Pay attention, ****witted "vegans". This shouldn't be
that hard for you to get.

Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
*consumption*.

The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news:wnQZb.4022>
> I hope this helps.

No it doesn't. **** off.

You don't add anything to any discussion. You are full of venomous diatribe.

>

Impotence wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news:wnQZb.4022>
>
>>I hope this helps.
>
>
> No it doesn't.

It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
and acknowledge it.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news:wnQZb.4022>
> >
> >>I hope this helps.
> >
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> and acknowledge it.

**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.

All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory with
your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.


>

Zakhar wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Impotence wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>
> news:wnQZb.4022>
>
>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it doesn't.
>>
>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>and acknowledge it.
>
>
> All you done tonight

Nice, wog: "all you done tonight". Learn English,
then perhaps you can participate.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Impotence wrote:
> >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> news:wnQZb.4022>
> > >
> > >>I hope this helps.
> > >
> > >
> > > No it doesn't.
> >
> > It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> > and acknowledge it.
>
> **** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>
> All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
with
> your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.

Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you disagree
with about the proposition?

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Pay attention, ****witted "vegans". This shouldn't be
> that hard for you to get.
>

That's right Johny No-Balls it's not hard for us all to get. We all
understand that after spending most of your life listening to Nazi's
like Rush Limbagh and Micheal Savage you feel like you have the right
stuff to save the world from people that would like to eat healthy and
instead of being a fat Nascar junky that lives on cheetos and pepsi. We
that this shit has rotted your brain and that is why you post these
rabid diatribes that ar best do us all a great service in that you are a
poster child of the effect conservative talk radio has uneducated white
trash dirt balls like you!

Why don't you share with us all what your educational background is?
Could it be that you never went beyond talk radio? Tell us what you
think of Rush Limbaugh. Tell us if I am wrong about you. Tell us you
come from a good family that loved you correctly as a child and never
called you stupid throughout your whole life.

What we want to get through our heads is what it is that spawns such
ignorant idiots like you.

Any body got a truck load of hydrocodone, Rush has a hemorrhoid!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second paragraph of this link and you will see just where to 8th grade
educated Jonathan Ball gets all his bile!

http://www.abctexas.com/saxe/saxe01012004.html

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news:wnQZb.4022>
> >
> >>I hope this helps.
> >
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> and acknowledge it.

How does zerba hide his stripes? What a joke little penis boy, no one is more
baptised in the ways of hate than you!

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Impotence wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >
> > news:wnQZb.4022>
> >
> >>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No it doesn't.
> >>
> >>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>and acknowledge it.
> >
> >
> > All you done tonight
>
> Nice, wog: "all you done tonight". Learn English,
> then perhaps you can participate.

Sure sign of a usenet loser is when the correct typos! Hard up for are
you Johny?

>
>
> http://www.abctexas.com/saxe/saxe01012004.html
>

This address may have to be copied and pasted to get through correctly.
Here is a sample of what is on the page:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts on 'Mad Cow Disease' From A Self-Described
Conservative Environmental Wacko
By Allan Saxe, WBAP Political Analyst

The finding of Mad Cow's disease in a cattle herd in Washington
State recently has left me with very mixed emotions.
On one hand, I never find any joy in economic reversals. Such
reversals hurt us all in a spiraling fashion. On the other
side, I have been a vegetarian for many years both for health,
perhaps imaginative, and ethical reasons.

Good grief, what is a conservative/libertarian, as I fashion
myself, doing being vegetarian! In some people's minds,
Rush Limbaugh being one, this just doesn't make sense. But it makes
great sense to me. Limbaugh frequently talks
about the environmental wackos, and animal rights advocates along
with other liberal causes. I admire Rush very
much and agree with him on almost every issue. But I do not wish to
be lumped together with liberals just because I am
an animal advocate, vegetarian and environmental wacko.

I am a conservative/libertarian on economic issues and a strong
national defense advocate. I have voted for
President Bush and will do so again. I am a great admirer of Ronald
Reagan and believe in limited government far
more than most Republicans. Please Rush, don't lump us vegetarians
and animal rights people with liberals.
Personally, I am a calm vegetarian. I never make a big deal over
eating dinner with friends who order chicken fried
steaks or hamburgers. And I would never even argue with a woman
wearing a mink coat, though I might look at her
strangely.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Impotence wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > news:wnQZb.4022>
> > > >
> > > >>I hope this helps.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No it doesn't.
> > >
> > > It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> > > and acknowledge it.
> >
> > **** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >
> > All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
> with
> > your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> > seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>
> Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you disagree
> with about the proposition?

It's SHIT.

I'm not going to kick shit about, no matter how "nicely" you ask, especially
~~jonnie~~ the baldy dwarf's shit *.*

>
>

SuckHard wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>SuckHard > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>>Impotence wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:wnQZb.4022>
>>>
>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>
>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>
>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>
>>with
>>
>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>
>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you disagree
>>with about the proposition?
>
>
> It's SHIT.

That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's
merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> SuckHard wrote:
>
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>SuckHard > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>>Impotence wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>news:wnQZb.4022>
> >>>
> >>>>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No it doesn't.
> >>>>
> >>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>>>and acknowledge it.
> >>>
> >>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >>>
> >>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
> >>
> >>with
> >>
> >>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> >>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
> >>
> >>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
disagree
> >>with about the proposition?
> >
> >
> > It's SHIT.
>
> That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
> disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's

Who's "we all"?

> merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.

I read enough to determine it was shit, just like I don't need a full
laboratory report to know when I tread in dog shit.

Anyway, I'm not going to kick shit about until I loose it, particularly
dwarf droppings.

>

ESL wrote:
>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>
>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>
> disagree
>
>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's SHIT.
>>
>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>disagree?

That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
wrote in the original post?

<snip rest of evasion>

Impotence wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>SuckHard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>SuckHard > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Impotence wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>news:wnQZb.4022>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>
>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>
> disagree
>
>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's SHIT.
>>
>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's
>
>
> Who's "we all"?

Think about it for a couple of decades, GregGeorge.

>
>
>>merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.
>
>
> I read enough to determine it was shit

No, you didn't.

Zakhar wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>SuckHard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>SuckHard > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Impotence wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>news:wnQZb.4022>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>
>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self congratulatory
>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>
>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>
> disagree
>
>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's SHIT.
>>
>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>disagree? Actually, we all know already that it's
>
>
> Who's "we all"?
>
>
>>merely the fact that I wrote it; you didn't really read it.
>
>
> I read enough

You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?

Jonathan Ball wrote:
<...>
>> I read enough
>
> You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?

He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <...>
> >> I read enough
> >
> > You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>
> He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.

I've come to the conclusion tex, that you're easily influenced; first by
veganism, next by some baldy dwarf. Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?

>

Impotence wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>I read enough
>>>
>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>
>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>
>
> I've come to the conclusion

That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.

Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.

"useless ****ing texan prick" > wrote in message
...
> ESL wrote:
> >>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No it doesn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>>>>>and acknowledge it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self
congratulatory
> >>>>
> >>>>with
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
> >>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
> >>>>
> >>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
> >
> > disagree
> >
> >>>>with about the proposition?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's SHIT.
> >>
> >>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
> >>disagree?
>
> That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
> call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
> wrote in the original post?

Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?

I'm not going to kick shit about especially with ~~jonnie~~ and texmex AKA
pinky and perky.

>
> <snip rest of evasion>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>I read enough
> >>>
> >>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
> >>
> >>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
> >
> >
> > I've come to the conclusion
>
> That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
> been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.
>
> Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.

That's a ****ing JOKE.

Calling that piece of SHIT an article. Only your texan PANSY takes it
seriously.

>

Impotence wrote:

> usual suspect > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ESL wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
>>>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self
>
> congratulatory
>
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be taken
>>>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
>>>
>>>disagree
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>with about the proposition?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's SHIT.
>>>>
>>>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>>>disagree?
>>
>>That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
>>call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
>>wrote in the original post?
>
>
> Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?
>
> I'm not going to kick shit about

You can't say what it is in my article with which you
disagree, because

a) you didn't read it
b) you couldn't understand it even if you tried to read it

The answer to Mr. Suspect's question is, no, you cannot
correct anything I wrote in the original post. You
don't "disagree" with it, GregGeorge; you just don't
like the author, and you're letting that blind you to
the correct information contained in the post.

Thanks for making that clear.

Impotence wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Impotence wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>>I read enough
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>>>
>>>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've come to the conclusion
>>
>>That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
>>been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.
>>
>>Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.
>
>
> That's a ****ing JOKE.

No, it isn't. It was an article written seriously, and
with the intent to inform.

Thakns for confirming you haven't read it.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > usual suspect > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>ESL wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>I hope this helps.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>No it doesn't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It does. You're too stupid and hate-filled to get it
> >>>>>>>>and acknowledge it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>**** off ball, you ****ing evil baldy dwarf.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>All you done tonight is attack and harangue and be self
> >
> > congratulatory
> >
> >>>>>>with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>your cohort texmex, and you post this shit, and expect it to be
taken
> >>>>>>>seriously. LOL, you stupid ****.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Aside from your dislike for the author, what specifically do you
> >>>
> >>>disagree
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>with about the proposition?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's SHIT.
> >>>>
> >>>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
> >>>>disagree?
> >>
> >>That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
> >>call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
> >>wrote in the original post?
> >
> >
> > Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?
> >
> > I'm not going to kick shit about
>
> You can't say what it is in my article with which you
> disagree, because
>
> a) you didn't read it
> b) you couldn't understand it even if you tried to read it
>
> The answer to Mr. Suspect's question is, no, you cannot


Calling your rent boy Mr. now?

> correct anything I wrote in the original post. You
> don't "disagree" with it, GregGeorge; you just don't
> like the author, and you're letting that blind you to
> the correct information contained in the post.

I don't like the author, AND it's SHIT.

The only person that took it up the, I mean, took it seriously is the texan
pansy boy.


>
> Thanks for making that clear.

All part of the service you baldy ****ing dwarf.
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Impotence wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>>><...>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I read enough
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
> >>>>
> >>>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I've come to the conclusion
> >>
> >>That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
> >>been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.
> >>
> >>Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.
> >
> >
> > That's a ****ing JOKE.
>
> No, it isn't. It was an article written seriously, and
> with the intent to inform.
>
> Thakns for confirming you haven't read it.

It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.

>

Suckhard wrote:
>>>>I read enough
>>>
>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>
>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>
> I've come to the conclusion

You don't think hard enough to reach conclusions.

> that you're easily influenced;

That's what I thought of you when Lesley and others helped you overcome
your position on rabbits versus people. Too bad you couldn't hold your
ground on why vivisection can be of benefit to man AND beast.

> first by veganism,

My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with it.
That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
experience with "vegans."

> ...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
> second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

Suckhard wrote:

> "useless ****ing texan prick"

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

<...>
>>>>>It's SHIT.
>>>>
>>>>That's not specific at all. What is it with which you
>>>>disagree?
>>
>>That's the question you need to address, Suckhard. What point(s) do you
>>call "SHIT" and -- most importantly -- why? Can you correct anything Jon
>>wrote in the original post?
>
> Can't you ****ing read you daft ****er?

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

> I'm not going to kick shit about especially with ~~jonnie~~ and texmex AKA
> pinky and perky.

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

>><snip rest of evasion>

Continued evasion noted.

Suckhard wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Impotence wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>>I read enough
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>>>
>>>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've come to the conclusion
>>
>>That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
>>been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.
>>
>>Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.
>
>
> That's a ****ing JOKE.
>
> Calling that piece of SHIT an article. Only your texan PANSY takes it
> seriously.

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

Suckhard wrote:
<...>
> It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.

You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
change, asshole?

"texan pansy boy" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
> >>>>I read enough
> >>>
> >>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
> >>
> >>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
> >
> > I've come to the conclusion
>
> You don't think hard enough to reach conclusions.
>
> > that you're easily influenced;
>
> That's what I thought of you when Lesley and others helped you overcome
> your position on rabbits versus people. Too bad you couldn't hold your
> ground on why vivisection can be of benefit to man AND beast.
>
> > first by veganism,
>
> My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with it.
> That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
> why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
> experience with "vegans."

I think the opposite. You went FOR the label.

>
> > ...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
> > second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?
>
> You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
> substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups.

What a load of ****ing ********.

He targets women and you're so easily influenced by your guru that you
blindly follow him. The last few days has been dedicated to washing other
peoples dirty linen, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsgroups'
subjects.

>Yet when
> I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!

More lies from the texan pansy boy.

>What are your
> posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> attempts to agitate.

He and you are just getting what you dish out that all. It's a bit of fun
for me.


>That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> change, asshole?

**** off pansy boy.

>

"texan pansy boy" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
>
> > "useless ****ing texan prick"

Come back with an original post you pansy.

Your guru ~~jonnie~~ boy will be miffed with you, and I wouldn't like to see
such sweet love fade after showing so much promise.

"pansy boy from texarse" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>Impotence wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>>><...>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I read enough
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
> >>>>
> >>>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I've come to the conclusion
> >>
> >>That you don't know your ass from your face. We've
> >>been telling you that for a few years, GregGeorge.
> >>
> >>Thanks for confirming that you haven't read my article.
> >
> >
> > That's a ****ing JOKE.
> >
> > Calling that piece of SHIT an article. Only your texan PANSY takes it
> > seriously.
>
> You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
> substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
> I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
> posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> change, asshole?

Yawn.

What's it like in texARSE?

>

"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
> <...>
> > It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
>
> You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
> substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
> I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
> posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> change, asshole?

Your cut and paste shows very little imagination. See how quickly you fall
apart when your mentor isn't around to keep you on the right lap.

>

Suckhard wrote:
>>
>>>>>>I read enough
>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
>>>>
>>>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
>>>
>>>I've come to the conclusion
>>
>>You don't think hard enough to reach conclusions.
>>
>>
>>>that you're easily influenced;
>>
>>That's what I thought of you when Lesley and others helped you overcome
>>your position on rabbits versus people. Too bad you couldn't hold your
>>ground on why vivisection can be of benefit to man AND beast.
>>
>>
>>>first by veganism,
>>
>>My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with it.
>>That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
>>why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
>>experience with "vegans."
>
> I think the opposite. You went FOR the label.

Nope. I thought it was solely about the diet. If it were, I'd use the
label. I'm content to be vegetarian or any other name, just as long as
there's no political or ethical assumption linked to the label.

>>>...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
>>>second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?
>>
>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups.
>
> What a load of ****ing ********.
>
> He targets women

Women like you?
Women like Ray?
Women like Dreck?
Women like Davey?
Women like Jon Falafel Lindsay?

> and you're so easily influenced by your guru that you
> blindly follow him.

I'm operating under my own influence.

> The last few days has been dedicated to washing other
> peoples dirty linen, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsgroups'
> subjects.

I expect you to keep Karen, Lesley, Raymond, Dreck, et al, in line then.

>>Yet when
>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
>
> More lies from the texan pansy boy.

Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?

>>What are your
>>posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
>>attempts to agitate.
>
> He and you are just getting what you dish out that all. It's a bit of fun
> for me.

Simpletons like you are easily amused.

>>That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
>>try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
>>change, asshole?
>
> **** off pansy boy.

Deal with issues from now on, asshole.

Suckhard wrote:
> Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.

Neither do your harassing, stalking posts.

<...>

"pansy boy" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>I read enough
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You didn't read any of it. Why are you lying?
> >>>>
> >>>>He probably gets headaches when he reads stuff he has to think about.
> >>>
> >>>I've come to the conclusion
> >>
> >>You don't think hard enough to reach conclusions.
> >>
> >>
> >>>that you're easily influenced;
> >>
> >>That's what I thought of you when Lesley and others helped you overcome
> >>your position on rabbits versus people. Too bad you couldn't hold your
> >>ground on why vivisection can be of benefit to man AND beast.
> >>
> >>
> >>>first by veganism,
> >>
> >>My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with it.
> >>That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
> >>why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
> >>experience with "vegans."
> >
> > I think the opposite. You went FOR the label.
>
> Nope. I thought it was solely about the diet. If it were, I'd use the
> label. I'm content to be vegetarian or any other name, just as long as
> there's no political or ethical assumption linked to the label.

I'll believe you.

>
> >>>...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
> >>>second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?
> >>
> >>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
> >>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups.
> >
> > What a load of ****ing ********.
> >
> > He targets women
>
> Women like you?
> Women like Ray?
> Women like Dreck?
> Women like Davey?
> Women like Jon Falafel Lindsay?

No, he attacks women in a significantly different way, you, I believe,
should be astute enough to notice that.

>
> > and you're so easily influenced by your guru that you
> > blindly follow him.
>
> I'm operating under my own influence.

Everyone gets some form of guidance from others, the wisest amongst us
listen to as many sources as possible and draw a balanced view. It is very
clear that you have taken the dwarf's poison bait, hook line and sinker.


>
> > The last few days has been dedicated to washing other
> > peoples dirty linen, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsgroups'
> > subjects.
>
> I expect you to keep Karen, Lesley, Raymond, Dreck, et al, in line then.

I'm not the newsgroups' policeman.

>
> >>Yet when
> >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> >
> > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
>
> Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?

Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.

>
> >>What are your
> >>posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> >>attempts to agitate.
> >
> > He and you are just getting what you dish out that all. It's a bit of
fun
> > for me.
>
> Simpletons like you are easily amused.
>
> >>That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> >>try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> >>change, asshole?
> >
> > **** off pansy boy.
>
> Deal with issues from now on, asshole.

When I choose to, I will.

>

"texmex the pansy from outer space" > wrote in message
...
> Suckhard wrote:
> > Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
>
> Neither do your harassing, stalking posts.

Enjoying it are we, eh tex?

>
> <...>
>

Suckhard wrote:
<...>
>>>>My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with it.
>>>>That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
>>>>why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
>>>>experience with "vegans."
>>>
>>>I think the opposite. You went FOR the label.
>>
>>Nope. I thought it was solely about the diet. If it were, I'd use the
>>label. I'm content to be vegetarian or any other name, just as long as
>>there's no political or ethical assumption linked to the label.
>
> I'll believe you.

It's the truth.

>>>>>...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
>>>>>second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?
>>>>
>>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
>>>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups.
>>>
>>>What a load of ****ing ********.
>>>
>>>He targets women
>>
>>Women like you?
>>Women like Ray?
>>Women like Dreck?
>>Women like Davey?
>>Women like Jon Falafel Lindsay?
>
> No,

*Yes*. He corrects bad thinking regardless of the sex of the bad thinker.

> he attacks women in a significantly different way,

How? I've read his replies and I think he treats people equally. Are you
jealous that he doesn't call you "slut" or "carpet-muncher"? I'm sure he
could oblige, lol.

<...>
>>>The last few days has been dedicated to washing other
>>>peoples dirty linen, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsgroups'
>>>subjects.
>>
>>I expect you to keep Karen, Lesley, Raymond, Dreck, et al, in line then.
>
> I'm not the newsgroups' policeman.

Your inconsistency in addressing the authors of other OT posts is noted.

>>>>Yet when
>>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
>>>
>>>More lies from the texan pansy boy.
>>
>>Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
>
> Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.

Haha! I knew you couldn't recall it off the top of your head, either.

<...>
>>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
>
> When I choose to, I will.

You're incapable of addressing issues.

"flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~" >
wrote in message ...
> Suckhard wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>My embrace was of *food*, not of politics or labels associated with
it.
> >>>>That's something which I've been clear about since posting at AFV, and
> >>>>why I so easily discarded that label when given enough information and
> >>>>experience with "vegans."
> >>>
> >>>I think the opposite. You went FOR the label.
> >>
> >>Nope. I thought it was solely about the diet. If it were, I'd use the
> >>label. I'm content to be vegetarian or any other name, just as long as
> >>there's no political or ethical assumption linked to the label.
> >
> > I'll believe you.
>
> It's the truth.

I'll believe you!

>
> >>>>>...Why don't you grow up, and stop playing
> >>>>>second fiddle to the wee baldy man from California?
> >>>>
> >>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we
both
> >>>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups.
> >>>
> >>>What a load of ****ing ********.
> >>>
> >>>He targets women
> >>
> >>Women like you?
> >>Women like Ray?
> >>Women like Dreck?
> >>Women like Davey?
> >>Women like Jon Falafel Lindsay?
> >
> > No,
>
> *Yes*. He corrects bad thinking regardless of the sex of the bad thinker.
>
> > he attacks women in a significantly different way,
>
> How? I've read his replies and I think he treats people equally. Are you
> jealous that he doesn't call you "slut" or "carpet-muncher"? I'm sure he
> could oblige, lol.

I was wrong to think that you'd be astute enough to notice.

(Don't use the dirty ~~jonnie~~ trick of using half the sentence above in a
reply.)

>
> <...>
> >>>The last few days has been dedicated to washing other
> >>>peoples dirty linen, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsgroups'
> >>>subjects.
> >>
> >>I expect you to keep Karen, Lesley, Raymond, Dreck, et al, in line then.
> >
> > I'm not the newsgroups' policeman.
>
> Your inconsistency in addressing the authors of other OT posts is noted.

It may appear inconsistent to you, but I don't give a **** what you think.

>
> >>>>Yet when
> >>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> >>>
> >>>More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> >>
> >>Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
> >
> > Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
>
> Haha! I knew you couldn't recall it off the top of your head, either.

Ha ****ing ha, what the **** are you on? I don't make a diary of postings, I
could look in my sent box, but I'm not.

>
> <...>
> >>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
> >
> > When I choose to, I will.
>
> You're incapable of addressing issues.

More lies from the texan pansy boy.

>

Suckhard wrote:
<...>
>>>>>He targets women
>>>>
>>>>Women like you?
>>>>Women like Ray?
>>>>Women like Dreck?
>>>>Women like Davey?
>>>>Women like Jon Falafel Lindsay?
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>*Yes*. He corrects bad thinking regardless of the sex of the bad thinker.
>>
>>
>>>he attacks women in a significantly different way,
>>
>>How? I've read his replies and I think he treats people equally. Are you
>>jealous that he doesn't call you "slut" or "carpet-muncher"? I'm sure he
>>could oblige, lol.
>
> I was wrong to think that you'd be astute enough to notice.

No, I asked for you to elaborate on what you think constitutes an attack
-- much less a "different" one.

<...>
>>>>>The last few days has been dedicated to washing other
>>>>>peoples dirty linen, and absolutely NOTHING to do with the newsgroups'
>>>>>subjects.
>>>>
>>>>I expect you to keep Karen, Lesley, Raymond, Dreck, et al, in line then.
>>>
>>>I'm not the newsgroups' policeman.
>>
>>Your inconsistency in addressing the authors of other OT posts is noted.
>
> It may appear inconsistent

No, it IS inconsistent.

> to you, but I don't... think.

I know. I made this point earlier.

>>>>>>Yet when
>>>>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
>>>>>
>>>>>More lies from the texan pansy boy.
>>>>
>>>>Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
>>>
>>>Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
>>
>>Haha! I knew you couldn't recall it off the top of your head, either.
>
> Ha ****ing ha, what the **** are you on? I don't make a diary of postings, I
> could look in my sent box, but I'm not.

It would take effort, just like thinking. We know you're capable of neither.

<...>