dog-beating dickhead wrote:
>>>>>Snipping your rants and diversions without notation
>>>>>is par for the course on this group, sonny, and if you
>>>>>were at all consistent in your whines about this point
>>>>>in Usenet protocol you should be criticizing others
>>>>>for their part in doing it too
>>>>
>>>>Tu quoque fallacy. I'm not the usenet police.
>>>
>>>You've misused the term.
>>
>>No, I've not.

I'm glad you agree, fatso.

>>>I'm not trying to claim my
>>>snips are legitimate because you snipped first,
>>
>>Yes, you are and you compounded it by asking why I don't criticize others who
>>play your silly little game by your peculiar and unethical rules.
>>
>><...>
>>
>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>editing your opponent's post,
>>
>>Wrong, fatso.
>
> Only someone such as yourself would fail to see the
> wrong done in editing your opponent's posts against
> the usual snipping done here.
>
> Unlike you, I don't edit my opponent's whole
> sentence to suit before replying to it.

Oh no? What the **** do you call this, lard ass?

Yes, you do. That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post
to which you responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my
post you left intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what
little you left from the posts which you replied.

http://snipurl.com/6kzz
http://snipurl.com/6l01

There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
context to make your pretext.

Starting with you...
------
> Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.

Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
taking things out of context to make a pretext.

RESTO
The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
END RESTORE

What part of *that* do you specifically object?

------

You snipped that, and ended your reply from the above post with this (starting
and ending with your unethical snipping to take others out of context):

>> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>
>I noted as much

Good.

http://snipurl.com/6l05
--------

The line that you edited contained NO name-calling. I wrote:
I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your
snip about it.

Now what were you saying about not editing anyone else's posts? THAT was your
last straw, and THAT is when I decided to play your stupid game of editing your
posts. You started it and you have NO grounds for complaining, you big fat arsehole.

<...>

> I snip away your
> childish rants and name-calling, but I don't edit your
> sentences to suit before replying to them.

Bullshit. Where was the name-calling in the part about autonomy which you
snipped and responded with "Good"? You fat ****ing liar. I'm more inclined to
believe David's allegations with every lie you tell, tubby.

You're the sleaziest person in these groups, ethically and otherwise.
<...>

morbidly obese dog-beating dickhead wrote:
> You've snipped out a whole discussion concerning your
> view on natural predation and how you lied to avoid
> admitting it. And you criticize ME for unethical snipping?

Yes. That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post to
which you responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my post
you left intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what little you
left from the posts which you replied.

http://snipurl.com/6kzz
http://snipurl.com/6l01

There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
context to make your pretext.

Starting with you...
------
> Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.

Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
taking things out of context to make a pretext.

RESTO
The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
END RESTORE

What part of *that* do you specifically object?

------

You snipped that, and ended your reply from the above post with this (starting
and ending with your unethical snipping to take others out of context):

>> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>
>I noted as much

Good.

http://snipurl.com/6l05
--------

The line that you edited contained NO name-calling. I wrote:
I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your
snip about it.

Now what were you saying about not editing anyone else's posts? THAT was your
last straw, and THAT is when I decided to play your stupid game of editing your
posts. You started it and you have NO grounds for complaining, you big fat arsehole.

<...>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:43:33 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>ipse dixt wrote:
>>>>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>>>>
>>>>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>>>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>>>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>>>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>>>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>>>>
>>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>>editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing.
>>
>> No, it isn't, and only someone such as yourself would
>> fail to see the wrong done in editing your opponent's
>> posts against the usual snipping done here.
>
>I warned you in advance that two could play your game. That is all I did.

But that wasn't "all you did". You edited whole sentences
of my posts while I only snipped irrelevant material from
yours without noting, and that's par for the course here
most of the time. They are two completely separate things.
You've also tried to lie by claiming you didn't edit my posts,
but the evidence you keep snipping away shows that you
did.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies
to them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."

[..]
>> I snip away your
>> childish rants and name-calling, but I don't edit your
>> sentences to suit before replying to them.
>
>Yes, you do. That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post
>to which you responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my
>post you left intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what
>little you left from the posts which you replied.
>
>http://snipurl.com/6kzz
>http://snipurl.com/6l01

Those examples are only where I've snipped without notation.
They don't show I've edited your sentences, liar.

>There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
>http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
>context to make your pretext.
>
>Starting with you...
>------
> > Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
>
>Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
>taking things out of context to make a pretext.

Again, just a snip of material I'd already gone over before
rather than the editing of whole sentences as you do. You
can't compare the two. What you do is downright dishonest
and unethical. You shouldn't EDIT your opponents posts
before replying to them.

>RESTO
>The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
>free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
>prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
>concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
>that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
>END RESTORE
>
>What part of *that* do you specifically object?
>
>------
>
>You snipped that,

So what? I've covered all that before. If I had left it
in but edited it, as you've been shown to do, then that
would be a different story altogether. What you do is
wrong.

[..]

> You started it and you have NO grounds for complaining, you big fat arsehole.
>
I have not EDITED your posts, so your tu quoque falls
to the ground. Besides, why should I leave your stupid
name-calling in anyway?

Pinocchio wrote:
>>>>>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>>>>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>>>>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>>>>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>>>>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>>>>>
>>>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>>>editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't, and only someone such as yourself would
>>>fail to see the wrong done in editing your opponent's
>>>posts against the usual snipping done here.
>>
>>I warned you in advance that two could play your game. That is all I did.
>
> But that wasn't "all you did".

Yes, it was.

<snip twisted sophistry and self-justifications>
> I have not EDITED your posts,

You have:
---------
---------
That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post to which you
responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my post you left
intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what little you left
from the posts which you replied.

http://snipurl.com/6kzz
http://snipurl.com/6l01

There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
context to make your pretext.

Starting with you...
------
> Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.

Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
taking things out of context to make a pretext.

RESTO
The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
END RESTORE

What part of *that* do you specifically object?

------

You snipped that, and ended your reply from the above post with this (starting
and ending with your unethical snipping to take others out of context):

>> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>
>I noted as much

Good.

http://snipurl.com/6l05
--------

The line that you edited contained NO name-calling. I wrote:
I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your
snip about it.

Now what were you saying about not editing anyone else's posts? THAT was your
last straw, and THAT is when I decided to play your stupid game of editing your
posts. You started it and you have NO grounds for complaining, you big fat arsehole.

<...>
-----------
-----------

> so your tu quoque falls
> to the ground.

Nope, it stands. And it was YOUR tu quoque.

> Besides, why should I leave your stupid
> name-calling in anyway?

You snipped out a LOT more than name-calling -- see above for the evidence that
I didn't call you names until you called me one. When you dish it out as much
bullshit as you do, you better have thick enough skin to handle a little bit
when it comes back to you. Your whining shows your hypocrisy. Be a man, you fat
pussy.

"ipse dixit" > wrote>
> I only snipped irrelevant material

Irrelevant to your agenda maybe, but you constantly snip material relevant
to the point your opponent is making. You also snip to destroy context and
juxtapose quotes from your opponents to give false impressions.

I do it to you now too, not to give false impressions, just to annoy you, a
valid and worthy goal.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:47:02 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

[..]
>>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>>editing your opponent's post,
>>>
>>>Wrong, fatso.
>>
>> Only someone such as yourself would fail to see the
>> wrong done in editing your opponent's posts against
>> the usual snipping done here.
>>
>> Unlike you, I don't edit my opponent's whole
>> sentence to suit before replying to it.
>
>Oh no? What the **** do you call this, lard ass?
>
>Yes, you do. That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post
>to which you responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my
>post you left intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what
>little you left from the posts which you replied.
>
>http://snipurl.com/6kzz
>http://snipurl.com/6l01

Those examples are only where I've snipped without notation.
They don't show I've edited your sentences, liar.

>There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
>http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
>context to make your pretext.
>
>Starting with you...
>------
> > Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
>
>Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
>taking things out of context to make a pretext.
>
>RESTO
>The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
>free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
>prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
>concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
>that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
>END RESTORE
>
>What part of *that* do you specifically object?
>
>------
>
>You snipped that

Again, just a snip of material I'd already gone over before
rather than the editing of whole sentences as you do. You
can't compare the two. What you do is downright dishonest
and unethical. You shouldn't EDIT your opponents posts
before replying to them.

[..]
>> I snip away your
>> childish rants and name-calling, but I don't edit your
>> sentences to suit before replying to them.
>
>Bullshit.

You haven't shown where I've edited your sentences.
You've shown where I've snipped stuff I've covered
before but you still haven't shown where I've EDITED
your sentences before replying to them. You, on the other
hand have edited mine and I've shown you the proof of
that with a link.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies
to them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."
[..]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:02:15 +0100, "ipse dixit" > wrote:

>
>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>> farrell77 wrote:
>> <...>
>> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>> >>
>> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>> >
>> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>>
>> That is NOT what I said.
>
> [start Mmhsb]
> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
> [usual suspect]
> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>
>and
>
> "Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
> stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
> be messy, but they're not cruel."
> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq
>
>and
>
>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>other predators are less humane than humans."
>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>
>It's clearly what you said, christian.

Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane. It's
absurd to think that they can be, since they would
have to deliberately try to be, and they can't even
conceive of the idea. Only humans can be humane.

He didn't say that animals killed by nonhuman
predators *always* suffer more than those slaughtered
by humans. Sometimes they do and sometimes they
don't. It really creates a strong feeling of disgust
when it's made so clear that you people who *pretend!!!*
to care about animals are unaware of facts like that.
And it creates an even stronger feeling of disgust when
you prove without any doubt that you don't even care
about facts like that!!! You very obviously care less
about animals than he does, than Etter does, and than
I do. You may be about on the same level as the Gonad
however.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:07:47 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Pinocchio wrote:
>>>>>>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>>>>>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>>>>>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>>>>>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>>>>>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>>>>editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>>>>>>them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't, and only someone such as yourself would
>>>>fail to see the wrong done in editing your opponent's
>>>>posts against the usual snipping done here.
>>>
>>>I warned you in advance that two could play your game. That is all I did.
>>
>> But that wasn't "all you did".
>
>Yes, it was.

It wasn't, and being the hypocritical coward you are, you
snipped the evidence of your lies away yet again;
<restore>
But that wasn't "all you did". You edited whole sentences
of my posts while I only snipped irrelevant material from
yours without noting, and that's par for the course here
most of the time. They are two completely separate things.
You've also tried to lie by claiming you didn't edit my posts,
but the evidence you keep snipping away shows that you
did.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies
to them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."
<end restore>

><snip twisted sophistry and self-justifications>
>> I have not EDITED your posts,
>
>You have:
>---------
>---------
>That is all you ever do. Compare the following. The first is a post to which you
>responded. The second is your response. Compare what parts of my post you left
>intact. Click on the "complete thread" link and compare what little you left
>from the posts which you replied.
>
>http://snipurl.com/6kzz
>http://snipurl.com/6l01

Once again, those examples do not show that I have
edited the sentences in your posts. They merely show
where I have snipped portions which I have already
addressed. How many times must I repeat this before
you retract your claim that I have edited your posts?

[..]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"ipse dixit" > wrote>
>> I only snipped irrelevant material
>
>Irrelevant to your agenda maybe, but you constantly snip material relevant
>to the point your opponent is making.

Snipping away material I have already responded to is
not the same as editing an opponent's sentences in their
post as "usual suspect" and yourself do.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
to them.
[..]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
>On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:02:15 +0100, "ipse dixit" > wrote:
>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>>> farrell77 wrote:
>>> <...>
>>> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>>> >>
>>> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>>> >
>>> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>>>
>>> That is NOT what I said.
>>
>> [start Mmhsb]
>> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
>> [usual suspect]
>> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>>
>>and
>>
>> "Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
>> stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
>> be messy, but they're not cruel."
>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq
>>
>>and
>>
>>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>>other predators are less humane than humans."
>>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>>
>>It's clearly what you said, christian.
>
> Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.

According to "usual suspect" it's *cruel*, and that's
the issue being raised here.

[..]

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:56:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
> >
> >> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
> >> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
> >> them.
> >
> >No it's not,
>
> Yes, it most certainly is. To edit your opponent's
> post before replying to it is merely arguing with
> yourself instead of your opponent.

It's more than that, it's misrepresenting your opponent's point of view,
which is exactly what you do. In fact you hardly do anything else.

> It's the most
> reprehensible tactic available to him and cannot
> be excused

I'm not excusing it, I'm applauding it. Incidentally, the tactic of cutting
off a sentence halfway and responding as if were the entire thought is
another little game I learned from you. That one alone justifies the use of
any tactic against you.

"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote>
> >> I only snipped irrelevant material
> >
> >Irrelevant to your agenda maybe, but you constantly snip material
relevant
> >to the point your opponent is making.
>
> Snipping away material I have already responded to

That's not your criterion for snippage you lying ****. You snip and paste
deliberately to distort and destroy the meaning of what your opponent is
saying.

> is
> not the same as editing an opponent's sentences in their
> post as "usual suspect" and yourself do.

I told you already, you have forfeited all moral authority to judge others'
posting habits.
>
> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
> thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
> entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
> to them.

So what? I applaud any and all tactics used to annoy you. Maybe eventually
you'll get the message that your behaviour will not be tolerated.

[..]

"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:

> >>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
> >>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
> >>other predators are less humane than humans."
> >>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
> >>
> >>It's clearly what you said, christian.
> >
> > Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.

No they can't, but their actions frequently result in unmitigated pain and
suffering, and that is one definition of "cruel".

> According to "usual suspect" it's *cruel*, and that's
> the issue being raised here.

You aren't "raising an issue", sophist, you're engaging in a feeble
equivocation. An ARA named "nemo" chimed in earlier that, indeed, nature is
cruel. Respond to her

[..]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
>> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
>> thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
>> entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
>> to them.
>
>So what?

It shows two things;
1) that he unethically alters his opponent's posts before
responding to them.
2) He lies while persistently insisting he doesn't edit posts.

It's as simple as that.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:43:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
>
>> >>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>> >>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>> >>other predators are less humane than humans."
>> >>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>> >>
>> >>It's clearly what you said, christian.
>> >
>> > Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.
>
>No they can't, but their actions frequently result in unmitigated pain and
>suffering, and that is one definition of "cruel".

You and "usual suspect" might think that nature and
natural predation is cruel, but normal-thinking people
don't, I'm glad to say.

>> According to "usual suspect" it's *cruel*, and that's
>> the issue being raised here.
>
>You aren't "raising an issue"

"usual suspect" is on record as agreeing with the
proposition that nature and natural predation is cruel,
yet he tries to insist he's never agreed to any such
thing at all. I've provided his quotes to show that he
does believe nature and natural predation is cruel

[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

So yes, I am raising an issue that "usual suspect"
1) believes nature and natural predation to be cruel
2) lies and snips away the evidence pointing to (1)

Another issue I'm raising in this thread is that "usual
suspect" unethically alters his opponent's sentences
before replying to them AND then lies by claiming
he doesn't. He invariably snips away all the evidence
in the link I keep providing showing he does, so once
again he is a proven liar.

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

Now I've finished proving he lied etc., let's look at
the evidence showing your more recent lies now,
shall we? You've been claiming all these years that
you live in Canada, yet evidence from
http://www.ip2location.com/IP-COUNTRY.HTM
shows you live in Kirkland, Washington.

24.113.90.217 US UNITED STATES WASHINGTON KIRKLAND

[IP2Location™ IP-COUNTRY database enables solution
to determine the country of any IP address in a few simple
steps. First, retrieve IP address from networking protocol
or server-side variable of Web server. Next, translate IP
address to IP number in decimal format to speed up
database query. Lastly, reverse lookup the IP number from
the IP2Location™ database

** to pinpoint exact geographical location.**]
http://www.ip2location.com/IP-COUNTRY.HTM

Why have you been lying, Dutch?

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
> >> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
> >> thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
> >> entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
> >> to them.
> >
> >So what?
>
> It shows that he has a lot of common sense for taking the measure of me.

I agree.

"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:43:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >> >>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
> >> >>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
> >> >>other predators are less humane than humans."
> >> >>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
> >> >>
> >> >>It's clearly what you said, christian.
> >> >
> >> > Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.
> >
> >No they can't, but their actions frequently result in unmitigated pain
and
> >suffering, and that is one definition of "cruel".
>
> You and "usual suspect" might think that nature and
> natural predation is cruel, but normal-thinking people
> don't, I'm glad to say.


Thousands of normal-thinking people say it is, try Googling "'nature' and
'cruel'". It also fits one of the definitions of the word exactly "Causing
pain or suffering".

<snip>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:24:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:56:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
>> >
>> >> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>> >> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >No it's not,
>>
>> Yes, it most certainly is. To edit your opponent's
>> post before replying to it is merely arguing with
>> yourself instead of your opponent.
>
>It's more than that, it's misrepresenting your opponent's point of view

Exactly!

>which is exactly what you do. In fact you hardly do anything else.

My snips, like yours aren't always noted, but that
Usenet protocol is a whole lot different to your and
"usual suspect"'s editing of your opponent's sentences.
What's more is that "usual suspect" denies he alters
his opponents sentences despite the evidenc I bring
here proving he does. http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just
follow that short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that he edited my posts before making his replies
to them. Once again, it's proven beyond all doubt that
he's lying

>> It's the most
>> reprehensible tactic available to him and cannot
>> be excused
>
>I'm not excusing it, I'm applauding it.

Goody for you, and I'm not surprised, since you have
also edited my posts as well.

For the record, when you asked me about the contents
of my grocery basket I told you it was fallen apples
and mustard cress. You edited those items in your
reply post to include non-vegan products without noting
it, hoping the reader in google archives would note I
actually buy those items. Your excuse for that unethical
stunt was just as unethical. You claimed you did it because
you thought I was lying, yet I might've actually been on a
vegan-type fast at the time of your asking.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:06:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>> >> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
>> >> thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
>> >> entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
>> >> to them.
>> >
>> >So what?
>>
>> It shows that he has a lot of common sense for taking the measure of me.
>
>I agree.

You see, now you're editing my posts again before replying
to them, just as "usual suspect" does. I never wrote that
above sentence. You did and then made a stupid remark
in response to it. If this is the best you can do, then fine,
carry on. It's certainly no skin off my nose and only helps
me in later arguments to show you're an unethical liar.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:20:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:43:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
>> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>> >> >>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>> >> >>other predators are less humane than humans."
>> >> >>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It's clearly what you said, christian.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.
>> >
>> >No they can't, but their actions frequently result
>> >in unmitigated pain and suffering, and that is one
>> >definition of "cruel".
>>
>> You and "usual suspect" might think that nature and
>> natural predation is cruel, but normal-thinking people
>> don't, I'm glad to say.
>
>Thousands of normal-thinking people say it is, try Googling "'nature' and
>'cruel'". It also fits one of the definitions of the word exactly "Causing
>pain or suffering".

Nature and natural predation is not and cannot be cruel,
stupid, whatever you and "usual suspect" say. You're
both idiots.

><snip>
>
Why did you snip all the evidence of your and "usual
suspect"'s lies, coward? can't you deal with the fact
that you're a liar?

<unsnip>
"usual suspect" is on record as agreeing with the
proposition that nature and natural predation is cruel,
yet he tries to insist he's never agreed to any such
thing at all. I've provided his quotes to show that he
does believe nature and natural predation is cruel

[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

So yes, I am raising an issue that "usual suspect"
1) believes nature and natural predation to be cruel
2) lies and snips away the evidence pointing to (1)

Another issue I'm raising in this thread is that "usual
suspect" unethically alters his opponent's sentences
before replying to them AND then lies by claiming
he doesn't. He invariably snips away all the evidence
in the link I keep providing showing he does, so once
again he is a proven liar.

<unsnip>
You did, and here's the proof that you did
http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just follow that
short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that you edited my posts before making
your replies to them. Once again, it's proven
beyond all doubt that you're lying.
<endsnip>

Now I've finished proving he lied etc., let's look at
the evidence showing your more recent lies now,
shall we? You've been claiming all these years that
you live in Canada, yet evidence from
http://www.ip2location.com/IP-COUNTRY.HTM
shows you live in Kirkland, Washington.

24.113.90.217 US UNITED STATES WASHINGTON KIRKLAND

[IP2Location™ IP-COUNTRY database enables solution
to determine the country of any IP address in a few simple
steps. First, retrieve IP address from networking protocol
or server-side variable of Web server. Next, translate IP
address to IP number in decimal format to speed up
database query. Lastly, reverse lookup the IP number from
the IP2Location™ database

** to pinpoint exact geographical location.**]
http://www.ip2location.com/IP-COUNTRY.HTM

Why have you been lying, Dutch?
<unsnip>

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:48:03 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
>> You've snipped out a whole discussion concerning your
>> view on natural predation and how you lied to avoid
>> admitting it. And you criticize ME for unethical snipping?
>
>Yes. That is all you ever do.

For once I agree: it's ALL I ever do, but, unlike you
I don't edit my opponent's sentences before replying
to them.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you edited
entire sentences of my posts before making your replies
to them. I snipped a few of your childish rants, but that
doesn't give you the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. You're unethical and a *damned* liar, "christian."

Also, you've snipped out a whole discussion concerning
your view on natural predation and how you lied to avoid
admitting it.

<unsnip>
If we go back to the beginning of this thread, it's clear
to see you're contesting my assertion that you believe
natural predation is cruel. Bob agrees that my opening
remark is "clearly what you said, "christian". You then
responded by claiming, "That is NOT what I said", yet
the evidence I keep providing shows you do believe it's
cruel, so it's clear you've lied on this issue. Here (below)
is the discussion you've snipped away showing how you
lied.

[start me]
> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
[You]
> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
[Bob]
> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
[You]
> That is NOT what I said.
[my proof showing you DO think it's cruel and that you lied]
[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
[end]

Nothing could be simpler to show
1) you believe natural to be cruel
2) you lied by pretending you didn't believe it to be cruel

and you call yourself a Christian?
[..]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:46:13 +0100, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
>>On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:02:15 +0100, "ipse dixit" > wrote:
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>>>> farrell77 wrote:
>>>> <...>
>>>> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>>> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>>>>
>>>> That is NOT what I said.
>>>
>>> [start Mmhsb]
>>> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
>>> [usual suspect]
>>> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
>>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>> "Ever seen what happens to various ruminants as they're
>>> stalked and hunted by large cats? Slaughterhouses may
>>> be messy, but they're not cruel."
>>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/yu6eq
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>>>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>>>other predators are less humane than humans."
>>>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>>>
>>>It's clearly what you said, christian.
>>
>> Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.
>
>According to "usual suspect" it's *cruel*,

It often is:
__________________________________________________ _______
Main Entry: cru·el
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&) l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): cru·el·er or cru·el·ler; cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin crudelis, from crudus
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...onary&va=cruel
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>and that's
>the issue being raised here.
>
>[..]

There are other issues being raised here. One is the fact that
he cares more about animals than you do. Another is the fact
that nonhuman predators are not humane.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:42:02 +0100, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:43:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"ipse dixit" > wrote
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>> >>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
>>> >>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
>>> >>other predators are less humane than humans."
>>> >>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
>>> >>
>>> >>It's clearly what you said, christian.
>>> >
>>> > Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.
>>
>>No they can't, but their actions frequently result in unmitigated pain and
>>suffering, and that is one definition of "cruel".
>
>You and "usual suspect" might think that nature and
>natural predation is cruel,
__________________________________________________ _______
[···]
But the more scientists study nature, the less moral it appears. Only a De Sade
could find virtue in the many cruelties of nature. So we cannot draw conclusions
about what "ought to be" directly from what "is". Of course many people still try
to deduce "ought" from "is" and vice versa. But their deductions are considered
fallacies in reasoning by most thinkers.
[...]
http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/sick.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>but normal-thinking people
>don't, I'm glad to say.

It says a lot that you believe "normal-thinking" people don't recognise the
suffering of many wild animals, much less consider it significant when they
think about life on Earth. It says even more that you're *glad* they don't.
I believe most do however, and your incridible aversion to consideration of
animals is very rare, I'm glad to say.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:24:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:56:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
> >> >> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
> >> >> them.
> >> >
> >> >No it's not,
> >>
> >> Yes, it most certainly is. To edit your opponent's
> >> post before replying to it is merely arguing with
> >> yourself instead of your opponent.
> >
> >It's more than that, it's misrepresenting your opponent's point of view
>
> Exactly!
>
> >which is exactly what you do. In fact you hardly do anything else.
>
> My snips

Your snips, along with the rest of your behaviour, are regularly despicably
dishonest.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:06:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:41 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >> Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
> >> >> thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
> >> >> entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
> >> >> to them.
> >> >
> >> >So what?
> >>
> >> It shows that he has a lot of common sense for taking the measure of
me.
> >
> >I agree.
>
> You see, now you're editing my posts again before replying
> to them, just as "usual suspect" does.

Well, DUH, thanks for pointing it out.

> I never wrote that
> above sentence. You did and then made a stupid remark
> in response to it.

Oh boo hoo

> If this is the best you can do, then fine,
> carry on. It's certainly no skin off my nose and only helps
> me in later arguments to show you're an unethical liar.

hehe.. shut up

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 01:20:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:43:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:36:17 GMT, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >>"Suffering results for all animals whether they're
> >> >> >>eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many
> >> >> >>other predators are less humane than humans."
> >> >> >>usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2ba7f
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>It's clearly what you said, christian.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nonhuman predators can NOT be humane.
> >> >
> >> >No they can't, but their actions frequently result
> >> >in unmitigated pain and suffering, and that is one
> >> >definition of "cruel".
> >>
> >> You and "usual suspect" might think that nature and
> >> natural predation is cruel, but normal-thinking people
> >> don't, I'm glad to say.
> >
> >Thousands of normal-thinking people say it is, try Googling "'nature' and
> >'cruel'". It also fits one of the definitions of the word exactly
"Causing
> >pain or suffering".
>
> Nature and natural predation is not and cannot be cruel,
> stupid, whatever you and "usual suspect" say. You're
> both idiots.

Read this http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S732CH19.htm
Is Nature Cruel? The Purpose and Limitations of Pain

and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/predator.html
....does the savagery of predation in nature show that God either isn't, or
at least isn't good-hearted?

perpetually lying dog-abuser wrote:
<...>
>>There was *no* name-calling in any of that, you fat ****ing liar. See also
>>http://snipurl.com/6l04 for an example of how you took me completely out of
>>context to make your pretext.
>>
>>Starting with you...
>>------
>>
>>>Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
>>
>>Note your snip, asshole. That statement was qualified by what followed. Stop
>>taking things out of context to make a pretext.
>>
>>RESTO
>>The autonomy the farmer has is pretty much limited to his choice to sell in the
>>free market in the first place. Beyond that, his decisions are borne of
>>prevailing market conditions. Farmers are free to niche market to people
>>concerned about pesticide use, GMOs, etc., and even CDs, but they will only do
>>that if there's a market for such effort so he can profit from it.
>>END RESTORE
>>
>>What part of *that* do you specifically object?
>>
>>------
>>
>>You snipped that
>
> Again, just a snip of material I'd already gone over before

No, a snip of stuff you'd chosen to ignore. You never answered my question.

> rather than the editing of whole sentences as you do. You
> can't compare the two.

Sure I can. They're two sides of the same coin. :-)

> What you do is downright dishonest
> and unethical.

So is what you do, drama queen.

> You shouldn't EDIT your opponents posts
> before replying to them.

Sauce for the goose, fatso.

<...>
> You've shown where I've snipped stuff I've covered
> before

No, more like stuff you refused to address.

> but you still haven't shown where I've EDITED
> your sentences before replying to them. You, on the other
> hand have edited mine and I've shown you the proof of
> that with a link.

Well I'll be *darned*. Really, lol?

<...>

fattest and most deceitful vegan in the world wrote:
>>>>>>>>>your wholly unacceptable editing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You lost all moral authority to criticize anyone else's posting habits long
>>>>>>>>ago. You either respect the spirit of usenet exchanges, which is to fairly
>>>>>>>>represent your opponent's position in your post, or you don't. You don't,
>>>>>>>>you have been using a variety of unethical snipping and out of context
>>>>>>>>quoting tactics for a long time, so the gloves are off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>>>>>editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>>>>>>>them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong, it's the same ****ing thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it isn't, and only someone such as yourself would
>>>>>fail to see the wrong done in editing your opponent's
>>>>>posts against the usual snipping done here.
>>>>
>>>>I warned you in advance that two could play your game. That is all I did.
>>>
>>>But that wasn't "all you did".
>>
>>Yes, it was.
>
> Okay, you got me on that. I cannot refute Jonathan, Dutch, or you
> with facts or logic, so I snip with reckless abandon to take you
> out of context.

Confession is good for the soul.

<...>

lying fat **** dreck wrote:
<...>
>>>I only snipped irrelevant material
>>
>>Irrelevant to your agenda maybe, but you constantly snip material relevant
>>to the point your opponent is making.
>
> Snipping away material I have already responded

You hadn't responded to it. You selectively edited it to make a pretext. I have
shown that, and shown you to be a liar.

> What do you expect from someone who beats his dog with a broomstick?

Exactly.

fat lying arsehole wrote:
<...>
>>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
>>>thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
>>>entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
>>>to them.
>>
>>So what?
>
> It shows two things;
> 1) that he unethically alters his opponent's posts before
> responding to them.

I warned you in advance that two can play your game.

> 2) He lies while persistently insisting he doesn't edit posts.

Where have I said that I *haven't* played your game, you little pussy? I told
you in advance I would do that if you continued taking me out of context. YOU,
Derek Fat **** Nash, the Blight of Eastbourne, are the one who "persistently
insists" you don't edit posts despite the clear evidence that you do. Stop your
lying, Pinocchio, and stop beating your dog with broomsticks.

boring fat **** dreck wrote:
<...>
>>>>>Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>>>>>editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>No it's not,
>>>
>>>Yes, it most certainly is. To edit your opponent's
>>>post before replying to it is merely arguing with
>>>yourself instead of your opponent.
>>
>>It's more than that, it's misrepresenting your opponent's point of view
>
> Exactly! That's why I do it.

You fat idiot.

dogbeater wrote:
<...>
>>>>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
>>>>>thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
>>>>>entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
>>>>>to them.
>>>>
>>>>So what?
>>>
>>>It shows that he has a lot of common sense for taking the measure of me.
>>
>>I agree.
>
> I think I'll spend the rest of the evening downloading porn. Why change my
> bad habits now. I've even started smoking again.

No discipline or self-control.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 16:02:16 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>fat lying arsehole wrote:
><...>
>>>>Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and it's short
>>>>thread from the beginning and you'll see that he edited
>>>>entire sentences of my posts before making his replies
>>>>to them.
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>> It shows two things;
>> 1) that he unethically alters his opponent's posts before
>> responding to them.
>
>I warned you in advance that two can play your game.

Then show where I have altered the sentences in
your posts as you have done in mine, if our game
is to be seen as the same. I snip your stupid insults
and areas I've covered before, but I don't edit your
sentences before then replying to them.

>> 2) He lies while persistently insisting he doesn't edit posts.
>
>Where have I said that I *haven't* played your game, you little pussy?

I don't edit your sentences, as you you do, so you're
not playing any game that I've ever been involved in.
Are you now agreeing that you do edit my sentences
before replying to them? You may as well, because
the evidence I've given by this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r
proves it beyond all doubt.

[..]

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> farrell77 wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
> >>
> >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
> >
> > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>
> That is NOT what I said.

It certainly is:

[start Mmhsb]
> natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
[usual suspect]
Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac

Don't you know what "Yes" means?


> <...>
> >>>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
> >>
> >>*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.
> >
> > I don't know if you did or not before this denial,
>
> I did NOT.
>
> > but
> > it does appear that you did so at some point.
>
> Only after ...

That's all we need to know. You did it. It was sleazy,
dishonest, and unethical.

lying cocksucker Boob wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>>>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>>>
>>>Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>>
>>That is NOT what I said.
>
> It certainly is:
>
> [start Mmhsb]
> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
> [usual suspect]
> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>
> Don't you know what "Yes" means?

Do you not understand sarcasm?

>><...>
>>
>>>>>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
>>>>
>>>>*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.
>>>
>>>I don't know if you did or not before this denial,
>>
>>I did NOT.
>>
>>
>>>but
>>>it does appear that you did so at some point.
>>
>>Only after ...

RESTORE
Only after Dreck continued snipping *my* posts without noting such snips,
replying to partial statements (as he did to the post which you continue
stirring shit with), and then accusing me of altering his posts -- something
which *I* had not done.
END RESTORE

Stop playing Derk's game unless you want me to join in when you play it, punk.

"farrell77" > wrote
> "usual suspect" > wrote
> > farrell77 wrote:
> > <...>
> > >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> > >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
> > >>
> > >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
> > >
> > > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
> >
> > That is NOT what I said.
>
> It certainly is:

Do *you* understand the meaning of the expression "nature can be cruel"? Do
you think people who say it believe that nature is immoral?

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "farrell77" > wrote
> > "usual suspect" > wrote
> > > farrell77 wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> > > >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
> > > >>
> > > >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
> > > >
> > > > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
> > >
> > > That is NOT what I said.
> >
> > It certainly is:
>
> Do *you* understand the meaning of the expression "nature can be cruel"?
Do
> you think people who say it believe that nature is immoral?

Yes and in most cases probably not, respectively.

"farrell77" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "farrell77" > wrote
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote
> > > > farrell77 wrote:
> > > > <...>
> > > > >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
> > > > >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
> > > >
> > > > That is NOT what I said.
> > >
> > > It certainly is:
> >
> > Do *you* understand the meaning of the expression "nature can be cruel"?
> Do
> > you think people who say it believe that nature is immoral?
>
> Yes and in most cases probably not, respectively.

This is a typical example of Nash's ongoing attack-through-equivocation
campaigns. He's a deliberate shit-disturber (troll) and his 50%+1 argument
is no exception.

Farrell77 wrote:

>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>> "farrell77" > wrote
>> > "usual suspect" > wrote
>> > > farrell77 wrote:
>> > > <...>
>> > > >>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>> > > >>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>> > >
>> > > That is NOT what I said.
>> >
>> > It certainly is:
>>
>> Do *you* understand the meaning of the expression "nature can be
cruel"?
>Do
>> you think people who say it believe that nature is immoral?
>
>Yes and in most cases probably not, respectively.

I'm amused at the length and fury of the "discussions" on this group
over the most nit-picky, hair-splitting pedantries. :-)

For what it's worth, nature is "amoral", not "immoral", since "nature"
is a system -- not a conscious entity that can distinguish between
right and wrong.

Yes, nature can be "cruel", "cruel" being an adjective that describes
a condition, with or without a conscious motive or perpetrator.

Main Entry: cru·el
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&) l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): cru·el·er or cru·el·ler; cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin crudelis, from
crudus
Date: 14th century
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b
: unrelieved by leniency
synonym see FIERCE

I suppose the objection to certain kinds of human activity is that
humans generally ARE aware of what they're doing; generally DO know
the difference between right and wrong; can make deliberate choices
and act as a perpetrator. The idea of another person consciously
making the choice to kill; to spill anothers' blood, is probably the
primary reason for objection, and not so much that an animal dies per
se.

In terms of human predation, the measure of "cruelty" (or lack of
same) would vary greatly, depending on each separate instance.
Certainly, a clean kill with a bullet would be a less cruel way to die
than being ripped apart by hyenas. OTOH, some of the conditions found
in modern "factory farming" and slaughterhouses appear rather
questionable, and could stand improvement. Therefore, it would be
foolish to make a sweeping generalization of "human predation" per se
since it is manifested in so many different ways.

On Fri, 28 May 2004 16:34:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>It's clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes
>>>>>>>natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't,
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit, you shit-stirring punk.
>>>>
>>>>Nope that's clearly what you said, "christian".
>>>
>>>That is NOT what I said.
>>
>> It certainly is:
>>
>> [start Mmhsb]
>> > natural predators & a natural life is cruel?
>> [usual suspect]
>> Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime.
>> usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac
>>
>> Don't you know what "Yes" means?
>
>Do you not understand sarcasm?

Admit it, liar: you've shown you DO believe natural
predation to be cruel, and you've been shown where
you then lied while trying to deny it.
[..]
>>>>>>>They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup
>>>>>
>>>>>*I* have done no such thing, you boring fat ****.

Follow this link http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r and its short
thread from the beginning and you'll see that you've
edited entire sentences of my posts before making
your replies to them. I could give dozens of examples
because you've continued to edited just about every
post I make since then as well.

So we have two examples of your blatant lying here
in just this one post.
1) you lied when denying you affirmed natural predation
to be cruel
2) you lied when denying you edited my posts.

Good work, "Christian."
[..]