"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:59 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

It's your job to state the mechanism whereby my behaviour causes
animal deaths. You've utterly failed to meet this obligation. I've
generously been helping you out by suggesting possible mechanisms.

Listen to how self-serving and condescending you sound, referring to
yourself as "generous".

You claim not to read Rick's posts, in which case you are hardly in a
position to comment.

I was reading to see what you said, not rick.

I am being extraordinarily reasonable and patient
in engaging with him. Calling me condescending in the context of
Rick's torrent of mindless abuse is utterly ludicrous.

His torrents of mindless abuse are not the issue, I accused you earlier of
being condescending and you gave me an example.

Then you squeal like an infant about verbal abuse.

No, I don't. I simply point out that the behaviour of all the antis
here, including yours, utterly flouts all civilized standards of
decency, rationality, or justice.

You didn't "simply point it out", you announced that you're going to
withdraw from the debate if we don't start acting according to your rules.
Incidentally you have threatened that about a dozen times and never followed
through on it. The point is that you don't like the rough language, I don't
mind it at all, at least it's direct. I don't like the air of superiority
you try to project, I find that offensive.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.


On what basis can you judge that I earn Rick's torrent of mindless
abuse, if you don't read his posts?

I've read enough of them over the years. If you read his posts you should
know that his approach doesn't change no matter who he talks to, so to take
it personally when he calls you "killer" and "hypocrite" is pretty silly.

I don't merit any abuse. I don't abuse you, and you do a lot more to
earn abuse than me.

You beg for it. Acting haughty and superior on usenet is a guarantee that
you will be verbally abused.

Anyone who endorses the kind of behaviour that the antis engage in
here is not fit to be a member of a civilized community.

See, I don't agree. I find rought language refreshingly honest and direct. I
find evasion, condescension. sophistry, self-righteousness, those kinds of
attitudes offensive.

You sponsor animal deaths by using a computer, because a computer uses
hydro
and hydro production causes animal deaths.

You evidently have not been listening. My electricity is produced by
solar panels.

Maybe, sounds fishy, but even if it is, the argument still holds for the
vast majority of people for whom you presume to speak, they don't all live
off solar panels. It also applies to the rest of your consumption as I said
below.


If your use of a computer is not
directly related to your survival then you are causing unecessary animal
deaths. Does that indictment sound familar? This same principle applies
to
every part of your life where you consume anything more than you require
to
survive. Even if you consider those few activities which truly *are*
necessary for your survival, you still could not do them if those deaths
were humans. That's how different your real lifestyle is compared to the
pie-in-the-sky ideas you spout.