Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately
wants the reader to forget about (below). [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between themselves to stop the readers on these animal related groups getting to read them. They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately > wants the reader to forget about (below). > > [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes > natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but > both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between > themselves to stop the readers on these animal related > groups getting to read them. > > They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup > titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about > anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? I agree that when natural predation happens, the animal isn't being consciously cruel, but the animal who is killed does suffer, and that fact can't be diminished. There's no moral significance to this because the predator isnt making any kind of "decision" to do this, just following instincts. Human actions have moral significance because we can choose what to do. With that said, the fact that we provide slaughter that is often more humane than a death by predation in the wild would be, is a significant point to be made. After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use humane slaughter methods including stunning. -Rubystars |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Are you still ranting on about this? I thought you'd have had the sense to
drop it by now.. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m... > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message > ... > > Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately > > wants the reader to forget about (below). > > > > [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes > > natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but > > both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between > > themselves to stop the readers on these animal related > > groups getting to read them. > > > > They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup > > titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about > > anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? > > > I agree that when natural predation happens, the animal isn't being > consciously cruel, but the animal who is killed does suffer, and that fact > can't be diminished. There's no moral significance to this because the > predator isnt making any kind of "decision" to do this, just following > instincts. > > Human actions have moral significance because we can choose what to do. With > that said, the fact that we provide slaughter that is often more humane than > a death by predation in the wild would be, is a significant point to be > made. After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use > humane slaughter methods including stunning. You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than captivity. Nash is equivocating again. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:11:07 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message .. . >> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately >> wants the reader to forget about (below). >> >> [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes >> natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but >> both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between >> themselves to stop the readers on these animal related >> groups getting to read them. >> >> They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup >> titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about >> anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? > > >I agree that when natural predation happens, the animal isn't being >consciously cruel, but the animal who is killed does suffer, and that fact >can't be diminished. There's no moral significance to this because the >predator isnt making any kind of "decision" to do this, just following >instincts. Yes, but my point here is that "usual suspect" has openly lied by trying to wriggle away from his quotes which say he finds natural predation cruel. Most normal-thinking people already know that natural predation isn't cruel, but "usual suspect" made the mistake in claiming it is to head off any criticisms from those who object to human predation. >Human actions have moral significance because we can choose what to do. With >that said, the fact that we provide slaughter that is often more humane than >a death by predation in the wild would be, is a significant point to be >made. After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use >humane slaughter methods including stunning. > >-Rubystars > |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:23:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Rubystars" > wrote in message m... >> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... >> > >> > Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately >> > wants the reader to forget about (below). >> > >> > [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes >> > natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but >> > both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between >> > themselves to stop the readers on these animal related >> > groups getting to read them. >> > >> > They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup >> > titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about >> > anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? >> >> I agree that when natural predation happens, the animal isn't being >> consciously cruel, but the animal who is killed does suffer, and that fact >> can't be diminished. There's no moral significance to this because the >> predator isnt making any kind of "decision" to do this, just following >> instincts. >> >> Human actions have moral significance because we can choose >> what to do. With that said, the fact that we provide slaughter >> that is often more humane than >> a death by predation in the wild would be, is a significant point to be >> made. After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use >> humane slaughter methods including stunning. > >You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and >suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than >captivity. PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:17:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>Are you still ranting on about this? I thought you'd have had the sense to >drop it by now.. > Tell me why natural predation is cruel, Dutch. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:28:32 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately >> wants the reader to forget about > >You're lying Yet again you've shown your worthlessness by changing the newsgroup titles and snipping away the evidence that proves "usual suspect" believes natural predation is cruel. <unsnip> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately wants the reader to forget about (below). [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between themselves to stop the readers on these animal related groups from getting to read them. They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? <endsnip> |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ipse dixit wrote:
> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that ....Dreck keeps taking out of context so he can stir shit. <...> > [start Mmhsb] > > natural predators & a natural life is cruel? > [usual suspect] > Yes. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime. > usual suspect http://tinyurl.com/2c9ac That's sarcasm, Dreck. Consider elsewhere in the same thread when I wrote: I'm not taking Harrison's position in this. I'm only going as far as saying that slaughterhouses aren't the only "travesty" animals face. I'm all for lions stalking and hunting -- makes for good tv on Discovery and National Geographic. And: Unlike misanthropes like you and your little hare-brained friend Lesley, I accept the role we and other animals play in nature. Ruminants are food -- whether for our species or others. That's their main purpose in an ecosystem: to convert plant matter into protein and to be eaten. And (to you, fatso): You should careful lest you start agreeing again with your buddy Lotus, whose anthropomorphisms range from the mildly amusing to the doubled over in near-fatal laughter, and engaging in anthropomorphic projections yourself: I myself give these rights to any animal in my presence. Why can I not feel aggressive toward anyone who flouts these rights? http://tinyurl.com/gkcj > 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 Nothing in that even implies that I think either slaughterhouses or large cats are cruel. > 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 clear from those quotes that ....Dreck likes to stir up shit. <snip of patent lies> |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The title alone is worth a case of Sierra Nevada Pale
Ale; just tell me where to send it. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:11:07 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote: > > >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message > .. . > >> Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately > >> wants the reader to forget about (below). > >> > >> [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes > >> natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but > >> both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between > >> themselves to stop the readers on these animal related > >> groups getting to read them. > >> > >> They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup > >> titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about > >> anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? > > > > > >I agree that when natural predation happens, the animal isn't being > >consciously cruel, but the animal who is killed does suffer, and that fact > >can't be diminished. There's no moral significance to this because the > >predator isnt making any kind of "decision" to do this, just following > >instincts. > > Yes, but my point here is that "usual suspect" has openly > lied by trying to wriggle away from his quotes which say > he finds natural predation cruel. Most normal-thinking > people already know that natural predation isn't cruel, but > "usual suspect" made the mistake in claiming it is to head > off any criticisms from those who object to human predation. I think the point is that the suffering experienced from natural predation is often greater than the suffering experienced from humane slaughter methods. -Rubystars |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > The title alone is worth a case of Sierra Nevada Pale > Ale; just tell me where to send it. Straight into the **** pot ~~jonnie~~, the best place for 'Chemical' beer. > |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:30:28 +0100, ipse dixit > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:23:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>"Rubystars" > wrote in message m... >>> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... >>> > >>> > Here are "usual suspect's" quotes that Jonathan desperately >>> > wants the reader to forget about (below). >>> > >>> > [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 clear from those quotes that "usual suspect" believes >>> > natural predation is cruel while human predation isn't, but >>> > both he and Jonathan Ball are doing their level best between >>> > themselves to stop the readers on these animal related >>> > groups getting to read them. >>> > >>> > They have lied, edited my posts, changed the newsgroup >>> > titles to make replying to them awkward, and just about >>> > anything they can think of. What a pair of liars, eh? >>> >>> I agree that when natural predation happens, the animal isn't being >>> consciously cruel, but the animal who is killed does suffer, and that fact >>> can't be diminished. There's no moral significance to this because the >>> predator isnt making any kind of "decision" to do this, just following >>> instincts. >>> >>> Human actions have moral significance because we can choose >>> what to do. With that said, the fact that we provide slaughter >>> that is often more humane than >>> a death by predation in the wild would be, is a significant point to be >>> made. After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use >>> humane slaughter methods including stunning. >> >>You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and >>suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than >>captivity. > >PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT THIS. Dutch - what the heck did you do that for - and at a time like this, too! Jeeze! Well done though ;-) I can always rely on you. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:05:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>> After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use >>>>>humane slaughter methods including stunning. >>>> >>>>You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than >>>>captivity. >>> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! > >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. See you tomorrow, Jon. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ipse dixit" > wrote > Most normal-thinking > people already know that natural predation isn't cruel Ipse dixit, most people think that nature *is* cruel, not just predation, but animals starving, drowning, or freezing to death. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and > >suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than > >captivity. > > PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. Your brain-dead ignorance never ceases to amaze, Nash. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:17:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >Are you still ranting on about this? I thought you'd have had the sense to > >drop it by now.. > > > Tell me why natural predation is cruel, Dutch. See 2. below Cruel: 1.. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering. 2.. Causing suffering; painful. man, you're thick. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> >>You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and > >>suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than > >>captivity. > > > >PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. > > I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT THIS. Dutch - what > the heck did you do that for - and at a time like this, too! Jeeze! > Well done though ;-) I can always rely on you. I don't doubt that you actually are this clueless Nash. You really are a one-of-a-kind dimwit. I guess that's something anyway.. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:05:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>>>> After all, humans could attack a cow with spears or we could use > >>>>>humane slaughter methods including stunning. > >>>> > >>>>You've got it exactly right. Cruel also means simply causing pain and > >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature is arguably more cruel than > >>>>captivity. > >>> > >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. > >> > >> > >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! > > > >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. > > That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your > ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. > See you tomorrow, Jon. Scurry away and gather yourself for another bout of ****ing up, the inevitability of it is depressing. This latest campaign of brainless equivocation has your signature all over it. Here's some food for thought, I can only put it in front of you, I can't make you eat. Cruel: 1.. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering. 2.. Causing suffering; painful. NOTE: Not only 1. but also 2. It's perfectly correct for example to say "Nature can be cruel". Here are a few links out of 456 where that phrase alone is correctly used. http://home.tiscali.be/guild.discoverers/spirit.html http://www.sensorium.org/sensingjapa.../mizu_pro.html http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/.../wadispage.htm http://www.legitgov.org/essay_macelv...md_051003.html http://www.governor.state.ok.us/disp...article_type=0 http://www.pressrepublican.com/outdo...072004out1.htm "For the second year in a row I am watching white-tailed deer struggle through the winter. I know these deer. I have seen them almost daily for several years... Nature can be cruel." It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." Lightbulb coming on yet brick-head? It *is* nice that your narrow-minded ignorance provides you with such entertainment though, it probably saves taxpayer a hefty bill for anti-depressants.. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote >> >>>> >> >>>>Dutch wrote: >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. >> >>> >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >> >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! >> > >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. >> >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. >> See you tomorrow, Jon. > >Scurry away "Get this, ****WIT: If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral meaning to it. If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have not done a good deed. Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators' "treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid when you keep doing it after having had explained to you why it's misguided. One more to jam down your throat with my boot, ****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel. They can't be." Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11 It's clear that you believe natural predation is cruel and that removing it is a benefit to wild animals. With that in mind and your earlier quotes below, you've conceded to both of Harrison's claims; 1) That animals benefit from getting the chance to experience life; [start ipse dixit] > The quotes and admissions below prove you > believe an animal benefits from getting to > experience life and being able to reproduce after > their predators have been removed [Dutch] Of course they do. [end] 2) That "this is a "moral consideration" issue."" "I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue." Dutch 2003-11-28 Both these arguments are Harrison's, and like him, when asked to explain how they benefit and why it's a moral consideration issue, you reply that it is "self-evident" or "obvious". > [ipse dixit] > Then explain how they benefit; > 1) from living > 2) from producing [Dutch] It's self-evident [end] As usual your past quotes have come back to bite you. You believe our moral consideration to remove natural predators is a good thing and that we should continue to farm animals because "nature is arguably more cruel than captivity." You follow the logic of the larder, Dutch. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>"ipse dixit" > wrote >> >>>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and >>>>>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature >>>>>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. >>>>>> >>>>>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >>>>> >>>>>I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT MY OWN COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! >>>> >>>>Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. >>> >>>That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your >>>****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. >>>See you tomorrow, Jon. >> >>Scurry away > > > "Get this, ****WIT: > > If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral > meaning to it. > > If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have > not done a good deed. > > Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators' > "treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid > when you keep doing it after having had explained to > you why it's misguided. > > One more to jam down your throat with my boot, > ****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel. > They can't be." > Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11 > > It's clear that you believe natural predation is cruel > and that removing it is a benefit to wild animals. You're replying to a post by Dutch. How does offering something I've said allow you to reach any conclusion about what Dutch believes? You stupid fat ****. You stupid, crippled, dying fat ****. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:06:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>> >>>>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and >>>>>>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature >>>>>>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >>>>>> >>>>>>I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT MY OWN COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! >>>>> >>>>>Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. >>>> >>>>That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your >>>>****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. >>>>See you tomorrow, Jon. >>> >>>Scurry away >> >> >> "Get this, ****WIT: >> >> If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral >> meaning to it. >> >> If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have >> not done a good deed. >> >> Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators' >> "treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid >> when you keep doing it after having had explained to >> you why it's misguided. >> >> One more to jam down your throat with my boot, >> ****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel. >> They can't be." >> Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11 >> >> It's clear that you believe natural predation is cruel >> and that removing it is a benefit to wild animals. > >You're replying to a post by Dutch. How does offering >something I've said allow you to reach any conclusion >about what Dutch believes? It's something you wrote to a ****wit, and Dutch IS a ****wit. He's always been a ****wit. "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life as David says, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 He knows it, too. In context; > > [start Dutch] > > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that > > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life > > as David says, in exchange for the use of their > > hides. We give them life. They give us their > > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial > > contract, which I believe includes treating them > > with respect. The only contract I have with mice > > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you. > > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe > > we're not so different after all. > [Polly] > Although we know there's no literal "contract", I > do like your way of stating the fact that both humans > and animals benefit from the animals' domestication. [Dutch] Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David.. who'da thunk??? Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2jdml "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 heh heh heh |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:06:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>ipse dixit wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and >>>>>>>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature >>>>>>>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT MY OWN COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! >>>>>> >>>>>>Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. >> >>You're replying to a post by Dutch. How does offering >>something I've said allow you to reach any conclusion >>about what Dutch believes? > > > It's something you wrote to a ****wit How does something I've said about David ****wit Harrison allow you to reach any conclusion about what Dutch believes? It doesn't. Dutch doesn't believe what ****wit believes. You know this. You just aren't worth the time of day, Dreck. You've whored yourself beyond redemption. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:58:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> Dutch doesn't believe what ****wit believes. I've provided his quotes proving he holds the very same views as Harrison. You snipped them all away, of course, because you always snip evidence that defeats you. "The cow is our benefactor in a mutually beneficial partnership." Dutch 2001-01-21 "Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that we create, breed and raise, giving them a life as David says, in exchange for the use of their hides. We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial contract, which I believe includes treating them with respect." Dutch 2001-01-19 |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> >>>> > >> >>>>Dutch wrote: > >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and > >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature > >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. > >> >>> > >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. > >> >> > >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! > >> > > >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. > >> > >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your > >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. > >> See you tomorrow, Jon. Snipping and changing the subject won't work Nash. Get this through your thick head; "Nature can be cruel." Cruel: 1.. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering. 2.. Causing suffering; painful. NOTE: Not only 1. but also 2. It's perfectly correct for example to say "Nature can be cruel". Here are a few links out of 456 where that phrase alone is correctly used. http://home.tiscali.be/guild.discoverers/spirit.html http://www.sensorium.org/sensingjapa.../mizu_pro.html http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/.../wadispage.htm http://www.legitgov.org/essay_macelv...md_051003.html http://www.governor.state.ok.us/disp...article_type=0 http://www.pressrepublican.com/outdo...072004out1.htm "For the second year in a row I am watching white-tailed deer struggle through the winter. I know these deer. I have seen them almost daily for several years... Nature can be cruel." It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." Lightbulb coming on yet brick-head? It *is* nice that your narrow-minded ignorance provides you with such entertainment though, it probably saves taxpayer a hefty bill for anti-depressants.. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>Dutch wrote: >> >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and >> >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature >> >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >> >> >> >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! >> >> > >> >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. >> >> >> >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your >> >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. >> >> See you tomorrow, Jon. > >Snipping and changing the subject won't work Nash. Get this through your >thick head; > >"Nature can be cruel." No, it cannot be cruel. "Get this, ****WIT: If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral meaning to it. If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have not done a good deed. Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators' "treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid when you keep doing it after having had explained to you why it's misguided. One more to jam down your throat with my boot, ****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel. They can't be." Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11 >It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was being cruel when he >broke the broom over his dog's back." Have you any evidence to support that claim? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ipse dixit" > wrote > On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:58:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > Dutch doesn't believe what ****wit believes. > > I've provided his quotes proving he holds the > very same views as Harrison. You showed that I made statements 3 1/2 years ago that appear superficially similiar to ****wit's position. How does that equate to my holding the "very same views" as him now? You once claimed that ALL meat-eaters subscribe to The Logic of the Larder, now you say it's 50%+1. Which one is bullshit? Answer - both. I note that you have conveniently tried to change the subject of this conversation. "Nature can be cruel" is a correct turn of phrase, and nobody that says it is suggesting that nature is, or that wild animals are moral agents. That was another in a long list of your silly campaigns, and you're just dropping it like a hot potato to get into another one. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>Dutch wrote: > >> >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and > >> >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature > >> >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! > >> >> > > >> >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. > >> >> > >> >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your > >> >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. > >> >> See you tomorrow, Jon. > > > >Snipping and changing the subject won't work Nash. Get this through your > >thick head; > > > >"Nature can be cruel." > > No, it cannot be cruel. Then why do millions of people say it? > "Get this, ****WIT: > > If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral > meaning to it. I didn't say there was a moral meaning to a predator killing a prey animal, I said that nature can be cruel. > If you prevent a predator from killing prey, you have > not done a good deed. I didn't say that if you prevent a predator from killing prey you have done a good deed, I said that nature can be cruel. > Comparing our treatment of livestock to predators' > "treatment" of prey is misguided at best, and stupid > when you keep doing it after having had explained to > you why it's misguided. Perhaps it's misguided if one uses the pain inflicted on prey by predators as an excuse to inflict pain on livestock, but I'm not doing that, and I don't believe anyone here was doing that. Perhaps the idea is in fact to obtain perspective to treat animals *differently* than nature treats them. > One more to jam down your throat with my boot, > ****WIT: non-human predators are never cruel. > They can't be." > Jonathan Ball to a ****wit 2004-05-11 That means that non-human predators are not moral actors and cannot be "cruel" in the human sense. The fact remains that the natural world is still "cruel" when viewed *in human terms*, without judgement or expectation that it should or could be any different (see 2. in the dictionary.com definition of cruel) > > >It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was being cruel when he > >broke the broom over his dog's back." > > Have you any evidence to support that claim? Are you denying it? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and >> >> >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature >> >> >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. >> >> >> >> >> >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your >> >> >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. >> >> >> See you tomorrow, Jon. >> > >> >Snipping and changing the subject won't work Nash. Get this through your >> >thick head; >> > >> >"Nature can be cruel." >> >> No, it cannot be cruel. > >Then why do millions of people say it? Ask them. >> "Get this, ****WIT: >> >> If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral >> meaning to it. > >I didn't say there was a moral meaning to a predator killing a prey animal, >I said that nature can be cruel. And you're wrong to state such a stupid thing. >> >It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >> >being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >> >> Have you any evidence to support that claim? > >Are you denying it? Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted that they had in fact lied about me and my family; From: Allison McDowall To: ********************** Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM Subject: Family man - Derek? "I can lie about your family if i want, especially after the way you have behaved towards David even his own mother put the phone down on him without saying what she was upset about and now Dave will probably never talk to her again. If she is upset with him about the news group then that's her problem because Dave has had nothing to so with that stupid ng for months now." [end] http://tinyurl.com/2qpss |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:13:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:58:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball >wrote: >> >> > Dutch doesn't believe what ****wit believes. >> >> I've provided his quotes proving he holds the >> very same views as Harrison. > >You showed that I made statements 3 1/2 years ago that appear superficially >similiar to ****wit's position. They are more superficially similar, and you admitted this when you wrote that you were in fact quoting him; > > [start Dutch] > > Pigs and cows are domesticated animals that > > we create, breed and raise, giving them a life > > as David says, in exchange for the use of their > > hides. We give them life. They give us their > > lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually beneficial > > contract, which I believe includes treating them > > with respect. The only contract I have with mice > > is you get out of my grain and I won't kill you. > > Isn't that the way YOU look at mice? Maybe > > we're not so different after all. > [Polly] > Although we know there's no literal "contract", I > do like your way of stating the fact that both humans > and animals benefit from the animals' domestication. [Dutch] Thanks. I am beginning to find myself quoting David.. who'da thunk??? Dutch http://tinyurl.com/2jdml When are you going to stop lying? Also, you've made recent statements owning up to your belief in that animals benefit from getting to experience life. Jon sipped them away while trying to dig you out of this mess, but Google still has the proof that you believe natural predation is cruel and that removing it is a benefit to wild animals. With that in mind and your earlier quotes below, you've conceded to both of Harrison's claims; 1) That animals benefit from getting the chance to experience life; [start ipse dixit] > The quotes and admissions below prove you > believe an animal benefits from getting to > experience life and being able to reproduce after > their predators have been removed [Dutch] Of course they do. [end] 2) That "this is a "moral consideration" issue."" "I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue." Dutch 2003-11-28 Both these arguments are Harrison's, and like him, when asked to explain how they benefit and why it's a moral consideration issue, you reply that it is "self-evident" or "obvious". > [ipse dixit] > Then explain how they benefit; > 1) from living > 2) from producing [Dutch] It's self-evident [end] As usual your past quotes have come back to bite you. You believe our moral consideration to remove natural predators is a good thing and that we should continue to farm animals because "nature is arguably more cruel than captivity." You follow the logic of the larder, Dutch. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>> >>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>> >>>Are you denying it? >> >> Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >> that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >> >> From: Allison McDowall >> To: ********************** >> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >> Subject: Family man - Derek? >> >> "I can lie about your family if i want > >WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >that she CAN do it. She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me and my family; [start me] > In ths email you sent my sister, (below) it's plain that you and > David have lied about me, and that even his own mother, my > mother too, can't bear to even speak to him over the phone > because of it. Now, how many mothers would do a thing like > that without a damn good reason? [Allison McDowell using the nym "Belinda Laden"] Oh yes that old one.. well your sister did hate you at that time for trying to rail-road her into coming on google. [end] http://tinyurl.com/3xoa8 So much for your sources of information, Jon, especially since I've repeatedly shown they have lied. heh heh heh >She did not lie about you breaking the broom over your >dog's back. You did it. She lied, and admitted she lied. Even my own sister was about to come here and sort her out for it. [Allison McDowell using the nym "Belinda Laden"] > At least I'm not a NASH though. hahahhahahaha > I can understand David wanting to distance himself from me, seeing as I've played such a large part in helping his ex girlfriend keep him away from his kids all this time, but changing his surname from Nash to Morrison only shows he's been rail-roaded out of the family, that's all, and no wonder considering all the things he's done and admitted to here. In ths email you sent my sister, (below) it's plain that you and David have lied about me, and that even his own mother, my mother too, can't bear to even speak to him over the phone because of it. Now, how many mothers would do a thing like that without a damn good reason? From: Allison McDowall To: ********************** Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM Subject: Family man - Derek? "I can lie about your family if i want, especially after the way you have behaved towards David even his own mother put the phone down on him without saying what she was upset about and now Dave will probably never talk to her again. If she is upset with him about the news group then that's her problem because Dave has had nothing to so with that stupid ng for months now." [end] Why would David's own sister, my sister too, forward me all the emails you both sent her if it weren't for the fact that you lied about me and that she thought I might want some proof? In these emails my sister sent you; From: *my sister* Reply-To: ********************** To: "Belinda Laden" Subject: Family man - Derek? Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:16:24 +0100 Alison dear, if you ever tell lies about my mother and myself again.. there will be trouble......i really do not want to get involved, but you are forcing my arm. [end] From: *my sister* To: Allison McDowall Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: Family man - Derek? I kept well out of it until u mentioned me and my mother.. You have instigated moves against me and mine.. You are not family Alison.. I will bring you down. Want to take me on too?? [end] From :*my sister* To: Allison McDowall Sent: Date :Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:21:05 +0100 no need for you to get soooooo upset and excited Alison, its really not good for you my dear ![]() You will be so pleased to know its all sorted this end.. and it wasn't that hard to come clean now was it sweetheart???..... although maybe next time you might try a little harder to own up a little sooner???? Now that we know that it was YOU who was the instigator, the liar, the Shafter MY mother is more than happy ......and that my dear is all I care about.. Im not sure quite how you are going to achieve leaving the family when you never belonged in the first place, but like all the other lies you connived and concocted .. Im sure you will find a way [end] it looked likely she was about to come here and put you both straight herself, but she agreed with me that it would only result in a slanging match, and took my advice not to. btw, why is it that David leaves all the ranting to you? Hasn't he the guts or know-how to take me on and address the lies he's told? Can't he cope against me? [end] http://tinyurl.com/2qpss Nice try, Jon, but I have evidence that your sources have lied about me and my family, so you lose, and your credibility suffers every time you repeat their lies because I've shown you all this before. You have zero credibility and ability. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>ipse dixit wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] > >>>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>>> >>>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>>> >>>>Are you denying it? >>> >>>Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >>>that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >>> >>> From: Allison McDowall >>> To: ********************** >>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >>> Subject: Family man - Derek? >>> >>>"I can lie about your family if i want >> >>WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >>you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >>that she CAN do it. > > > She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me > and my family; No, she didn't. > > [start me] > >>In ths email you sent my sister, (below) it's plain that you and >>David have lied about me, and that even his own mother, my >>mother too, can't bear to even speak to him over the phone >>because of it. Now, how many mothers would do a thing like >>that without a damn good reason? > > [Allison McDowell using the nym "Belinda Laden"] > Oh yes that old one.. well your sister did hate you at that time > for trying to rail-road her into coming on google. > [end] http://tinyurl.com/3xoa8 No admission of lying in that. YOU lied in saying she admitted to HAVING lied. You are a chronic liar. > > So much for your sources of information, Jon, especially > since I've repeatedly shown they have lied. heh heh heh > > >>She did not lie about you breaking the broom over your >>dog's back. You did it. > > > She lied, and admitted she lied. No, she didn't. You're lying now. > > [Allison McDowell using the nym "Belinda Laden"] > >>At least I'm not a NASH though. hahahhahahaha >> > [...] > > From: Allison McDowall > To: ********************** > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM > Subject: Family man - Derek? > > "I can lie about your family if i want, No admission to HAVING lied, you lying shitbag. > Nice try Nice WIN, you mean, you unethical lying cocksucker. The accusation that you broke the broom handle over the dog's back is true. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >>>>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>>>> >>>>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>>>> >>>>>Are you denying it? >>>> >>>>Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >>>>that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >>>> >>>> From: Allison McDowall >>>> To: ********************** >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >>>> Subject: Family man - Derek? >>>> >>>>"I can lie about your family if i want >>> >>>WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >>>you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >>>that she CAN do it. >> >> She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me >> and my family; > >No, she didn't. She certainly did, and this is shown by reading her admission in the links I provided. "Oh yes that old one" >> >> [start me] >> >>>In ths email you sent my sister, (below) it's plain that you and >>>David have lied about me, and that even his own mother, my >>>mother too, can't bear to even speak to him over the phone >>>because of it. Now, how many mothers would do a thing like >>>that without a damn good reason? >> >> [Allison McDowell using the nym "Belinda Laden"] >> Oh yes that old one.. well your sister did hate you at that time >> for trying to rail-road her into coming on google. >> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3xoa8 > >No admission of lying in that. YOU lied in saying she >admitted to HAVING lied. You are a chronic liar. You're intentionally ignoring her opening comment, "Oh yes that old one." Also, you'll see she doesn't challenge my statement; "In ths email you sent my sister, (below) it's plain that you and David have lied about me, and that even his own mother, my mother too, can't bear to even speak to him over the phone because of it." but admits to lying instead. >> So much for your sources of information, Jon, especially >> since I've repeatedly shown they have lied. heh heh heh Again, so much for your sources.... |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>ipse dixit wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>[..] >>> >>> >>>>>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you denying it? >>>>> >>>>>Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >>>>>that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >>>>> >>>>> From: Allison McDowall >>>>> To: ********************** >>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >>>>> Subject: Family man - Derek? >>>>> >>>>>"I can lie about your family if i want >>>> >>>>WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >>>>you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >>>>that she CAN do it. >>> >>>She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me >>>and my family; >> >>No, she didn't. > > > She certainly did No, she didn't. She did not explicitly admit to HAVING lied, and nothing she wrote could be reasonably taken as an implied admission to it, either. YOU are lying. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:32:28 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >> >> >>>ipse dixit wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>> >>>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>[..] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are you denying it? >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >>>>>>that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Allison McDowall >>>>>> To: ********************** >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >>>>>> Subject: Family man - Derek? >>>>>> >>>>>>"I can lie about your family if i want >>>>> >>>>>WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >>>>>you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >>>>>that she CAN do it. >>>> >>>>She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me >>>>and my family; >>> >>>No, she didn't. >> >> She certainly did > >No, she didn't. She did not explicitly admit to HAVING >lied, and nothing she wrote could be reasonably taken >as an implied admission to it, either. Here's proof that they lied, and owned up to it.. > [start] > Anyway this group is only made up of 5 sad old cyber mates who abuse each other so who cares. We > don't care what anybody thinks on that stupid group so why do you? > Although dave has disowned you all, I still wont let derek off...****you obviously have not grasped the > gravity of what derek has done***** (evil man). Dave has given me a free hand to say what i like because he does not > touch this computer anymore, he hates them and is not interested in any news group crap. This is my > hand and my thoughts and if you dont like it go away as you said you would. > > *I can lie about your family if i want,* especially after the way you have behaved towards David so what you are an arsehole... Yes i can tell one little lie if I want... they don't like you so what is the big deal if i embelished it http://tinyurl.com/2q485 So, not only did they claim they COULD tell lies about me and my family if they want, they also ADMIT to it, so you lose. heh heh heh |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ipse dixit wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:32:28 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > >>ipse dixit wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[..] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>>>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Are you denying it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >>>>>>>that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >>>>>>> >>>>>>>From: Allison McDowall >>>>>>>To: ********************** >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >>>>>>>Subject: Family man - Derek? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"I can lie about your family if i want >>>>>> >>>>>>WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >>>>>>you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >>>>>>that she CAN do it. >>>>> >>>>>She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me >>>>>and my family; >>>> >>>>No, she didn't. >>> >>>She certainly did >> >>No, she didn't. She did not explicitly admit to HAVING >>lied, and nothing she wrote could be reasonably taken >>as an implied admission to it, either. > > > Here's proof that they lied, and owned up to it.. > >>[start] >>Anyway this group is only made up of 5 sad old cyber mates who abuse each other so who cares. We >>don't care what anybody thinks on that stupid group so why do you? >>Although dave has disowned you all, I still wont let derek off...****you obviously have not grasped the >>gravity of what derek has done***** (evil man). Dave has given me a free hand to say what i like because he does not >>touch this computer anymore, he hates them and is not interested in any news group crap. This is my >>hand and my thoughts and if you dont like it go away as you said you would. >> >>*I can lie about your family if i want,* especially after the way you have behaved towards David so what you are an arsehole... > > > Yes i can tell one little lie if I want The only lie she told was to say that your mother told your brother she (mum) thinks you're an arsehole. The story about you breaking the broom over your dog's back is true. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:49:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >"ipse dixit" > wrote > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>Cruel also means simply causing pain and > >> >> >> >>>>suffering, based on that definition, nature > >> >> >> >>>>is arguably more cruel than captivity. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>PERFECT! Thanks for offering your stupidity to this, Dutch. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I JUST CAN'T STOP LAUGHING AT Dutch's COLOSSAL STUPIDITY! > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Well, suit yourself, prick-cheese. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That timing was a peach. Admit it; you laughed your > >> >> >> ****ing head off. The perfect close to a long day. > >> >> >> See you tomorrow, Jon. > >> > > >> >Snipping and changing the subject won't work Nash. Get this through your > >> >thick head; > >> > > >> >"Nature can be cruel." > >> > >> No, it cannot be cruel. > > > >Then why do millions of people say it? > > Ask them. I did as much, I went to a dozen websites of people who said it and read what they had to say. Didn't you? I gave you the opportunity. > >> "Get this, ****WIT: > >> > >> If a predator kills a prey animal, there is no moral > >> meaning to it. > > > >I didn't say there was a moral meaning to a predator killing a prey animal, > >I said that nature can be cruel. > > And you're wrong to state such a stupid thing. It's merely an observation about nature. > >> >It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was > >> >being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." > >> > >> Have you any evidence to support that claim? > > > >Are you denying it? > > Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted > that they had in fact lied about me and my family; > > From: Allison McDowall > To: ********************** > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM > Subject: Family man - Derek? > > "I can lie about your family if i want, especially after the way you > have behaved towards David even his own mother put the phone > down on him without saying what she was upset about and now > Dave will probably never talk to her again. If she is upset with > him about the news group then that's her problem because Dave > has had nothing to so with that stupid ng for months now." > [end] > http://tinyurl.com/2qpss That's not my source, I got it from the horse's mouth. Does your dog still cringe when he sees a broom in your hand? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:45:32 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >> On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:32:28 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: >>>>>>>ipse dixit wrote: >>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:50:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>>>>>>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Are you denying it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes, I am. Your source for that information admitted >>>>>>>>that they had in fact lied about me and my family; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From: Allison McDowall >>>>>>>>To: ********************** >>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM >>>>>>>>Subject: Family man - Derek? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"I can lie about your family if i want >>>>>>> >>>>>>>WRONG. That is NOT an admission of having lied about >>>>>>>you and your family, cocksucker. It is a statement >>>>>>>that she CAN do it. >>>>>> >>>>>>She openly stated here on Usenet that she lied about me >>>>>>and my family; >>>>> >>>>>No, she didn't. >>>> >>>>She certainly did >>> >>>No, she didn't. She did not explicitly admit to HAVING >>>lied, and nothing she wrote could be reasonably taken >>>as an implied admission to it, either. >> >> Here's proof that they lied, and owned up to it.. >> >>>[start] >>>Anyway this group is only made up of 5 sad old cyber mates who abuse each other so who cares. We >>>don't care what anybody thinks on that stupid group so why do you? >>>Although dave has disowned you all, I still wont let derek off...****you obviously have not grasped the >>>gravity of what derek has done***** (evil man). Dave has given me a free hand to say what i like because he does not >>>touch this computer anymore, he hates them and is not interested in any news group crap. This is my >>>hand and my thoughts and if you dont like it go away as you said you would. >>> >>>*I can lie about your family if i want,* especially after the way you have behaved towards David so what you are an arsehole... >> >> Yes i can tell one little lie if I want > >The only lie she told So, you finally admit that she did lie about me and my family. Excellent! That's all I need to discredited her as a reliable source. Couple that together with my sister's emails, which Allison acknowledged were authentic, and I have everything in my favour to prove I never did the things they accused me of. In fact, there's not even any room for doubt. All they proved is that I have a twin brother who resents me for keeping him away from his children FOR LIFE and is willing to lie to try getting his own back. All he succeeded in doing was to disgrace himself to such an extent that he lost our father's name. He changed it by deed poll from Nash to Morrison. Get this; [start Allison] > You and your wife > are so sick and that is why we are called Morrison. So, David gave up his father's name simply because he was annoyed with me, yeah right. He and you have been rail-roaded out, and you both know it. > Dave's mum is always talking to Dave on the phone (nearly every day) That's a lie, because if it were true she would've told me of your laughable marriage, so it's clear you haven't been in contact with her or any other member of my family at all, which is why you had to tell me yourself using usenet. What a giggle. > and she is happy about our name since it was Dave's > granmothers maiden name. Er, Allison, my grandmother's surname was Morris, not Morrison. You are joking, aren't you - surely David didn't choose the wrong surname. This is hysterical! Her name was Morris, Ivy Morris, and I can prove it too. He should've studied that family tree I sent him, but there again I doubt he would've been able to retain what was written on it. He never was very sharp, but to get something as wrong as this rates as probably THE most stupid thing he's ever done, apart from marry you, of course, if he did. This is priceless. [end] http://tinyurl.com/2mr5l I still can't stop laughing when I think of that. Such justice - YES! |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ipse dixit" > wrote
>>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was >>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." >>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? >>Are you denying it? > Yes, I am. Does this ring a bell? "My dog quivers like a jelly when I pick up a broom to sweep the garden. I must get a new handle for that old broom one of these days." Why does your dog quiver like jelly when you pick up a broom Derek? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote > > >>>>It means something quite different than "Derek Nash was > >>>>being cruel when he broke the broom over his dog's back." > > >>>Have you any evidence to support that claim? > > >>Are you denying it? > > > Yes, I am. > > Does this ring a bell? > > "My dog quivers like a jelly when I pick up a broom to sweep the garden. I > must get a new handle for that old broom one of these days." > > Why does your dog quiver like jelly when you pick up a broom Derek? Seems like a typical fear response from a dog that has been severely beaten by some maggot who deserves to have the broom handle shoved up his arse. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|