Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
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. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. Ball's alternative account of where the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained. He has given no satisfactory response. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 16, 4:39 pm, Dutch wrote:
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. Is that what you think, is it, Dutch? |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and about time too!
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote:
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. I would also add that that essay, moralstat99.doc, which you like so much, endorses this argument of mine. I showed where in the thread "The myth of food production efficiency...", in conversation with Ball. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:15 pm, Dutch wrote: 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. There's more to it than that. I've elaborated on why the burden of proof lies where I claim it does. You've done no such thing. You (and DeGrazia) can't support your assertions so you attempt to force others to supply proof of the contrary, its the oldest trick in the book. If you expect for one single moment that such a tactic is going to meet with any success you are dreaming. All it does is show to everyone that your position cannot be argued on its merits. Ball's alternative account of where the burden of proof lies has serious problems, which I have explained. He has given no satisfactory response. I've provided a coherent point of view which refutes the argument from marginal cases. It lays out a solid foundation which explains rights and our relationship with animals. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Now even spiders, squid and lobsters could have rights, and abouttime too!
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:39 pm, Dutch wrote: 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. Is that what you think, is it, Dutch? Why else would you be responding to his taunts? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|