Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
groups.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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.

What happened was that I said

You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.


I expressed my disgust at the depths to which you had sunk. You
proceeded to continue to abase yourself without the slightest hint of
shame. You continue to do so to this day.

Please keep your sexual fantasies about me in your own head. We do not
want to hear about them.

rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.

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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.

You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.

In the eyes of any decent person


.... you are a worthless, pitiful excuse for a human being.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

"Rupert" wrote in message ps.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
...
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

That is exactly right.


In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.

It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.

The following includes behaviour that is seen here.

'The Power and Control Wheel

Using isolation. One of the most effective ways to begin to
overpower another person is to keep her from having contact
with others. By systematically severing her relationships with
family, friends, and co-workers, the batterer insures that his
victim has little support. He becomes her only point of
reference, thereby defining and controlling her world.
Batterers can isolate their partners in a variety of ways, from
excessive jealousy to restricting their access to education and
jobs or controlling where they go or with whom they spend
their time. For women with disabilities, lesbians, older
women, immigrant women, or others who are marginalized by
mainstream society, isolation takes on an increased potency.

Minimizing, denying, and blaming. Batterers often minimize or
deny the abuse, or they blame their partners for provoking it.
He may minimize the severity of her injuries, or outright deny
that he caused them. Unfortunately, "victim-blaming" is
prevalent in our society. Sometimes abusers play mind games
with their victims trying to make them feel crazy. Often violent
behavior towards women is justified by saying things like
"she asked for it" or "she needed to be put back in her place."
In so doing, the blame and accountability shifts from the
abusive behavior of the batterer to the "weakness" of the victim.

Using children. Using children is yet another way that a batterer
can instill feelings of guilt and incompetence in his partner,
making her feel like a "bad" mother. Some batterers will force
children to turn against their mothers, or will threaten to take the
children away if the victim were to try to leave. There is also
evidence that in homes where there is abuse towards the mother,
there is an increased likelihood of abuse towards the children.
Girls whose fathers batter their mothers are 6.5 times more
likely to be sexually assaulted by their fathers than are girls
from non-violent homes.

Using male privilege. In our patriarchal society, men are often
raised to believe that they have been given the right to be
dominating and aggressive. Being "tough" and "in charge" are
accepted and expected as part of one´s manhood. It is all too
often the case that batterers use this gender imbalance as a
justification for violent or controlling behavior.

Using economic abuse. By controlling and limiting a woman´s
access to financial means, a batterer can assure that his victim
will have limited resources if she has thoughts of leaving. She
may have to turn over her paycheck, leave her job, or account
for every penny spent. Too often women have to choose
between staying in an abusive relationship or being thrust into
economic ruin or poverty.

Using coercion and threats. Threats are used to control by
creating intense fear that can paralyze the victim's ability to act
or keep herself constantly on guard in an effort to protect our
lives or well-being. Some common threats are suicide, threats
to kill her or the children, threats to damage property, etc. The
victim may also be coerced into acting in ways that contradict
her values, such as prostitution or fraud.

Using intimidation. Abusers will often commit terrifying acts in
order to keep their partner in a state of continuous fear. This
may include smashing things, killing pets, harassing friends and
family, setting fires, driving recklessly, suicide and homicide.
Intimidation periodically reinforced with assault, makes violence
a daily part of the victim´s reality and, therefore, makes her easier
to control.

Using emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is the most common
form of control and can often exist in relationships where there
is not physical battering. This includes put-downs, insults to
the victim´s intelligence and abilities, name-calling, etc. In so
doing, the batterer systematically breaks her spirit and
self-esteem. She may begin to feel as if the abuse is her fault or
that she must deserve it.

These forms of abuse are used in multiple combinations.
Constant violence and criticism leaves women uncertain,
humiliated, and much easier to control.

Labels: blame shifting, coercion, denying, economic,
emotional abuse, intimidation, isolation, minimizing, misogyny
......
http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.com/

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.


I expressed my disgust at

You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized". I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology. And here we are.


rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.

... you are

....just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

pearl wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ps.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.

In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.

It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Rudy feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,

rupie is a bitch.


because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.

False.

Add psychoanalysis to the long and growing list of
things about which you know nothing but love to huff
and puff and try to perpetrate frauds.


The following includes behaviour that is seen here.

'The Power and Control Wheel

[snip stale copy-and-paste bullshit]

**** off, ****.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net...
pearl wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ps.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.

In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.

It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Rudy feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,

rupie is a bitch.

'The serial bully:
... is constantly imposing on others a false reality
made up of distortion and fabrication ..
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

'Warning signs

It is very difficult to predict who may or may not be
a potential rapist. Considering rapists have many
personality types and use many different methods, it
might seem impossible. However, certain behavioral
characteristics have been observed in some rapists.
These should be used cautiously as "warning signs",
since non-rapists and other innocent people may also
show similar behaviours.

*Extreme emotional insensitivity and egotism.
*Habitual degradation and verbal devaluation of others.
*Tries to tell others what they are feeling and thinking
as though it is his decision and not theirs. "She said no,
but she meant yes".
*Consistently uses intimidation in language or
threatening behavior to get his way. Uses words like
"bitch" and "whore" to describe women.
*Excessive, chronic, or brooding anger.
*Becomes obsessed with the object of his romantic
affections long after his advances have been rejected.
*Extreme mood swings.
*Violent outbursts; lack of impulse control.
*Aggressive and violent.
*Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, cruel behavior
is seen.
...'
http://www.answers.com/topic/rape

because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.

False.

"You harass women in every post -- you are one of the most
misogynistic people I have ever read. Even your terms of
abuse for male posters demonstrate a deep hatred of women."
....
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Add psychoanalysis to the long and growing list of
things about which you know nothing but love to huff
and puff and try to perpetrate frauds.

'The serial bully:
... is constantly imposing on others a false reality
made up of distortion and fabrication ..
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

The following includes behaviour that is seen here.

'The Power and Control Wheel

[snip stale copy-and-paste bullshit]

**** off, ****.

Textbook. Let's put that back.

'The Power and Control Wheel

Using isolation. One of the most effective ways to begin to
overpower another person is to keep her from having contact
with others. By systematically severing her relationships with
family, friends, and co-workers, the batterer insures that his
victim has little support. He becomes her only point of
reference, thereby defining and controlling her world.
Batterers can isolate their partners in a variety of ways, from
excessive jealousy to restricting their access to education and
jobs or controlling where they go or with whom they spend
their time. For women with disabilities, lesbians, older
women, immigrant women, or others who are marginalized by
mainstream society, isolation takes on an increased potency.

Minimizing, denying, and blaming. Batterers often minimize or
deny the abuse, or they blame their partners for provoking it.
He may minimize the severity of her injuries, or outright deny
that he caused them. Unfortunately, "victim-blaming" is
prevalent in our society. Sometimes abusers play mind games
with their victims trying to make them feel crazy. Often violent
behavior towards women is justified by saying things like
"she asked for it" or "she needed to be put back in her place."
In so doing, the blame and accountability shifts from the
abusive behavior of the batterer to the "weakness" of the victim.

Using children. Using children is yet another way that a batterer
can instill feelings of guilt and incompetence in his partner,
making her feel like a "bad" mother. Some batterers will force
children to turn against their mothers, or will threaten to take the
children away if the victim were to try to leave. There is also
evidence that in homes where there is abuse towards the mother,
there is an increased likelihood of abuse towards the children.
Girls whose fathers batter their mothers are 6.5 times more
likely to be sexually assaulted by their fathers than are girls
from non-violent homes.

Using male privilege. In our patriarchal society, men are often
raised to believe that they have been given the right to be
dominating and aggressive. Being "tough" and "in charge" are
accepted and expected as part of one´s manhood. It is all too
often the case that batterers use this gender imbalance as a
justification for violent or controlling behavior.

Using economic abuse. By controlling and limiting a woman´s
access to financial means, a batterer can assure that his victim
will have limited resources if she has thoughts of leaving. She
may have to turn over her paycheck, leave her job, or account
for every penny spent. Too often women have to choose
between staying in an abusive relationship or being thrust into
economic ruin or poverty.

Using coercion and threats. Threats are used to control by
creating intense fear that can paralyze the victim's ability to act
or keep herself constantly on guard in an effort to protect our
lives or well-being. Some common threats are suicide, threats
to kill her or the children, threats to damage property, etc. The
victim may also be coerced into acting in ways that contradict
her values, such as prostitution or fraud.

Using intimidation. Abusers will often commit terrifying acts in
order to keep their partner in a state of continuous fear. This
may include smashing things, killing pets, harassing friends and
family, setting fires, driving recklessly, suicide and homicide.
Intimidation periodically reinforced with assault, makes violence
a daily part of the victim´s reality and, therefore, makes her easier
to control.

Using emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is the most common
form of control and can often exist in relationships where there
is not physical battering. This includes put-downs, insults to
the victim´s intelligence and abilities, name-calling, etc. In so
doing, the batterer systematically breaks her spirit and
self-esteem. She may begin to feel as if the abuse is her fault or
that she must deserve it.

These forms of abuse are used in multiple combinations.
Constant violence and criticism leaves women uncertain,
humiliated, and much easier to control.

Labels: blame shifting, coercion, denying, economic,
emotional abuse, intimidation, isolation, minimizing, misogyny
......
http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.com/

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork lied:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net...
pearl wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message ps.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.

In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Rudy feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
rupie is a bitch.

'The serial

rupie *is* a bitch.

You're just a ****ing lying whore.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

That is exactly right.

In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.

It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.


In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....1?dmode=source

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female

rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

"Rupert" wrote in message oups.com...
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.

That is exactly right.

In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.

It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.

In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....1?dmode=source

Not to mention his violent fantasies involving broomsticks and
broken bottles. Jonathan Ball is clearly an extremely sick 'man'.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.


In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....1?dmode=source



However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female

rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.

I don't need any talent as a psychoanalyst. What I said is simply an
obvious statement of fact which anyone can verify by reading your
post. "You took it, and you liked it." The homoerotic feeling is
barely concealed.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.

Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.

In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...

However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I find it extremely funny, I thought I made that clear. I like
pointing out the level of immaturity and what it reveals about Ball.
I'm not protesting about it, I'm just stating the facts about it.
Contrary to what you said earlier I do not find it particularly
"irritating". It's good fun.

It's always fun when Ball makes a clown of himself. Like in the other
thread where he just tried to tell me that "axiomatizable" isn't a
word. Absolutely fantastic. I wonder how long that will go on for.
Ball obviously intends to keep replying, despite the fact that he has
nothing to say. Should be quite a lot of comic value to be extracted
there, I think, until I get bored.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
legroups.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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.

I expressed my disgust at

You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized".

Not quite. I expressed the view that if you didn't do that then you
were a pitiful coward.

It really is a marvel that you're not ashamed for mocking someone for
having a history of mental illness. As I say, it's just the same as
mocking someone for having cerebral palsy. Most people find that sort
of behaviour to be fairly despicable. You have no qualms about it,
fine.

I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology.

Yes, you did. And you're obviously very proud of that and have the
idea that you thereby somehow showed that you were the more dominant
male. Whatever floats your boat.

And here we are.


Yes, here we are, and you get funnier and funnier every day.

rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.

... you are

...just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.

You're obviously very proud of the job you're doing. Are you aware of
the fact that these days most of the "abuse" you give me makes me howl
with laughter? Is that the desired effect?

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I find it extremely funny, I thought I made that clear. I like
pointing out the level of immaturity and what it reveals about Ball.
I'm not protesting about it, I'm just stating the facts about it.
Contrary to what you said earlier I do not find it particularly
"irritating". It's good fun.

It's always fun when Ball makes a clown of himself. Like in the other
thread where he just tried to tell me that "axiomatizable" isn't a
word. Absolutely fantastic. I wonder how long that will go on for.
Ball obviously intends to keep replying, despite the fact that he has
nothing to say. Should be quite a lot of comic value to be extracted
there, I think, until I get bored.


That is a 180 degree shift from only short while ago when you were so
perturbed that you were issuing ultimatums. Let's be frank, the tone of
the debate doesn't bother you in the least as long as you feel you have
the upper hand.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 9:12 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I find it extremely funny, I thought I made that clear. I like
pointing out the level of immaturity and what it reveals about Ball.
I'm not protesting about it, I'm just stating the facts about it.
Contrary to what you said earlier I do not find it particularly
"irritating". It's good fun.

It's always fun when Ball makes a clown of himself. Like in the other
thread where he just tried to tell me that "axiomatizable" isn't a
word. Absolutely fantastic. I wonder how long that will go on for.
Ball obviously intends to keep replying, despite the fact that he has
nothing to say. Should be quite a lot of comic value to be extracted
there, I think, until I get bored.

That is a 180 degree shift from only short while ago when you were so
perturbed that you were issuing ultimatums. Let's be frank, the tone of
the debate doesn't bother you in the least as long as you feel you have
the upper hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you talking about when I said I chose not to engage with you
because of the way you were behaving? That doesn't mean I was
perturbed, it was just a choice I made. I didn't feel inclined to
engage with you while you were behaving in that way. I didn't see any
tangible benefit to be had from it.

The tone of the debate doesn't *especially* bother me. I sometimes
find it frustrating and irritating, and I think it reflects poorly on
you people, and I sometimes say what I think about it and choose to
terminate conversations because of it. But you're right of course,
ultimately it's my choice whether I want to bother participating here
or not, and if I'm going to stick around then there's really not much
point in getting too fussed. Another reason I don't get too fussed is
that I think pretty much all of the derogatory comments you make have
about the same level of credibility as Ball's nonsense. I think you
have some legitimate criticisms and I accept those, although I also
believe similar criticisms apply to your position as well. I'll
clarify that when I write up my position, which hopefully I'll get
around to doing this weekend. But the great majority of the
uncomplimentary things you say about me I think are just palpable
nonsense, and they really don't bother me because I have no respect
for your judgement. However, it does get tiresome sometimes,
especially when you have the nerve to suggest that I am the one who is
at fault and I am the one who is being condescending. I really can't
believe you can say that with a straight face. You ought to try
listening to yourself sometimes.

But, yes, you're right, Ball is a different kettle of fish. He is so
entertaining that, as you say, I positively revel in making fun of
him. The difference is with you it's just a tiresome chore pointing
out how nonsensical your personal attacks are, like having to brush
away a fly all the time, with Ball it's a form of entertainment. Since
it's an inevitable and permanent feature of this board, why not
appreciate its comic side?

Anyway, as you say, all this is boring and irrelevant rubbish.
Hopefully I'll get around to writing up my position soon and we can
actually have a discussion about animal ethics. That'll be something
new and exciting.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.

I don't need any talent

And, the lord or someone granted you just that.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I find it extremely funny

No, you narcissistic little skirt-boy. You /revel/ in
it because you're in love with yourself.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.
I expressed my disgust at
You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized".

Not quite.

No, quite. You bitchily (heh) demanded that I stop
replying to your posts until I "apologized". You
really showed your full girlish side in that one.


I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology.

Yes, you did.

Yes, I did.


And here we are.


Yes, here we are

Yes, here we are, and you're dazed and bloodied.
You're a mess.


rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.
... you are
...just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.

You're obviously very proud of the job you're doing.

Quite.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:12 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I find it extremely funny, I thought I made that clear. I like
pointing out the level of immaturity and what it reveals about Ball.
I'm not protesting about it, I'm just stating the facts about it.
Contrary to what you said earlier I do not find it particularly
"irritating". It's good fun.
It's always fun when Ball makes a clown of himself. Like in the other
thread where he just tried to tell me that "axiomatizable" isn't a
word. Absolutely fantastic. I wonder how long that will go on for.
Ball obviously intends to keep replying, despite the fact that he has
nothing to say. Should be quite a lot of comic value to be extracted
there, I think, until I get bored.
That is a 180 degree shift from only short while ago when you were so
perturbed that you were issuing ultimatums. Let's be frank, the tone of
the debate doesn't bother you in the least as long as you feel you have
the upper hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you talking about when I said I chose not to engage with you
because of the way you were behaving?

More rupie bitchiness.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 6, 12:02 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jul 5, 10:11 pm, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

snip...

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually dohave
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?

=========================
Again, a proven liar. Show where ihavemade this claim, killer.

If I've misinterpreted your position, I apologize. I've made a good
faith effort to interpret it correctly. You've certainly stated that
*I* don't care about animals.

========================
Not in any meaningful way. your continued actions prove that.


That's a joke.

Perhaps youcouldtell me who does, then. Perhaps I shouldhavebeen a bit clearer about what I mean by
"someone in our society". Maybe if someone dropped out of the consumer
society and grew all their own food and made their own electricity,
you'd finally admit that they care about animals to some extent.

===========================
Anyone who doesn't cause the massive UNNECESSARY deaths like you do.

"Massive"? I think there's reasonable doubt about that. You've never
made any reasonable attempt to give an estimate.

The
problem is neither
I, nor you, will really hear about them because they aren't tooting their
own horn all over the world
from from the usenet pulpit.

They may or may not exist. So these people, who have become self-
sufficient in food and electricity in order to stop supporting harm to
animals, are the only people who really care about animals. Is that
right?

The lie you continue to spew is the one that
just because you don't eat meat
means you care about animals more than someone who does. It's a lie.
Proven over and over again by you're
own actions.


It means I care more about animals than most people, in my view. I
don't really care what you think about it. I think that what you think
about it is a joke.

By "someone in our society" I meant someone who participates at some
level in the processes in which just about everyone, with virtually no
exceptions, participates. So, what exactly would it take for you to
admit that I care about animals? And can you point me to anyone who
does?

===============================
First off, I think you protest too much. Having to tell everyone how much
you care kinda proves my point
that you are really doing nothing. If you truly cared, you wouldn'thaveto
try to convince us, huh?


I'm not interested in trying to convince you. You were the one who
brought the subject up. I think that your opinion about the matter is
a joke, and I'm bothering to say so. You can think what you like.







If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.

======================
veganism causes no/less/fewer deaths just because the diet portion
contains
no meat.
Completely unsupported by you, and everyother usenet vegan, hypocrite...

Well, as far as I'm concerned that's not true. I've given you some
data in the past about how much crop production is required to feed
the United States according to its current eating habits. I think it
is reasonable to conclude that if everyone went vegan that would be a
change for the better, not necessarily the only way to achieve a
substantial change for the better.

==========================
And the point you always ignore is that those same peoplecouldchange to
non-crop fed beef.
The pasture and range is already there. ALL beef cattle already spend most
of their lives there.
The production through large feedlots operations is a method developed after
WWII. If you really
wanted a difference, and fewer crops grown, you'd promote meats raised that
way. But you won't,
because your religion is based on your simple rule for your simple mind,
'eat no meat.'

I'm not convinced that I could make a substantial improvement by
switching to grass-fed beef. You've still yet to tell me where I can
buy this mythical grass-fed beef with zero crop inputs. I think that
the current contribution to animal suffering made by my diet is very
small. I don't think I need to worry about fine details like whether I
may be able to make some slight improvement by switching to some form
of grass-fed beef. Your diet may be just as good as mine. My diet is a
lot better than most people's. And I do a lot of activism to try and
improve conditions for animals as well. The idea that I don't care is
a joke.

So, you're contention
that if everyone went vegan is just another unsupported claim. Replacing
the crops that cattle eat would
not be a one-to-one conversion. Feed crops are not the same as people
edible crops, nor are they grown the
same. Our foods require more intensive operations in power and inputs.

We would be growing fewer crops if everyone went vegan. I've
adequately supported this statement, you haven't cast any serious
doubt on it. Some forms of grass-fed beef might be a reasonable
approach as well, I've never denied that.

Plus, what 'vegan' diet is always
better? All bananas? You'd claim they are vegan, but I'd say they are
not. Too much killing and environmental
damage goes into them. Plus, they depend on the petro-chemical industry to
ship them all over the world. That's
yet another of your problems. You've never once compared the foods you do
eat to each other. You won't.


All right, well, you have a different idea of what counts as a
reasonable standard than I do. Fine, you can hold yourself to that
standard if you want. But in actual fact you don't care about animals
in the slightest, you just want to try and argue that I don't for some
reason. Well, I think it's a joke, and I'm not particularly interested
in what you think. So there you go.

I don't think it is reasonable to say that this assertion of mine is "completely unsupported". If you
really want to contest it I think you should make some effort to give
some reason why we should doubt it. On the other hand, if you're just
saying that there may be some non-vegan diets which are at least as
good, on that point we are agreed.

====================
Progress.....

I've explicitly said I agreed with this point time and time again.
I've never denied it.

So you admit that your privious claims that being vegan means
you've killed
fewer animal was a lie?


Sigh. There are two different claims. One is "For most Westerners,
making the transition to a vegan diet would be a big improvement." The
other is "Every vegan diet is better than every conceivable non-vegan
diet". I make the first claim but not the second. You constantly
conflate these two claims, I keep pointing out that they are different
claims but it still hasn't sunk in.




snip...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.

I don't need any talent

And, the lord or someone granted you just that.

Not very well expressed. Are you saying the lord or someone granted me
a lack of talent? It's a pretty inept way of saying it. It would be
more natural to read it as saying the lord or someone granted me
talent, except we know from the context that that's not what you mean.

Anyway, Ball, say some more funny stuff. Talk about how all the male
activists in Animal Liberation are queer, or how I lack talent in
mathematics. Please? :)

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:





On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oglegroups.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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.
I expressed my disgust at
You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized".

Not quite.

No, quite. You bitchily (heh) demanded that I stop
replying to your posts until I "apologized". You
really showed your full girlish side in that one.


I may have expressed it as an instruction once or twice, just like you
quite often comically demand that I stop talking about "financial
support". Most of the time I just commented on how extraordinarily
cowardly it was.

It was a long time ago, Ball. It was perhaps not the best way of
dealing with you, but it really doesn't matter. I really don't care
what you think about it. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, all
this obsessing about my supposed femininity says a lot more about you
than me. You constantly make a ludicrous clown of yourself on a daily
basis and I find it highly entertaining. If you want to bring up an
occasion a few years ago and try to find something to laugh about
about that, much joy may it bring you.


I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology.

Yes, you did.

Yes, I did.


Hardly something to give yourself an enormous erection about in my
view, but you're obviously getting a lot of gratification from it. You
think it's an example of how you're an alpha male. I don't imagine you
get much chance to feel like that in real life. So construct fantasies
about being an alpha male on usenet if you like.

And here we are.

Yes, here we are

Yes, here we are, and you're dazed and bloodied.
You're a mess.


Then why am I constantly howling with laughter at you?





rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.
... you are
...just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.

You're obviously very proud of the job you're doing.

Quite.

It's very, very funny. How about trying to tell me that
"axiomatizable" wasn't a word? Are you proud of that? :)

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 11:16 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I find it extremely funny

No, you narcissistic little skirt-boy. You /revel/ in
it because you're in love with yourself.

No, I'm afraid not, Ball. It's nothing to do with how I feel about
myself. It's to do with how amused I am by what an incredibly funny
clown you are. And the fact that you don't realise this is even more
funny.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 11:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:12 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I find it extremely funny, I thought I made that clear. I like
pointing out the level of immaturity and what it reveals about Ball.
I'm not protesting about it, I'm just stating the facts about it.
Contrary to what you said earlier I do not find it particularly
"irritating". It's good fun.
It's always fun when Ball makes a clown of himself. Like in the other
thread where he just tried to tell me that "axiomatizable" isn't a
word. Absolutely fantastic. I wonder how long that will go on for.
Ball obviously intends to keep replying, despite the fact that he has
nothing to say. Should be quite a lot of comic value to be extracted
there, I think, until I get bored.
That is a 180 degree shift from only short while ago when you were so
perturbed that you were issuing ultimatums. Let's be frank, the tone of
the debate doesn't bother you in the least as long as you feel you have
the upper hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you talking about when I said I chose not to engage with you
because of the way you were behaving?

More rupie bitchiness.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just a choice I made. I didn't feel, on balance, that the conversation
was worth pursuing at that time.

You're so much more masculine than me, aren't you, Ball? The way you
abuse women and call people queer and fantasize about punching people
in the face, and the way you continued to direct remarks at me when
you'd disgusted me to the point of not bothering to engage with them,
all this shows how incredibly manly you are.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.

Not very well expressed.

Well enough, skirt-boy.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:





On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.
I expressed my disgust at
You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized".
Not quite.
No, quite. You bitchily (heh) demanded that I stop
replying to your posts until I "apologized". You
really showed your full girlish side in that one.


I may have expressed it as an instruction once or twice, just like you
quite often comically demand that I stop talking about "financial
support". Most of the time I just commented on how extraordinarily
cowardly it was.

It was a long time ago, Ball. It was perhaps not the best way of
dealing with you, but it really doesn't matter. I really don't care
what you think about it. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, all
this obsessing about my supposed femininity says a lot more about you
than me. You constantly make a ludicrous clown of yourself on a daily
basis and I find it highly entertaining. If you want to bring up an
occasion a few years ago and try to find something to laugh about
about that, much joy may it bring you.


I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology.
Yes, you did.
Yes, I did.


Hardly something to give yourself an enormous erection about in my
view, but you're obviously getting a lot of gratification from it. You
think it's an example of how you're an alpha male. I don't imagine you
get much chance to feel like that in real life. So construct fantasies
about being an alpha male on usenet if you like.

And here we are.
Yes, here we are
Yes, here we are, and you're dazed and bloodied.
You're a mess.


Then why am I constantly howling with laughter at you?




rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.
... you are
...just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.
You're obviously very proud of the job you're doing.
Quite.

It's very, very funny.

You have strange tastes, skirt-boy.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:16 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I find it extremely funny
No, you narcissistic little skirt-boy. You /revel/ in
it because you're in love with yourself.

No, I'm afraid not,

It's the truth. You revel in it because you're a sick
narcissistic **** who craves the attention. Sick.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:12 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I find it extremely funny, I thought I made that clear. I like
pointing out the level of immaturity and what it reveals about Ball.
I'm not protesting about it, I'm just stating the facts about it.
Contrary to what you said earlier I do not find it particularly
"irritating". It's good fun.
It's always fun when Ball makes a clown of himself. Like in the other
thread where he just tried to tell me that "axiomatizable" isn't a
word. Absolutely fantastic. I wonder how long that will go on for.
Ball obviously intends to keep replying, despite the fact that he has
nothing to say. Should be quite a lot of comic value to be extracted
there, I think, until I get bored.
That is a 180 degree shift from only short while ago when you were so
perturbed that you were issuing ultimatums. Let's be frank, the tone of
the debate doesn't bother you in the least as long as you feel you have
the upper hand.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Are you talking about when I said I chose not to engage with you
because of the way you were behaving?
More rupie bitchiness.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just a choice I made. I didn't feel, on balance, that the conversation
was worth pursuing at that time.

You're so much more masculine than me, aren't you, Ball? The way you
abuse women and call people queer and fantasize about punching people
in the face, and the way you continued to direct remarks at me when
you'd disgusted me to the point of not bothering to engage with them,
all this shows how incredibly manly you are.

Queenish bitchiness.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
news:1184038904.760933.101940@j4g2000prf. googlegroups.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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.
I expressed my disgust at
You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized".
Not quite.
No, quite. You bitchily (heh) demanded that I stop
replying to your posts until I "apologized". You
really showed your full girlish side in that one.

I may have expressed it as an instruction once or twice, just like you
quite often comically demand that I stop talking about "financial
support". Most of the time I just commented on how extraordinarily
cowardly it was.

It was a long time ago, Ball. It was perhaps not the best way of
dealing with you, but it really doesn't matter. I really don't care
what you think about it. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, all
this obsessing about my supposed femininity says a lot more about you
than me. You constantly make a ludicrous clown of yourself on a daily
basis and I find it highly entertaining. If you want to bring up an
occasion a few years ago and try to find something to laugh about
about that, much joy may it bring you.

I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology.
Yes, you did.
Yes, I did.

Hardly something to give yourself an enormous erection about in my
view, but you're obviously getting a lot of gratification from it. You
think it's an example of how you're an alpha male. I don't imagine you
get much chance to feel like that in real life. So construct fantasies
about being an alpha male on usenet if you like.

And here we are.
Yes, here we are
Yes, here we are, and you're dazed and bloodied.
You're a mess.

Then why am I constantly howling with laughter at you?

rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.
... you are
...just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.
You're obviously very proud of the job you're doing.
Quite.

It's very, very funny.

You have strange tastes, skirt-boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not really. Pretty much everyone round here thinks you're a joke,
haven't you noticed? I tell my friends about you and they find it
funny too. Even Dutch charitably assumes you're not being serious. It
is pretty hard to believe you're being serious sometimes.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:

On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.

Not very well expressed.

Well enough, skirt-boy.

Well enough to achieve what? If it was meant to be witty repartee then
it was incredibly inept, even for you.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.
Not very well expressed.
Well enough, skirt-boy.

Well enough to achieve what?

Well enough to demonstrate that you're talentless.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:18 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 13, 11:57 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:07 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
"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.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he tried something like that with
me before. He said I "needed" to stop replying to him,
that it was my obligation or some such horseshit. He
implied he didn't want to keep replying to me, but he
kept replying all the same, and I never did give him
the silly apology he kept demanding.
What happened was that I said
You flounced your skirts and said I shouldn't reply to
you. I told you to **** off, that I would post as I
saw fit. You took it, rupie, and you liked it.
I expressed my disgust at
You bitchily demanded that I stop replying to your
posts until I "apologized".
Not quite.
No, quite. You bitchily (heh) demanded that I stop
replying to your posts until I "apologized". You
really showed your full girlish side in that one.
I may have expressed it as an instruction once or twice, just like you
quite often comically demand that I stop talking about "financial
support". Most of the time I just commented on how extraordinarily
cowardly it was.
It was a long time ago, Ball. It was perhaps not the best way of
dealing with you, but it really doesn't matter. I really don't care
what you think about it. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, all
this obsessing about my supposed femininity says a lot more about you
than me. You constantly make a ludicrous clown of yourself on a daily
basis and I find it highly entertaining. If you want to bring up an
occasion a few years ago and try to find something to laugh about
about that, much joy may it bring you.
I kept replying as I saw
fit; no apology.
Yes, you did.
Yes, I did.
Hardly something to give yourself an enormous erection about in my
view, but you're obviously getting a lot of gratification from it. You
think it's an example of how you're an alpha male. I don't imagine you
get much chance to feel like that in real life. So construct fantasies
about being an alpha male on usenet if you like.
And here we are.
Yes, here we are
Yes, here we are, and you're dazed and bloodied.
You're a mess.
Then why am I constantly howling with laughter at you?
rupie flounces his skirt and stamps his delicate foot,
and then writes condescending bullshit. But I know how
to get him off that game.
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.
It makes one want to smack him right in his pasty white
face.
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person
You deserve the abuse you get.
... you are
...just the person to give you the abuse you request
and deserve.
You're obviously very proud of the job you're doing.
Quite.
It's very, very funny.
You have strange tastes, skirt-boy.

Not really.

Yes, really.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 16, 1:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.
Not very well expressed.
Well enough, skirt-boy.

Well enough to achieve what?

Well enough to demonstrate that you're talentless.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you say I have "strange tastes" because I find you funny? :)

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.
Not very well expressed.
Well enough, skirt-boy.
Well enough to achieve what?
Well enough to demonstrate that you're talentless.
And you say I have "strange tastes" because

Because you do have.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 16, 8:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.
Not very well expressed.
Well enough, skirt-boy.
Well enough to achieve what?
Well enough to demonstrate that you're talentless.
And you say I have "strange tastes" because

Because you do have.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So it's strange to find humour in watching a pathetic, frustrated old
man desperately try to put down strangers on the internet in any
conceivable way and on any conceivable pretext, no matter how childish
and lame, and only succeed in making an inept ass of himself, while
manifesting a complete lack of insight into this aspect of his
situation. Well, maybe it is.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 16, 8:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.
Not very well expressed.
Well enough, skirt-boy.
Well enough to achieve what?
Well enough to demonstrate that you're talentless.
And you say I have "strange tastes" because
Because you do have.

So it's strange to find humour in

You don't find any humor in it, rupie. You've been
taking a teeth-kicking for over two years, and you know
it. Your fundamental proposition has been denied and
you haven't been able to respond. You're cooked.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 16, 2:39 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 16, 8:53 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:48 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:19 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:15 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
On Jul 15, 12:20 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert the skirt-boy blabbered:
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female
rupie, your utter lack of talent as a psychoanalyst is
exceeded only by your pomposity.
I don't need any talent
And, the lord or someone granted you just that.
Not very well expressed.
Well enough, skirt-boy.
Well enough to achieve what?
Well enough to demonstrate that you're talentless.
And you say I have "strange tastes" because
Because you do have.

So it's strange to find humour in

You don't find any humor in it, rupie. You've been
taking a teeth-kicking for over two years, and you know
it.

Classic. Just classic. Keep it up, Ball. :)

Talk about how I didn't find it funny when you tried to tell me
"axiomatizable" wasn't a word. This should be good.

Your fundamental proposition has been denied and
you haven't been able to respond. You're cooked.

I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory. You say I know I'm getting a "teeth-
kicking", what I know is that *every* serious scholar in this field
would agree that my argument needs some kind of response and that your
attempts to dismiss it are inept and without merit. That's what I
know, Ball, no matter how hard you try to pretend you believe
otherwise.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:

I've given my argument yet again and demonstrated that your criticisms
of it are unsatisfactory.

Stating that your opponents must disprove your assertions is not a
convincing argument.

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
 

On Jul 15, 5:20 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:16 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:07 am, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, "pearl" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 4:59 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dutch wrote:
..
You earn every bit of verbal abuse you get, and then some.
That is exactly right.
In the eyes of any decent person who reads these conversations, it's
an utter absurdity.
It is the typical "he/she asked for it" refrain of all abusers.
Seems Ball feminizes male opponents, as he's tried with you,
because more than men, he hates and likes to attack women.
In this post he seems to want to construct this narrative where he is
the dominant male and I am the submissive female and I get masochistic
gratification from yielding to him. A bit more information about his
sexual psyche than we need to know, I think.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/89988189a95b...
However you protest, you obviously revel in it, you're perpetuating it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, I find it extremely funny
No, you narcissistic little skirt-boy. You /revel/ in
it because you're in love with yourself.

No, I'm afraid not,

It's the truth. You revel in it because you're a sick
narcissistic **** who craves the attention. Sick.


Ball, I don't know to what extent exactly you're aware of this, if at
all, but the great majority of the statements you make about me I know
for a fact are silly nonsense utterly without the slightest foundation
in rationality or evidence, bordering on the delusional. Not to
mention that they reveal an extraordinarily childish desire to put
people down on any pretext whatsoever, even if it's by means of
prejudices which most people abandon during adolescence, combined with
an extraordinary ineptitude at doing so. I could give many, many,
examples, one being your recent declaration that I don't find any
humour in this situation. Ah well. I've said all this before many
times, and no doubt I'll have occasion to say it again many times. So,
keep me entertained, say some more funny stuff. Talk about how I'm not
really laughing my head off at you on a daily basis and how I really
know that you're an alpha male who's giving me a "teeth-kicking". And
be sure to mention that I'm the one who's psychotic. :)

Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
 

Rupert wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:20 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:

It's the truth. You revel in it because you're a sick
narcissistic **** who craves the attention. Sick.


Ball, I don't know to what extent exactly you're aware of this

You're only proving his point.