While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, usual suspect of Road
Runner - Texas said:

>>>>>Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating bananas,
>>>>>spanking men?
>>>>
>>>>Obsessing about signatures again?
>>>
>>>It's not obsessing, it's asking a question. Get the two straight, okay?
>>
>> The signature has nothing to do with the post, but you seem to insist
>> on picking on it.
>
>I know it has nothing to do with the content of the post, nitwit. It
>does seem out of place with the OP's concerns about unknown people for
>whom he feigns interest and support. He suggested eating bananas is
>morally wrong, but finds enjoyment and/or amusement in acts of
>consensual violence. I just wanted to know if he accepts the paradox,
>but his intimations about his bizarre sexuality clarified the whole matter.

You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
and consenting. Can you make up your mind?
>
>>>>Where did your sense of humour go? I
>>>>remember you used to have one.
>>>
>>>I still have it. The OP made off like a moralist, and I asked a
>>>reasonable question. If it's wrong to eat bananas, why is it okay to
>>>spank men? Big ****ing deal.
>>
>> As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
>> so immoral about it.
>
>What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
>picking them, but get paid to do so?
>
Different issue which I'm not going to discuss with you here. Reality
isn't as simple as you set it up, though.

>>>>Besides, she's only quoting someone else for saying it, not saying
>>>>that it's her own opinion.
>>>
>>>That's the OP's problem, no? I happen to think the OP thinks of morality
>>>in rather inconsistent terms, so I asked a question.
>>
>> No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
>> in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
>
>I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
>one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.

You took his signature seriously. This means failing to get the joke.
If you had seen it as a joke and nothing else, you wouldn't even have
had an issue with it, as you would've known that far from all people
having such things in their sigs are actually into that kind of thing.
You can't tell from the signature, even if you happened to guess right
once.
>
>> Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.
>
>I didn't fail anything, dipstick. Your behavior in this more is more
>stupid than his sig.
>
Is that the best you can do? Name calling?

>>>>As with most other quotes in signatures,
>>>>it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>>>>thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>>>>usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>>>
>>>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>>>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>>>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>>>That's all.
>>
>> I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
>> you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
>> insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
>> don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
>> that way.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/1gd

ROFL - This from someone who calls *my* replies stupid! At least my
replies contain arguments and I don't have to resort to name calling.
That fact that you couldn't come up with anything better shows a good
deal about you, just like the way you seem to think I'd be offended by
something as childish as this. I'm laughing!
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Hummm.... 86 percent male. Which probably explains why I only have fun 14 percent
of the time...." Therion Ware (a.a.)