Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling. Consider the following.

The first is a post to which Dreck responded. The second is his response.
Compare what parts of my post he left intact. Click on the "complete thread"
link and compare what little he left from ANY of the posts which he replied.

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

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

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

[I replied:]
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?

------

He never answered the question. Instead, the fat clown completely snipped it and
ended his reply from the above post with this (starting and ending with your
unethical snipping to take others out of context):

[Dreck:]
>> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.

[my partial reply, edited by the fat **** himself:]
>I noted as much

[Dreck:]
Good.

----
See last post at:
http://snipurl.com/6l05
--------

The line that Dreck edited contained NO name-calling. I *actually* wrote (before
he edited it down to suit his agenda):
I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your
snip about it.

Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except for name-calling. He is
a proven liar, and he's a baby who dishes out a lot of bullshit but cannot take
it when others return the favor.

[removed newsgroup definitions which would've made
responding to this post impossible. Another dishonest
tactic by desperate suspect]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:58:41 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling.

No. There are other things I snip away such as the
things I've already dealt with, and the childish name-
calling. The point I'm raising here with you is your
EDITING of your opponents posts before replying
to them, and your subsequent lying while trying to
deny it, and these issues are entirely different to this
futile diversion of my snipping.

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."

Explain why you lied concerning the editing of your
opponent's sentences, "christian."

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling. Consider the following.
>
> The first is a post to which Dreck responded. The second is his response.
> Compare what parts of my post he left intact. Click on the "complete
thread"
> link and compare what little he left from ANY of the posts which he
replied.
>
> http://snipurl.com/6kzz
> http://snipurl.com/6l01
>
> There was *no* name-calling in any of that. See also
http://snipurl.com/6l04 for
> an example of how Dreck took me completely out of context to make his
pretext.
>
> Starting with Dreck...
> ------
> > Nonsense. Every moral agent is entirely autonomous, fool.
>
> [I replied:]
> 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?
>
> ------
>
> He never answered the question. Instead, the fat clown completely snipped
it and
> ended his reply from the above post with this (starting and ending with
your
> unethical snipping to take others out of context):
>
> [Dreck:]
> >> I hate to disappoint you, but farmers do have free will.
>
> [my partial reply, edited by the fat **** himself:]
> >I noted as much
>
> [Dreck:]
> Good.
>
> ----
> See last post at:
> http://snipurl.com/6l05
> --------
>
> The line that Dreck edited contained NO name-calling. I *actually* wrote
(before
> he edited it down to suit his agenda):
> I noted as much about autonomy in what followed. Next time note your
> snip about it.
>
> Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts, except for name-calling.
He is
> a proven liar, and he's a baby who dishes out a lot of bullshit but cannot
take
> it when others return the favor.

Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)

Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
>

On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:24:30 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:

[..]
>> Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts,
>> except for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and
>> he's a baby who dishes out a lot of bullshit but
>> cannot take it when others return the favor.
>
>Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
>
>Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

This whine about not following a Usenet protocol
to note snips is merely a dodge from the real issue
concerning his unethical editing of opponent's posts
before replying to them.

The real point I'm raising here is his EDITING
and the lies while trying to deny it.

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. I've snipped a few of his childish rants, but that
doesn't give him the excuse to edit my whole sentences
in return. He's unethical and a *damned* liar.

dog-beating, lying fat**** wrote:

> [removed newsgroup definitions which would've made
> responding to this post impossible. Another dishonest
> tactic by desperate suspect]

Liar. You could still respond to it with that group listed.

<...>
>>Dreck now claims he only snips name-calling.
>
> No. There are other things I snip away such as the
> things I've already dealt with,

You didn't deal with what I wrote, dog-abusing asshole, you edited down my reply
to what YOU wanted me to say. That's dishonest and unethical. Stop whining when
anyone does the same in return.

<...>

fat ****ing liar wrote:
<...>
>>>Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts,
>>>except for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and
>>>he's a baby who dishes out a lot of bullshit but
>>>cannot take it when others return the favor.
>>
>>Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
>>
>>Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
>
> He has a point, Ray. I've been snipping everyone's posts to take everyone
> out of context for so long that it's a wonder anyone bothers with me anymore.

Like I said before, two (or more!!) can play your shitty little game. Stop
altering the gist of what others write and they might stop returning your sleazy
disfavors. On second thought, **** yourself with that broomstick you use to beat
dogs.

<...>

On Sun, 23 May 2004 16:11:41 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>fat ****ing liar wrote:
><...>
>>>>Now he says he doesn't edit anyone else's posts,
>>>>except for name-calling. He is a proven liar, and
>>>>he's a baby who dishes out a lot of bullshit but
>>>>cannot take it when others return the favor.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you are doing the crying:-)
>>>
>>>Like I've said many a time, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
>>
>> He has a point, Ray. I've been snipping everyone's posts to take everyone
>> out of context for so long that it's a wonder anyone bothers with me anymore.
>
>Like I said before

I didn't write that above sentence. You just rewrote it before
making a stupid reply.
[]