In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:52:14 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > "rick etter" > wrote:
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> [..]
> >> > I'm glad that you are venting your hostility and aggression on a
> >> > keyboard and not on some unsuspecting person near to you. I hope there
> >> > aren't children in your vicinity.
> >> >
> >> > The vegan can't be responsible for their action, just as the farmer
> >> > can't be responsible for their own action. Your theory thus far has made
> >> > that clear. The farmer can't control their actions, they are powerless
> >> > before me. One word from me and they must kill. I command them. They are
> >> > my slaves. I throw in the promise of a few bucks and my minions respond.
> >> ===============
> >> Lack of any logical response noted, fool. Keep up the good work proving
> >> your ignorance and stupidity....
> >
> >Ah, rick! Hello! It is you that didn't respond. You have argued that the
> >killers of animals are not responsible and that the consumer is
> >responsible. I asked then, who is responsible for the consumer's
> >actions? How can you logically state that one is responsible for the
> >other, but not vice versa.
> >
> >I'm sorry you're looking foolish, rick. But this is the outcome of the
> >beliefs that you are advocating here in your attempt to make vegans look
> >bad.
>
> Rick, like all the other buck-passers here insists that
> the vegan must falsely take on the responsibility for
> the wrong actions of others, thereby enabling those
> wrong actions to continue and to make themselves
> fellow enablers of those wrong actions. In my view,
> his argument aims to recruit vegan apologists and
> enablers so he can then go on to insist that they are
> showing a contempt for the rights of animals when
> buying vegetables.

You've known him longer than I have. I have my own observations about
his style and methods. We'll see how the discussion goes.