gays no matter what.

>>
>>Dogs don't. Neither do most other normal male animals.

>
> You know, many men who hate gays are afraid that if they look inside
> themselves,


What studies can you cite to support this wild claim?

> they might find they are ***.


I know for a fact I'm not.

> Do you hate women


No. You're not a psychologist. You're a 40-something layabout pothead
whose claim to fame is beta-testing software that didn't make the cut.

> you're not
> attracted to, are do you just treat them neutrally?


One of my training partners is a ******* whom I've known since I was a
teenager. She's not a lipstick ******* at all. I don't find her
attractive, never have. But we get along very well, which is why we've
been friends for so long. I've never "hated" her, my ******* neighbors,
my *** friends, or anyone else who didn't give me plenty reason to cause
me to have contempt.

Case in point. Go back to the very first few posts I made in response to
your incessant blithering a couple years ago. I offered to let you
correct your errors when you lashed out at me for no reason. You
wouldn't correct your lies, and you wouldn't even apologize. You
willfully chose enmity instead of amity.

> Why can't you just treat *** men neutrally?


Do you still beat your ____ (husband, child, pets, neighbors, parents,
siblings, etc.)?

> Why are you so scared of them?


I'm not afraid of anyone, you stupid bitch.

>>>You're a little too sure of yourself. Care for a toke and open your
>>>mind a bit?

>>
>>It doesn't open your mind; it fries it. You're an example of why it's not a good idea.

>
> Well


See what I mean.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 05:00 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
retardedly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>pearl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message k.net...
>>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.reflexology-research.com/abstracts.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are no legitimate clinical studies
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All of the abstracts on that page are
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit. They are *not* from any legitimate clinical
>>>>>studies.
>>>>
>>>>'Forsch Komplementarmed. 1999 Jun;6(3):129-34.
>>>>[Changes of renal blood flow during organ-associated foot reflexology
>>>>measured by color Doppler sonography]
>>>>[Article in German]
>>>>Sudmeier I, Bodner G, Egger I, Mur E, Ulmer H, Herold M.
>>>>Universitatsklinik fur Innere Medizin, Innsbruck, Austria.
>>>>
>>>>Using colour Doppler sonography blood flow changes of the right kidney
>>>>during foot reflexology were determined in a placebo-controlled, double-blind,
>>>>randomised study. 32 healthy young adults (17 women, 15 men) were
>>>>randomly assigned to the verum or placebo group. The verum group received
>>>>foot reflexology at zones corresponding to the right kidney, the placebo group
>>>>was treated on other foot zones. Before, during and after foot reflexology the
>>>>blood flow of three vessels of the right kidney was measured using colour
>>>>Doppler sonography. Systolic peak velocity and end diastolic peak velocity
>>>>were measured in cm/s, and the resistive index, a parameter of the vascular
>>>>resistance, was calculated. The resistive index in the verum group showed a
>>>>highly significant decrease (p </= 0.001) during and an increase (p = 0.001)
>>>>after foot reflexology. There was no difference between men and women and
>>>>no difference between smokers and non-smokers. Verum and placebo group
>>>>significantly differed concerning alterations of the resistive index both between
>>>>the measuring points before versus during foot reflexology (p = 0.002) and
>>>>those during versus after foot reflexology (p = 0.031). The significant decrease
>>>>of the resistive index during foot reflexology in the verum group indicates a
>>>>decrease of flow resistance in renal vessels and an increase of renal blood flow.
>>>>These findings support the hypothesis that organ-associated foot reflexology
>>>>is effective in changing renal blood flow during therapy.
>>>>
>>>>Publication Types:
>>>>Clinical Trial
>>>>Randomized Controlled Trial
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's all well and good, but we still aren't going to see reflexology
>>>gold stamped by the medical beaurocracy any time soon.

>>
>>It doesn't need a gold stamp from "the medical beaurocracy" [sic] if it
>>actually works. It doesn't.
>>

>
> I agree, about needing the stamp that is. Whether it works or not
> should be up to the consumer to decide.


And not science? How unenlightened of you.

>>>The usual
>>>reasons: too inexpensive, and not "patented". Show me the money.

>>
>>What about, It fails in every ****ing double blind trial? Doctors
>>recommend many treatments and preventive measures that cost little or
>>nothing and provide them with no additional income. "Show me the money"
>>applies to the "alternative medicine" (should read: "alternative to
>>science") swindlers to lull gullible and desperate people into parting
>>with money for bogus treatment.

>
> They are at it full tilt, taking as much as 20% of GDP in some
> estimates.


Because we have an aging population and we're developing technology at a
more rapid clip than nations whose economies are based on exports of
burnt coconut shells and bananas.

> What commonly are known as "aternative medicines" don't get
> much of a piece of this lucrative market of the gullible and desperate.


For good reason: insurers are bound by contract to provide real care,
not pay for whatever fad their clients think will work better than real
medicine.

>>>On the bright side, you shouldn't really care.

>>
>>She doesn't, so long as the people she dupes pay her to rub their feet.
>>
>>
>>>Your reflexologist is
>>>probably better at what he/she does now than if they had to deal with
>>>kickbacks, paperwork, drug pushers, etc.

>>
>>WTF are you prating about now, shev? That's a broad brush, but I know
>>it's your MO to use one and then back-track.

>
> Sorry about the broad brush and the modus.


You should be.

> What would you prefer to discuss?


The success rates of treating cancer with drugs developed in the last
10-15 years versus the success rate of, say, reflexology in treating the
same kinds of cancers.

>>>Aren't you glad you don't
>>>have to go to a hospital?

>>
>>Reflexology doesn't prevent cancer or Alzheimer's patients from
>>requiring REAL medical care, dumbass. No matter how much "alternative"
>>medicine those patients receive, they still require the REAL thing to
>>deal with or survive their conditions.

>
> And what should be the "REAL thing"?


A bit more than a ****ing $50 foot rub by some wild-eyed new age zealot.

> Especially for those two in
> particular, for which so much is spent and so few are cured..


Cancer treatment is very successful in many cases, and the science
improves on a daily basis. While the same isn't true for Alzheimer's,
drugs like Exelon do exist and are extremely beneficial in managing
patients and giving them better quality of life. Exelon will do for an
Alzheimer's patient what a foot rub can't.

> personally I think the real thing should be preventative medicine such
> as diet. I guess that's why I'm in this forum.


So you'll bullshit people with serious diseases out of cures and tell
them to eat a goddamn banana instead of taking chemo or medication that
will lessen the symptoms of diseases like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's?

What a ****ing fool.

>>>If your insurance doesn't pay for it, that's
>>>your problem for buying the insurance.

>>
>>Insurance shouldn't pay for bogus treatments.

>
> It should pay for exactly what the customer wants it to pay for


Contracts are two-way streets. Insurance contracts are three-way streets
because states have laws about forms of insurance contracts. Health
insurance isn't about what a patient wants, it's about the assessment of
his or her medical doctor. Not a ****ing witch doctor or a reflexologist.

> as outlined in the contract.


If you think insurance is expensive now, go ahead and get ready for
companies to jack up premiums so people can see a real doctor or visit
whatever kind of "faith healer" they choose. You bitch now about how
much of GDP is for health care...

BTW, would you WANT to live in a country where they pay less than 10% of
GDP on taking care of themselves?

> Perhaps there's a market for foot-massage insurance.


If there were, and it were legal to sell insurance plans for bogus
(non)medical services, don't you think someone would be making some
money with it already? I mean, besides the charlatan foot-rubbers.

> There's probably one for alien abduction insurance. Fine
> with me, as long as I don't have to buy it.


Yet you suggest insurers cover it while bitching about how much of our
economy is spent taking care of ourselves.

>>>Anyway, such a change in blood flow could be entirely psychosomatic.

>>
>>Every single instance which she's cited benefits have pertained to
>>psychosomatic complaints: PMS cramps, whether or not some kid can take a
>>shit and feel good for it, etc.

>
> Psychosomatic effects are remarkably broad and effect almost every
> disease or ailment. Did you hear about the multiple-personality
> patient one of which had diabetes and the other didn't? The blood
> sugar changed almost immediately with the personality.
>
> Cheers - shevek
>


chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 05:01 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
wrote:
>>What about, It fails in every ****ing double blind trial? Doctors
>>recommend many treatments and preventive measures that cost little or
>>nothing and provide them with no additional income. "Show me the money"
>>applies to the "alternative medicine" (should read: "alternative to
>>science") swindlers to lull gullible and desperate people into parting
>>with money for bogus treatment.

>
>
> I noticed you used the word "gullible".


Notice these instead: **** off.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 05:05 AM

NEW ADDITION TO LESLEY'S INSANITY
 
pearl wrote:

>>>>>>>The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
>>>>>>>into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that?
>>>>
>>>>Gravity. It's the law.
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/fttvl
>>>
>>>I knew it.

>>
>>Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of
>>gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.

>
> Apparently


About time you came around.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 05:12 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
pearl wrote:

>>While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on

>
> Guess.


I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. Inner
earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead
subculture, leprechauns.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 05:35 AM

a (correct) observation about "the side"
 
Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:52:39 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
> [..]
>
>>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of
>>animal behavior. Your background is that of a history major with a
>>series of serious failures in your family and work life: abandoning a
>>child, in and out of marriages, living in some goofy dress-up commune,
>>and chucking everything to indulge yourself in every form of
>>perversion and self-debasement you could find in LA and SF.

>
>
> 825 CALLE MEJIA SANTA FE NM, to be precise.
>
> Karen Winter - http://tinyurl.com/phzan
> Sylvia Stevens - http://tinyurl.com/puaj9
>
> And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their
> hovel on Calle Mejia to their closest Episcopal church, Church
> of the Holy Faith: http://tinyurl.com/ncea2.
>
> [..]


The post still shows up in Earthlink's news server.
Looks like canceling it from one server doesn't
automatically cancel it from others. How about that?!

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 05:38 AM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
pearl wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
>>And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their

>
>
> We are dealing with 'people' with NO conscience here, Derek
> - I'm talking about Karen.


So are we. Karen abandoned her son when he was quite
young, she said the U.S. "deserved" the 9/11 attacks,
and she incites birds to masturbate on her hand. Yes,
Karen has no conscience.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 05:48 AM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
pearl wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:12:55 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their
>>>
>>>Go to Google Groups and REMOVE that message immediately!
>>>
>>>We are dealing with 'people' with NO conscience here, Derek,
>>>and no - I'm not talking about Karen. You're a dupe to believe
>>>and side with these loathsome ANTI psychopaths. DDDD -
>>>Discredit, Divide, Defeat, Destroy. You play into their hands.

>
>
>>I have no option but to act against this potential menace to
>>children who seeks out positions where she can come
>>into close contact with them.

>
>
> You could do what you've previously done, but that ain't on.
>
> I'm asking you please to REMOVE those messages containing
> personal details.


Replies to those posts, and there already have been a
few, preserve the content of the original.
Furthermore, even though the original has been removed
from Google's news server, the cancelation did not
cancel it from other servers. The post is currently
sitting on Earthlink's server glowing
like...like...well, glowing like depleted uranium.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Hey, you vicious smelly **** - weren't you in the
process of publishing *my* address a while back? You
were a little late with it, of course; the late Ray
Slater already posted it in its entirety a couple of times.

Get off your ****ing soapbox, you goddamned lying
charlatan foot rubber. You'd sick mobsters on someone
you didn't like. You filthy ****.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 05:51 AM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
pearl wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:55:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm asking you please to REMOVE those messages containing
>>>personal details.

>>
>>Done.

>
>
> Thank you VERY MUCH.


I still see it: 825 Calle Mejia. It's not going to go
away, lesley.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 05:53 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
pearl wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message .net...
>
>
>>>>Answer the questions

>
>
>>It absolutely is necessary that the ****witted lying two-penny foot-rubbing whore of Cork believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is no ****ING WAY under the sun this stupid **** could believe in all the other irrational bullshit on the below list, and somehow *not* believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.

>
>
> Treasonous mass murder supporting coward.


The 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were
the mass murderers, LIESley, and I do not support them.
You do.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 05:56 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> pearl wrote:
>
>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on

>>
>>
>> Guess.

>
>
> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. Inner
> earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead
> subculture, leprechauns.


....zero point fields...

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 06:32 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Leif Erikson wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> pearl wrote:
>>
>>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your take on
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Guess.

>>
>>
>>
>> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours. Inner
>> earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead
>> subculture, leprechauns.

>
>
> ...zero point fields...


....the "zapper"...

Leif Erikson[_1_] 11-08-2006 07:09 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your
>>>>> take on
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guess.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours.
>>> Inner earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead
>>> subculture, leprechauns.

>>
>>
>>
>> ...zero point fields...

>
>
> ...the "zapper"...


....polar 'fountains'...

Derek[_2_] 11-08-2006 08:38 AM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:48:19 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>pearl wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:12:55 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>And here's a Google Maps link showing the route from their
>>>>
>>>>Go to Google Groups and REMOVE that message immediately!
>>>>
>>>>We are dealing with 'people' with NO conscience here, Derek,
>>>>and no - I'm not talking about Karen. You're a dupe to believe
>>>>and side with these loathsome ANTI psychopaths. DDDD -
>>>>Discredit, Divide, Defeat, Destroy. You play into their hands.

>>
>>
>>>I have no option but to act against this potential menace to
>>>children who seeks out positions where she can come
>>>into close contact with them.

>>
>>
>> You could do what you've previously done, but that ain't on.
>>
>> I'm asking you please to REMOVE those messages containing
>> personal details.

>
>Replies to those posts, and there already have been a
>few, preserve the content of the original.
>Furthermore, even though the original has been removed
>from Google's news server, the cancelation did not
>cancel it from other servers. The post is currently
>sitting on Earthlink's server glowing
>like...like...well, glowing like depleted uranium.
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>Hey, you vicious smelly **** - weren't you in the
>process of publishing *my* address a while back?


"I have yours, jonathan ball, starting from now, every
time you lie about, or post what you believe to be personal
information - either mine or others, I am going to post a
letter or number from your address and telephone number .."
Pearl Feb 3 2006 http://tinyurl.com/m3pqn


>You
>were a little late with it, of course; the late Ray
>Slater already posted it in its entirety a couple of times.
>
>Get off your ****ing soapbox, you goddamned lying
>charlatan foot rubber. You'd sick mobsters on someone
>you didn't like. You filthy ****.


[email protected] 11-08-2006 11:36 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Derek wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2006 18:18:40 -0700, wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 7 Aug 2006 17:50:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700,
wrote:
> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
> >> >> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
> >> >> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
> >> >> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
> >> >> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
> >> >> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
> >> >> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
> >> >> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
> >> >> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
> >> >> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees
> >> >> >> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms
> >> >> >> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply
> >> >> >> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm
> >> >> >> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You
> >> >> >> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm
> >> >> >> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful
> >> >> >> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not
> >> >> >> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >> >> >> >> >in a sexual context and no other.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the
> >> >> >> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the
> >> >> >> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of
> >> >> >> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the
> >> >> >> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the
> >> >> >> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not
> >> >> >> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
> >> >> >> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The
> >> >> >> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs,
> >> >> >> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and
> >> >> >> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and
> >> >> >> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs
> >> >> >> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the
> >> >> >> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked
> >> >> >> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated
> >> >> >> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until
> >> >> >> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above
> >> >> >> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear
> >> >> >> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
> >> >> >> context and no other."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's not a claim. It's a question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question?
> >> >
> >> >See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question.
> >>
> >> Yes, and it also indicates 2 statements or claims made in a single
> >> sentence;
> >>
> >> 1) What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week.
> >> This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
> >> facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
> >> that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.
> >>
> >> 2) "What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
> >> arises in a sexual context and no other."
> >> Again, this sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
> >> facts; the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
> >> content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
> >> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."
> >>
> >> Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?

> >
> >Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "What I'm not clear on
> >is why you think the issue of 'respectful treatment' arises in a sexual
> >context and no other."

>
> No, because that sentence still isn't a question, but rather another
> statement containing two facts which you believe to be true; that
> "I think the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context
> and no other." and that you're not clear on why "I think the issue
> of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other."
>


Uh-huh. And?

> I've made it abundantly clear from the start that I don't believe the
> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other,
> so when you insist that I do in this way, even after I've tried to
> correct you,


I haven't. I made a conjecture about your position, you denied it was
correct, so I asked for further clarification.

> I can only assume that you're trying to intentionally
> misrepresent my position to then knock that flawed position down
> and declare a defeat over my real position, and I'm not going to
> allow you to do that.
>
> >I thought you were a normal speaker of English

>
> I am, and that's how I manage to thwart your cunning little efforts
> at misrepresenting my clear position.
>
> >I'll try to be more careful in future.

>
> It would be in YOUR best interest if you did.
>
> >Apologize for accusing me of lying and stop doing it.

>
> How can I while you continue to misrepresent my position


I'm not. I'm asking you what it is.

> and
> then claim that your misrepresentation was but a question in
> regards to it rather than a fact about it after I caught you out?



[email protected] 11-08-2006 11:38 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>chico chupacabra wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
> >>>>Anachronisms commune, wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>><...>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>*Intentionally* is the key word.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, Karen. Lesley has repeatedly equivocated on the issue. She's written
> >>>>that it's a perversion but should be tolerated; she's written that it's
> >>>>okay as long as it doesn't involve conditioning or coercion and then
> >>>>failed to respond appropriately when asked when it does NOT involve
> >>>>conditioning or coercion; she's written that it's nobody else's business
> >>>>if someone ****s an animal even though she finds it patently offensive
> >>>>if someone eats an animal.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>He knows you condemn it;
> >>>>
> >>>>One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive.
> >>>>Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered
> >>>>qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal.
> >>>>
> >>>><...>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years,
> >>>>
> >>>>You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote
> >>>>that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I would gag at the thought of eating any meat,
> >>>>
> >>>>You should gag at the thought of munching that old bat's carpet.
> >>>>

> >
> >
> > Her sexual activities are none of your business,

>
> Then tell her to keep it all in her closet. She's been disgustingly
> candid about her sexual preferences and practices, everything from S&M
> to NAMBLA to bestiality. And now we know she's engaged in the latter
> with a poor cockatiel.
>
> > you disgusting homophobe.

>
> Nothing I wrote was "homophobic." That's your pathetic PC term which
> ignores its core meaing, "fear of oneself," to impugn others with whom,
> you disagree because you're either unwilling or unable to discuss the
> merits of the arguments before you.
>


Arguments? Don't make me laugh. Your cheap shot at Glorfindel was an
argument? Get serious.

> >>>>>even roadkill.
> >>>>
> >>>>Even? *Especially* roadkill.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>But I would not want
> >>>>>to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill
> >>>>
> >>>>What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that
> >>>>in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia,
> >>>>Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's
> >>>>less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Surely you can not be so stupid as to be unaware of what she thinks the
> >>>morally relevant difference is.
> >>
> >>I want her to answer the questions and explain why she finds it morally
> >>acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal but not to eat it.
> >>Feel free to give it a stab yourself, numbnuts.

> >
> > Not if that's going to be your level of courtesy.

>
> Here's my level of courtesy to you, you prating windbag: **** yourself
> with a broken bottle.
>
> > As I say,

>
> I know what you say, "I cannot answer ____ [fill in the blank with Mr
> Erikson, Mr Dutch, Mr Nash, et al] so I'll demand civility instead." ****.
>
> > I really
> > cannot comprehend how you could fail to grasp what her answer would be.

>
> I want to know why she finds it morally acceptable to jack off a
> cockatiel -- repeatedly, no doubt -- but offensive to eat a small bite
> of a vegetable dish that contains a tiny piece of bacon for flavoring.
>
> > I will explain it to you if you're prepared to be civil.

>
> Here's all the civility you deserve, prat:
> *extending middle finger and waving it*
>
> Answer the question and stop being such a drama queen.



[email protected] 11-08-2006 11:40 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Derek wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2006 18:24:02 -0700, wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you,
> >> >and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your
> >> >views.
> >>
> >> I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my
> >> position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of
> >> that all away.

> >
> >You have shown no such thing

>
> Says you after snipping the evidence away, which is exactly what Karen
> tried to do in this thread before you.
>
> <restore>
> >> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >True
> >> >>
> >> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
> >> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
> >> >
> >> >I didn't imply that.
> >>
> >> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
> >> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
> >> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
> >> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
> >> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.

>
> Well, liar?
>


I've explained to you what I meant countless times. Your whining is
totally pathetic. Stop accusing me of lying and misrepresenting your
position and get on with clarifying what your position is.


[email protected] 11-08-2006 11:42 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rupert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 6 Aug 2006 18:19:41 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:06:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[..]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >>>>>>>>>>>in a sexual context and no other.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
> >>>>>>>>>>in many areas as well in a sexual context.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
> >>>>>>>>treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I didn't imply that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
> >>>>>>clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
> >>>>>>context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
> >>>>>>"respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
> >>>>>>declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It was my attempt at interpreting your position.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, it was your attempt at MISinterpreting my position.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I won't stand for being told I'm deliberately misinterpreting your
> >>>>>position. Accept my good faith or else stop talking to me.
> >>>>
> >>>>Derek - Rupie does a lot of ordering people not to talk to him.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Liar and coward.
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have never ordered you not to talk to me,
> >>
> >>Liar.
> >>
> >> "stop talking to me"
> >> Rupert, psychotic rainman
> >> http://tinyurl.com/jgtbz

> >
> >
> > Yes, well, we'll let that link speak for itself, shall we?

>
> Yes, well, rupie, that link establishes that you
> ordered me to stop talking to you, and that you are a
> liar for having said you never told me that.
>


No, that's complete fantasy on your part.

> You're a bossy little bitch, rupie, but no one really
> considers you the boss. Go **** yourself, you sick
> little dweeb.



[email protected] 11-08-2006 11:49 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> rupertmccallum, prating windbag, wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >>Rupert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>chico chupacabra wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rupert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic"
> >>>>>>sectarian, disingenuously wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>><snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
> >>>>>>>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
> >>>>>>>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
> >>>>>>>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
> >>>>>>>reasoned.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to
> >>>>>the debate? I must have missed it.
> >>>>
> >>>>You did, dumbass.
> >>>
> >>>Point me to it then.
> >>
> >>Find it yourself.
> >>
> >>
> >>>And don't insult me,
> >>
> >>Why not?

> >
> > If you want to be childish and pathetic, go ahead.

>
> You have a big headstart with your childish, "Apologize now or I won't
> reply anymore," followed by 20+ more replies making your childish demands.
>


It's not childish. If people want to publicly wallow in their own feces
that's their business. I reserve the right to say what I think about
it.

> >>>you obnoxious asshole.
> >>
> >>Silly ****.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Having
> >>>missed a post (if that's what I've done) is not evidence of stupidity.
> >>
> >>Debatable, especially since Mr Erikson, whom I thought you were supposed
> >>to be ignoring, is your better.

> >
> > That is absolutely hysterical.

>
> Hysterical? Not sure about that, because in a way it's sad that you're
> acting like a small child with your "apologize now" tantrums.
>


It's not a tantrum. It's a civil request for someone to behave with
minimal decency.

> > Only someone on the same level as Mr.
> > Erikson, such as yourself, could think that. Your opinion, like all
> > your contributions to this thread, is absolutely worthless.

>
> Yet you find the time to make the same inane demands of me that you've
> made to others. Why is it not beneath you to respond to those whose
> opinions you neither appreciate nor respect?
>


For the most part it is. I'll respond whenever I feel like responding.

> That, Rupie, tells us an awful lot about you. What does it tell *you*?


You are a deeply sad, pathetic individual. You are unable to
participate in a civilized conversation and you can't make a decent
argument to save your life. You and Leif Erikson degrade yourselves to
about the lowest level it is possible for a human being to get to by
your conduct on this newsgroup. I find your comments about me utterly
laughable.


[email protected] 11-08-2006 11:51 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:

>
> [..]
>
> >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral
> >> philosophy
> >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others
> >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit.

> >
> > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to
> > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when
> > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I
> > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights
> > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case.

>
> You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled quagmire
> of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the
> equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example.
>
> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which
> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with
> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong."
>
> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully depriving a
> person of their life.
>


Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the
wrongness of murder consists in its illegality?


chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 12:20 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
rupturedmcscrotum is a @ yahoo wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>rupertmccallum, prating windbag, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Karen Winter, ******* schismatic and pro-bestiality "anglo catholic"
>>>>>>>>sectarian, disingenuously wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I've been thinking about this, as you know. Comments follow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I very much appreciate and respect your willingness to think
>>>>>>>>>about the arguments which both sides ( or all sides) of an
>>>>>>>>>issue present. I respect ( :) ) your view, even if it does
>>>>>>>>>not agree with mine, because it is intellectually honest and
>>>>>>>>>reasoned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But Messrs Nash's and Erikson's aren't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Erikson has actually contributed something intellectually worthwhile to
>>>>>>>the debate? I must have missed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You did, dumbass.
>>>>>
>>>>>Point me to it then.
>>>>
>>>>Find it yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And don't insult me,
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>If you want to be childish and pathetic, go ahead.

>>
>>You have a big headstart with your childish, "Apologize now or I won't
>>reply anymore," followed by 20+ more replies making your childish demands.

>
> It's not childish.


Yes, it is. Most small children have more dignity than you.

>>>>>you obnoxious asshole.
>>>>
>>>>Silly ****.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Having
>>>>>missed a post (if that's what I've done) is not evidence of stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>Debatable, especially since Mr Erikson, whom I thought you were supposed
>>>>to be ignoring, is your better.
>>>
>>>That is absolutely hysterical.

>>
>>Hysterical? Not sure about that, because in a way it's sad that you're
>>acting like a small child with your "apologize now" tantrums.

>
> It's not a tantrum.


It is, and the aforementioned majority of small children would probably
take great offense that I've compared you to them.

> It's a civil request


Stop being a such a whiny little dick.

>>>Only someone on the same level as Mr.
>>>Erikson, such as yourself, could think that. Your opinion, like all
>>>your contributions to this thread, is absolutely worthless.

>>
>>Yet you find the time to make the same inane demands of me that you've
>>made to others. Why is it not beneath you to respond to those whose
>>opinions you neither appreciate nor respect?

>
> For the most part it is


No, it isn't at all.

>>That, Rupie, tells us an awful lot about you. What does it tell *you*?

>
> You


I asked what it tells you about yourself, dickhead. Now try again.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 12:28 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
rupturedmcscrotum is @ yahoo and wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>>rupturedmcscrotum is @ yahoo and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>rupturedmcscrotum is @ yahoo and wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Karen Winter, former house-whore of the Society for Creative
>>>>>>Anachronisms commune, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You keep confirming the fact that you're pro-bestiality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. You just keep intentionally mis-interpreting what I'm saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>*Intentionally* is the key word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Karen. Lesley has repeatedly equivocated on the issue. She's written
>>>>>>that it's a perversion but should be tolerated; she's written that it's
>>>>>>okay as long as it doesn't involve conditioning or coercion and then
>>>>>>failed to respond appropriately when asked when it does NOT involve
>>>>>>conditioning or coercion; she's written that it's nobody else's business
>>>>>>if someone ****s an animal even though she finds it patently offensive
>>>>>>if someone eats an animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He knows you condemn it;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One doesn't condone what one condemns; the two are mutually exclusive.
>>>>>>Lesley condones bestiality. She doesn't condemn it. She has only offered
>>>>>>qualified objections to it while firmly insisting that it be legal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>><...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Having been a vegetarian for over 20 years,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have not been. Your depraved FAS-defective sidekick Sylvia wrote
>>>>>>that you had chiles rellenos when you returned to Santa Fe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would gag at the thought of eating any meat,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You should gag at the thought of munching that old bat's carpet.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Her sexual activities are none of your business,

>>
>>Then tell her to keep it all in her closet. She's been disgustingly
>>candid about her sexual preferences and practices, everything from S&M
>>to NAMBLA to bestiality. And now we know she's engaged in the latter
>>with a poor cockatiel.
>>
>>
>>>you disgusting homophobe.

>>
>>Nothing I wrote was "homophobic." That's your pathetic PC term which
>>ignores its core meaing, "fear of oneself," to impugn others with whom,
>>you disagree because you're either unwilling or unable to discuss the
>>merits of the arguments before you.

>
> Arguments?


Yes, those well-supported points put before you by people like Mr
Erikson, Mr Dutch, and Mr Nash, and to which you keep flailing your arms
in an act of childish defiance and throwing tantrums, demanding others
conform to your childish demands to apologize or give you some sort of
respect you haven't earned.

BTW, I apologize to any small child who happens to read this and takes
offense that I've compared YOU to SMALL CHILDREN. It's really unfair to
them.

> Don't make me laugh.


I don't exactly get the impression humor is your strong suit anyway.

> Your cheap shot at Karen Winter


It wasn't a cheap shot, it was the truth.

>>>>>>>even roadkill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Even? *Especially* roadkill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But I would not want
>>>>>>>to pass a law forbidding people to eat roadkill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about those who want to eat normal meat? Why do you object to that
>>>>>>in a manner similar to my objections to bestiality and pedophilia,
>>>>>>Karen? What is it about eating meat or wearing leather or fur that's
>>>>>>less noble than sexually assaulting a minor or a defenseless animal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely you can not be so stupid as to be unaware of what she thinks the
>>>>>morally relevant difference is.
>>>>
>>>>I want her to answer the questions and explain why she finds it morally
>>>>acceptable for someone to sexually abuse an animal but not to eat it.
>>>>Feel free to give it a stab yourself, numbnuts.
>>>
>>>Not if that's going to be your level of courtesy.

>>
>>Here's my level of courtesy to you, you prating windbag: **** yourself
>>with a broken bottle.
>>
>>
>>>As I say,

>>
>>I know what you say, "I cannot answer ____ [fill in the blank with Mr
>>Erikson, Mr Dutch, Mr Nash, et al] so I'll demand civility instead." ****.
>>
>>
>>>I really
>>>cannot comprehend how you could fail to grasp what her answer would be.

>>
>>I want to know why she finds it morally acceptable to jack off a
>>cockatiel -- repeatedly, no doubt -- but offensive to eat a small bite
>>of a vegetable dish that contains a tiny piece of bacon for flavoring.
>>
>>
>>>I will explain it to you if you're prepared to be civil.

>>
>>Here's all the civility you deserve, prat:
>>*extending middle finger and waving it*
>>
>>Answer the question and stop being such a drama queen.


Welllllllllllllllll???

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 12:31 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
rupturedmcscrotumis a @yahoo.com wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>>On 8 Aug 2006 18:24:02 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you,
>>>>>and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your
>>>>>views.
>>>>
>>>>I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my
>>>>position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of
>>>>that all away.
>>>
>>>You have shown no such thing

>>
>>Says you after snipping the evidence away, which is exactly what Karen
>>tried to do in this thread before you.
>>
>> <restore>
>> >> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >True
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>> >> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't imply that.
>> >>
>> >> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
>> >> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> >> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
>> >> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
>> >> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.

>>
>> Well, liar?
>>

>
>
> I've explained to you what I meant countless times.


Liar. The only thing "countless" here is your rate of dodging questions.

> Your whining is totally pathetic.


Derek isn't whining, dumb ass, you are.

> Stop accusing me of lying


He will when you stop lying, Rupture.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 12:35 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
manchild rupturedscrotum wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:

>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>>No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral
>>>>philosophy
>>>>that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others
>>>>without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit.
>>>
>>>It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to
>>>be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when
>>>trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I
>>>brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights
>>>violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case.

>>
>>You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled quagmire
>>of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the
>>equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example.
>>
>>"The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in which
>>innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated with
>>respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong."
>>
>>--> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully depriving a
>>person of their life.

>
> Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the
> wrongness of murder consists in its illegality?


No, ****, he's just stated that depriving someone of life without just
cause -- which usually means self-defense, capital punishment where due
process has been observed, etc. -- makes it wrong.

chico chupacabra 11-08-2006 12:36 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Leif Erikson wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>>
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your
>>>>>> take on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have NO idea what goes through that little braincell of yours.
>>>> Inner earth beings, remote control jumbo jets, reflexology, skinhead
>>>> subculture, leprechauns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...zero point fields...

>>
>>
>>
>> ...the "zapper"...

>
>
> ...polar 'fountains'...


....alien abduction and UFOs...

Derek[_2_] 11-08-2006 01:02 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On 11 Aug 2006 03:36:43 -0700, wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2006 18:18:40 -0700,
wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 7 Aug 2006 17:50:53 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 6 Aug 2006 18:11:19 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0700,
wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 5 Aug 2006 16:35:04 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> [..]
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other harms
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> As we can see, "The rights view", according to Tom Regan, a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> leading animal rights advocate and author on the subject, sees
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> harms only as a consequence of the real wrong: lack of respect,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> and not the fundamental wrong at all. I agree with him.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >And so do I, but he is not saying what you think he is saying here.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> He's saying precisely what I say he's saying. Regan sees harms
>> >> >> >> >> >> as a consequence of the fundamental wrong, so when you imply
>> >> >> >> >> >> that harms are what make rights violations, and that no harm
>> >> >> >> >> >> means no rights have been violated, you have it all wrong. You
>> >> >> >> >> >> cannot assert that because an animal or child suffers no harm
>> >> >> >> >> >> when having sex with moral agents its right to their respectful
>> >> >> >> >> >> treatment hasn't been violated. On the contrary. You may not
>> >> >> >> >> >> trespass where meaningful consent is NOT given.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >> >> >in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"The beliefs of the Sambia and Etoro tribes in New Guinea include the
>> >> >> >> >following: for adult males the presence in their bodies, in the
>> >> >> >> >testicles, of semen is essential for the existence and maintenance of
>> >> >> >> >their masculinity; heterosexual intercourse therefore involves the
>> >> >> >> >termporary loss of something important (so women are dangerous); the
>> >> >> >> >bodies of young boys do not yet internally produce, and so they do not
>> >> >> >> >yet have, this ingredient; hence young boys must acquire semen from an
>> >> >> >> >external source in order to develop into masculine, adult males. The
>> >> >> >> >Sambia and the Etoro have a practice that derives from these beliefs,
>> >> >> >> >in which young boys, starting around the age of seven to ten and
>> >> >> >> >lasting until puberty, manipulate and fellate older males to orgasm and
>> >> >> >> >ingest the ejaculate; this "fellatio insemination" ideally occurs
>> >> >> >> >daily. The masculinity of the donors thereby passes to the
>> >> >> >> >beneficiaries. Postpubertally, the boys become the men who are sucked
>> >> >> >> >and who provide the masculinizing fluid to younger boys; being fellated
>> >> >> >> >is the staple of their sexual lives, since they eschew women until
>> >> >> >> >marriage." (Alan Soble, "Sexual Investigations").
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Presumably, you think this is incompatible with respectful treatment.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, I most certainly do, and it does nothing to support your above
>> >> >> >> claim to which I responded where you wrote, "What I'm not clear
>> >> >> >> on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> >> >> >> context and no other."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's not a claim. It's a question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then where is the question mark indicating that it was a question?
>> >> >
>> >> >See that word "why"? That usually indicates a question.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and it also indicates 2 statements or claims made in a single
>> >> sentence;
>> >>
>> >> 1) What I'm not clear on is *why* there are only 7 days in a week.
>> >> This sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
>> >> facts; the fact that there are only 7 days in a week, and the fact
>> >> that you're not clear on the fact that there are only 7 days in a week.
>> >>
>> >> 2) "What I'm not clear on is *why* the issue of "respectful treatment"
>> >> arises in a sexual context and no other."
>> >> Again, this sentence is not a question. It's a statement containing two
>> >> facts; the fact that "the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual
>> >> content and no other", and the fact that you're not clear on why "the
>> >> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual content and no other."
>> >>
>> >> Your statement wasn't a question, so why lie?
>> >
>> >Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd said "What I'm not clear on
>> >is why you think the issue of 'respectful treatment' arises in a sexual
>> >context and no other."

>>
>> No, because that sentence still isn't a question, but rather another
>> statement containing two facts which you believe to be true; that
>> "I think the issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context
>> and no other." and that you're not clear on why "I think the issue
>> of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other."

>
>Uh-huh. And?


And so it shows that you're a liar trying to build a strawman. Your
sentence wasn't a question like you've claimed, and neither was
your effort to rephrase it.

>> I've made it abundantly clear from the start that I don't believe the
>> issue of respectful treatment arises in a sexual context and no other,
>> so when you insist that I do in this way, even after I've tried to
>> correct you,

>
>I haven't. I made a conjecture about your position


A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

So, why did you lie by pretending your statement was a question
after I thwarted your efforts to build a strawman?

>> I can only assume that you're trying to intentionally
>> misrepresent my position to then knock that flawed position down
>> and declare a defeat over my real position, and I'm not going to
>> allow you to do that.
>>
>> >I thought you were a normal speaker of English

>>
>> I am, and that's how I manage to thwart your cunning little efforts
>> at misrepresenting my clear position.


Did you get that, liar?

>> >I'll try to be more careful in future.

>>
>> It would be in YOUR best interest if you did.


Did you get that, liar?

>> >Apologize for accusing me of lying and stop doing it.

>>
>> How can I while you continue to misrepresent my position

>
>I'm not.


I've shown that you are, and I'm not going to allow you to
get away with it.

>I'm asking you what it is.


No, you're telling me what it is, even though I've shown that
you've lied and tried to misrepresent my position at every turn.

>> and
>> then claim that your misrepresentation was but a question in
>> regards to it rather than a fact about it after I caught you out?


Well, liar? Just whom do you think you're trying to fool?

Derek[_2_] 11-08-2006 01:05 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On 11 Aug 2006 03:40:40 -0700, wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2006 18:24:02 -0700,
wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:35:57 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Rupert was trying to be polite in phrasing his discussion with you,
>> >> >and he certainly did not lie or misrepresent anything about your
>> >> >views.
>> >>
>> >> I've shown that he has lied while trying misrepresent my
>> >> position, but of course you had to snip the evidence of
>> >> that all away.
>> >
>> >You have shown no such thing

>>
>> Says you after snipping the evidence away, which is exactly what Karen
>> tried to do in this thread before you.
>>
>> <restore>
>> >> >> >>>What I'm not clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >>>in a sexual context and no other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Who said it doesn't? The issue of "respectful treatment" arises
>> >> >> >> in many areas as well in a sexual context.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >True
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why did Rupert try to imply that "the issue of "respectful
>> >> >> treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other."?
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't imply that.
>> >>
>> >> Look again at your statement at the top of this post; "What I'm not
>> >> clear on is why the issue of "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual
>> >> context and no other." You do more than imply that "the issue of
>> >> "respectful treatment" arises in a sexual context and no other", you
>> >> declare it and then go on to say that your not clear on why.

>>
>> Well, liar?

>
>I've explained to you what I meant countless times.


No, rather, you've lied countless times and got caught out.

>Stop accusing me of lying and misrepresenting your
>position


I've shown that you are a liar trying to misrepresent my position,
and I will continue to do so.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter