usual suspect wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>>>> you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>>>> answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>>>> right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>>>> response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why do you care what I think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

What's with this guy, anyway? I really don't get it.
He keeps evading the questions, petulantly complaining
about the questions, but keeping the evasion thread
going! On top of that, he complains that the questions
are merely to set him up for cheap entertainment value,
but if he weren't such a dull plodder, I'd possibly
think that's exactly what he's trying to accomplish
with the long-running evasion.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>>> previous threads.
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
>>> times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
>>> playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
>>> pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
>>> this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
>>> what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
>>> you in a hard spot.
>>
>>
>> There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't
>> eat,
>> and related or unrelated ethics.
>>
>>> Although you're not "vegan", you
>>> have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
>>> and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
>>> make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
>>
>>
>> Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun
>> intended!).

You've probably seen my response to him on this
specific point. He lied; I'm RIGHT on the count that
he's vegetarian for (pseudo)ethical reasons, and I
supplied a quote from him to prove it. I'm also right
on the fact that he's not "vegan"; he's said so in the
past. So where the **** does he get the gall to say
I'm "wrong on all counts", when there are only two
counts, and I'm absolutely right on both of them?

>>
>>> You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
>>> "provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
>>> more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
>>> semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
>>> you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
>>> you play games and whiff off.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make me
>> feel
>> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing,
>> leading and
>> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.
>
>
> Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
> still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread. Since
> you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was wrong with it.
>
>>>> You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>> issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>> good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>> them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>> at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>> questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>> argument embodied in any of the questions.
>>
>>
>> I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.
>
>
> I did no such thing.
>
>> He learned it from you.
>
>
> Why can't you be civil for one thread?

Amazing, isn't it? This guy whines and moans about
civility, and then is laughably uncivil.

>
>>>> personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
>>>> entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>> what you're afraid of.
>>
>>
>> Hardly...
>
>
> When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
> whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry to
> the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is all
> you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives are
> wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster as
> uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive." You've
> even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again and
> again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
> address issues.
>