C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
[...]
>>>>>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.
>
>
> I very clearly showed that you did. Now you are lying.

No, you did not. Now YOU are lying, twice: in saying
you did something you didn't do, and in accusing him of
lying.

>
>
>>>He learned it from you.
>>
>>Why can't you be civil for one thread?
>
>
> I've tried.

No, you have not. You have *initiated* incivility at
least as often as you've been the recipient of it.

> Discussions in which you or Jon Ball participate somehow don't
> stay civil for very long.

Because you initiate incivility in them.

> I should point out that it's that way with you and
> most everyone else on this ng. So the problem's not with me.

The problem VERY MUCH is with you. To the extent other
"vegans" and quasi-"vegans" have the same problem, it's
because they don't like having their bogus ethics SHOWN
to be bogus.

That's what this is all about, SeeJames: you have
adopted an ethical stance - a pose, really - and you've
been called on it, and you don't like 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.
>
>
> I've tried to answer your questions.

You have not even attempted to answer *my* questions,
and they're good questions. Why won't you answer them?

> You have been trying to get me in a
> position (based on lies and fallacies) to admit some perceived ethical
> dilemma. I don't have an ethical dilemma and you are frustrated with my
> answers.

You *do* have an ethical dilemma, SeeJames. You are
vegetarian, quasi-"vegan", for ethical reasons:

***My position has always been*** that it's morally
better
to minimize animal suffering and death than to do
nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.
SeeJames Strut - November 3, 2003 [emphasis added]
http://tinyurl.com/2kedr

There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
dietary response does not address the problem.

You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.

Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
you are lying and being evasive?