usual suspect wrote:

> Jonathan Ball 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.
>
>
> Neither do I. I'm losing my patience.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> The "dull plodding" part certainly diminishes the possibility of that
> motive. ;-)
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>
> Yes, I saw that. I was going to try to look for some of his quotes
> later. I still might if I have time.

I already did. Go look in a thread in alt.food.vegan
that began on 10/18/2003, entitled "Want to be a
vegetarian", in which he and you participated (does the
expression "David Gest's bitch wrote" ring a bell? ;-)
). He makes abundantly clear that his vegetarianism
is based, at least in part, on a wish to "miminize"
animal suffering and death; he also brings in some
environmental and health concerns, but the ethical
dimension is right there.

>
>> 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?
>
>
> The great irony is he interjected because he disagreed with my
> generalization, yet he's making them about you and me. And that's ALL
> he's done -- no corroboration or explanation.

Yeah, early on in the mayonnaise thread, he got snippy
about generalizations, and proceeded to make one after
another. I had a lot of fun with that; I almost
*always* have fun with people who object to
generalizations per se, as Putz did.

>
>>>>> 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.
>
>
> It's one of his more amusing traits, imho. I wonder if he sees the big
> disconnect between what he preaches and what he practices. Nahhh, he can't.

No effin' way.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>