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

>> As far as boycuts go, they do sometimes work, if
>> the company gets told why the boycott is made. Then they'll want to
>> improve the conditions in question to get their customers back.
>
>Not always, and the interim conditions during a boycott often result in
>a negative effect. *Threats* of boycotts, often a form of legal
>extortion, usually have greater effect than an actual boycott. That
>said, I am a fan of neither threats nor actual boycotts.
>
I think I've heard of cases where it did help. I'll see if I can dig
them out, if you want me to.

>> but it seems to be misplaced, as you now claim that you knew it was a
>> joke, all along.
>
> > "Unlike you, I have no problem spanking men." -Angel
>
> Where do you draw the line at compassion and ethics: eating
> bananas, spanking men?
>
>What in my response to that demonstrates the question is insinuating,
>that I lack a sense of humor, or that I "don't get it"?

Why ask the question if you didn't take the joke seriously, but just
saw it as a joke? Care to tell me?

>You haven't given ANY reason for incessantly repeating why you think I
>didn't get ANY joke. In light of your lack of evidence (tautology is not
>evidence, you hag) and your continued distortions of my motivations, you
>have engaged in making a strawman. My motivation for asking that one
>question, out of all the others and the statements I made in my
>responses to the OP, have nothing at all to do with your assignations of
>my intent, my character, my sense of humor, or anything else about me.
>
You treated it as if he meant it seriously. That makes it look like
you didn't get the joke, because I assumed that when you treat
something like you take it seriously, then you actually are.

><...>
>>>>Besides,
>>>>you were different to me in past discussions than you are now that
>>>>you're "through being nice".
>>>
>>>I've *always* been nice to you. Way too nice. The fact that you always
>>>jump the gun and decide I'm being mean without delving into issues
>>>doesn't wash, Nikitta. All that does is show how rash you are.
>>
>> Your general going after anything you consider to be "liberal" or
>> whatever you call it and anyone talking about ethics isn't polite
>> behaviour in a newsgroup, or in general.
>
>Oh hell, aren't you awfully defensive. You insisted none of those
>generalizations applied to you, so why do you take such umbrage now? I
>know the answer, and so do you, but I also know you won't admit that
>those remarks were accurate and hurt your feelings. Why else would you
>bitch about them now? lol
>
You didn't believe me then, remember? In any case, I hold, what I know
you consider to be liberal ideas and part of my reasons for being a
veggie is ethics, so every time you lash out after liberals or people
with ethical reasons for being vegan, then it includes me. The only
thing I said didn't include me was being on a mission.
--
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.)