HI Nikitta,
I took no offense to someone asking about what seemed to him to be
contradiction between my post and my sig. It's a valid question and I take
responsibility for everything I post, including my sig.
I kind of agree that understanding that something is a joke and criticising
it in seriousness is valid as well. After all, there are many offensive
jokes out there and they may be funny to some and not to others (who might
'get' the joke but still find it flawed or un-funny). Anyway, my point is,
don't wear yourself out fighting a battle that isn't neccessary, AFAIC.
-Jay
"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> 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.)