On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:54:01 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:25 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:22:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:40:40 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:28 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:47:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:01:12 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:56:53 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why a month ago, what's different now? I gave up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat in 1981. Recently I've begun eliminating the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>last of the dairy in my meals, so if it's that you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talking about, I haven't kept records and can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>therefore answer you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's a bit like making a new year's resolution to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dropping litter. Even though you had no idea of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amount of litter you were dropping in 2004, holding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on to your litter and disposing of it properly in 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>will mean you have reduced your littering, however
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much littering you did prior to 2005. You don't need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>numbers to know you're reducing your litter, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same goes for collateral deaths, so don't let the likes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of 'usual suspect' tell you any different while he tries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to belittle and dismiss your efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see through him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We all do. Since turning his back on veganism he's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>become a meat pusher like all the other meat pushers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we get here on this forum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've recommended that people consume products which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>... they don't want,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>They don't want to actually do what they say they're doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>><restore>

Your constant editing of my replies is getting ridiculous
and shows you have nothing to offer as a valid response
to my remarks. Can't you go through a single thread
without having to edit your opponent's replies, pusher?

<restore>
They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.

>> you attack them and belittle their efforts at staying 'clean.'
>
>They're not clean, they're hypocrites.

Spoken like the true user you are, trying to push your substances
onto clean targets by calling them hypocrites.

>>>>They're no better or worse
>>>>than drug pushers, in my opinion,
>>>
>>>So says the
>
>Un
>> clean
>
>fat ****
>
>> who doesn't
>
>practice what he preaches.
>
>>>>their product onto non-users in the very same way with
>>>
>>>What a terrible analogy
>>
>> It's a perfect
>
>**** up.

Oh how clever; you made a sentence out of four or more
other sentences.

<restore>
It's a perfect analogy, pusher.

An analogy is written in the form.
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.

(A) A pusher pushing meat
is like
(B) A pusher pushing drugs
(B) has the property (P), a dependency for his product
and a desire to push it onto others.

Therefore, (A) a pusher pushing meat has the property
(P), a dependency for his product and a desire to push it
onto others.

Shove off, pusher!