Ignoring Rudy

David Wright Sr. wrote:
> Meadowlark <YoMama.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote in news:dcippt$vrc$1@reader2.nmix.net:

> (snip)
>>I will continue my
>>conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
>>good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.

> I am assuming that your public e-mail address above is phoney for avoiding
> spam, so get in touch with me at dwrighsr.DeleteThis@alltel.net. Note that my public e-
> mail address as an extra 't' in it, so you can't use it.

> I don't worry about spam, as I have an excellent spam-catcher.

Sent you an E-mail this morning, and am looking forward to conversation
with you. My real E-mail address is in the message I sent you.
Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving them
opportunity, if possible. They are both truly mean-spirited and
vindictive, with the judgment and temperament, but not the intelligence,
of rabid wolverines.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

David Wrong Sr wrote:
>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to
>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of
>>real discussion.
>
> I don't wish to mislead anyone.

Then why do you keep trying to do it?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

David Wrong Sr. wrote:
>>It was either that or some hard work on your
>>part to make your case, so you opted for the
>>easy way out and destroyed what credibility
>>you thought you had at the same time.
>
> Well, I see we have another Rudy clone.
>
> I made my case.

No, you didn't.

> You, 'usual suspect'

How dare you compare that self-crippled, dole-scrounging ex-grease
monkey to me.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter wrote:
<...>
> I spent six years and a bunch of
> money researching to write a completely non-saleable fan novel
> about the possible SF developments after the end of "Escape From
> L.A."

Meanwhile, you were shuffling your child from relative to relative to
avoid being a responsible parent.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Beach Runner wrote:
> Animals love,
> they crave affection in wild

I enjoy watching lions give zebras the "affection" they crave on Discovery.

> or as pests.

Bumbling twit.

> They have personalities.

More so, perhaps, than you do, but that's not a high hurdle to jump.

<...>
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter wrote:
> I have no idea

You also have no clue, Karen.

> I am not Rat, I am not Swan,

We know. You are Karen.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Derek" <usenet.email.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03ene19hu0g8ac3o4dkbbveibpn5v7nm7g@4ax.com...
> I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15
> years for ethical reasons.
Nonsense, since there are no objective ethical standards to measure
against, no one can claim they are more "ethical" than another. People just
make up their own "ethics" for their convenience at the time. Ethics are
irrelevant to diet and lifestyle choices.

> I see animals as rights-holders ...
Is there some objective issuer of these "rights"? Humans do not have
"rights", animal certainly do not.

> ...but don't believe they can experience emotions.
You have no idea what is occurring in the consciousness of another
being; no one does.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible information on plant-based diets.
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter, paranoid OCD patient, lied:
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>
>> Meadowlark <YoMama RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:dcippt$vrc$1@reader2.nmix.net:
>
>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> I will continue my
>>> conversation with David ( I hope) elsewhere. I notice he had the
>>> good sense to killfile you and Rudy already.
>
>
>> I am assuming that your public e-mail address above is phoney for
>> avoiding spam, so get in touch with me at dwrighsr RemoveThis @alltel.net. Note
>> that my public e-
>> mail address as an extra 't' in it, so you can't use it.
>
>
>> I don't worry about spam, as I have an excellent spam-catcher.
>
>
> Sent you an E-mail this morning, and am looking forward to conversation
> with you. My real E-mail address is in the message I sent you.
> Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving them
> opportunity, if possible. They are both truly mean-spirited and
> vindictive, with the judgment and temperament, but not the intelligence,
> of rabid wolverines.

Karen, you had your hat handed to you. You couldn't
make a rational defense of "animal rights", and then
you got caught with your knickers down, so to speak,
over absolutely inappropriate behavior, both past and
present, toward your son.

You have the judgment and temperament, but not *even*
the intelligence, of a mule.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:26:28 -0400, "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr.RemoveThis@alltel.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dh@. wrote in news:qbqie1htc46r09lmsfutfl02ag7j3ps2ao@4ax.com:
> >>
> >>(snip)
> >>
> >>
> >>> There are a couple of other things I've considered as possibilities.
> >>>One is that he really is as stupid, etc, as he claims to be, and is
> >>>likely screwed up to the point that he can't function well enough to
> >>>care for himself and never has a job, but is under the care of a
> >>>facility or a family member.
> >>
> >>He certainly does appear to be out of touch with any reality, responding
> >>only to those things which fit his fantasy and ignoring any which don't.
> >>
> >>For example, I presented a listing of 4 prominent behavioral scientists
> >>who refute his notion of "animals can't feel emotions" and, in addition,
> >>mentioned in passing my own 50-60 years of observations with animals of
> >>varying sorts.
> >
> >
> > He has no experience with animals
>
> I have experience with animals.

Sex doesn't count Goober.

>
> You have no meaningful experience with animals. You're
> also uneducated, and you're a convicted felon.


And you are a self admitted cucumber so what's your point?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

dh@. wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:26:28 -0400, "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr RemoveThis @alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote in news:qbqie1htc46r09lmsfutfl02ag7j3ps2ao@4ax.com:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>> There are a couple of other things I've considered as possibilities.
>>>One is that he really is as stupid, etc, as he claims to be, and is
>>>likely screwed up to the point that he can't function well enough to
>>>care for himself and never has a job, but is under the care of a
>>>facility or a family member.
>>
>>He certainly does appear to be out of touch with any reality, responding
>>only to those things which fit his fantasy and ignoring any which don't.
>>
>>For example, I presented a listing of 4 prominent behavioral scientists
>>who refute his notion of "animals can't feel emotions" and, in addition,
>>mentioned in passing my own 50-60 years of observations with animals of
>>varying sorts.
>
>
> He has no experience with animals

I have experience with animals.

You have no meaningful experience with animals. You're
also uneducated, and you're a convicted felon.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:04:02 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy DeleteThis @ph.con> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:26:28 -0400, "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr DeleteThis @alltel.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote in news:qbqie1htc46r09lmsfutfl02ag7j3ps2ao@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are a couple of other things I've considered as possibilities.
>>>>One is that he really is as stupid, etc, as he claims to be, and is
>>>>likely screwed up to the point that he can't function well enough to
>>>>care for himself and never has a job, but is under the care of a
>>>>facility or a family member.
>>>
>>>He certainly does appear to be out of touch with any reality, responding
>>>only to those things which fit his fantasy and ignoring any which don't.
>>>
>>>For example, I presented a listing of 4 prominent behavioral scientists
>>>who refute his notion of "animals can't feel emotions" and, in addition,
>>>mentioned in passing my own 50-60 years of observations with animals of
>>>varying sorts.
>>
>>
>> He has no experience with animals
>
>I have experience with animals.

You have learned nothing at all from animals Goo.

>You have no meaningful experience with animals.

That's a lie.

>You're
>also uneducated,

That's a lie. Experience is a form of education Goober,
but your lack of experience doesn't allow you to understand
how experience could educate someone. This you need to
understand Goo, in order to know anything about animals
at all:

Experience with animals can educate a person about animals.

You can't understand that fact, because you have not gotten
any sort of education at all from experience with animals. None.

>and you're a convicted felon.

That's a lie.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Derek" <usenet.email.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4rse1h4f7atf34lpgg3d3rkho0k79qdgt@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:17:47 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>"Derek" <usenet.email.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:h0kne11kj4dugptsdkhpkp4ak1c1ciflv8@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:05:19 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" <usenet.email.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:51:40 -0700, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>this is a vegan group, a google search under animals and learning
>>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>>show lots of great info. Derek is obviously anti-vgan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. I'm a vegan and have been for nigh on 15
>>>>>>> years for ethical reasons. I see animals as rights-
>>>>>>> holders but don't believe they can experience
>>>>>>> emotions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you define an emotion?
>>>>>
>>>>> A human experience.
>>>>
>>>>Which dictionary does that come from? You appear to be inventing a
>>>>limitation to support your conclusion.
>>>
>>> Rather, you appear to be widening something you don't
>>> fully understand to support yours.
>>
>>Support that.
>
> You are widening the concept of human emotions to
> conclude animals have them. What other support do
> I need?

That shows clearly that it is *you* who is moving the
goalposts here.

The topic is "emotion", not "human emotion". If we were
speaking of "human emotion" then you would be correct.

>>Where is any documentation that proposes
>>that emotion is uniquely human?
>
> Look for it yourself,

That's not how it works, your contention, your job
to support it.

[..]

>>>>If emotion is an expression of spontaneous, without conscious thought,
>>>>mental and physiological excitement, and it is, then the dog is
>>>>exhibiting
>>>>emotion.
>>>
>>> The key word there is "exhibiting", which is something
>>> solely dependent on your sentiment rather than logic.
>>
>>No it's not, it's based on observation, the soul of reason.
>
> You couldn't be any further from the truth.

You're wrong, observation is the foundation of science.

>>There's an old saying, "If it walks like a duck..."
>
> And that old saying is specious.

Like Occam's Razor?

>>> Unless you can find a way of extracting meaningful
>>> information from the dog without resorting to sloppy
>>> sentiment, any statement about that dog will be an
>>> ipse dixit.
>>
>>You did not and cannot describe the exhibited behaviour
>>of the animal in any other way except that it is emotion.
>
> We can't even guarantee

Irrelevant, science neither claims nor issues "guarantees".

> the exhibited behaviour of
> humans, let alone animals, you simple fool. If I were
> to tickle the belly of a new born baby and observed
> what looked like a smile, would that expression be
> associated with playful humour or just wind?

A smile is usually associated with some kind of emotion.

> Besides, I can describe it exactly as you did further
> down this page;
>
> "Conditioning explains why animals react the way
> they do to certain stimuli, not a description of a
> specific mental and physiological state."
>
> Although I would've worded it a lot better than that.

Oh yeah... right.

>>>>>>If that is not anticipation of a
>>>>>>familiar desirable activity AND an expression of emotion then what is
>>>>>>it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Conditioning.
>>>>
>>>>Conditioning explains why animals react the way they do to certain
>>>>stimuli,
>>>>not a description of a specific mental and physiological state.
>>>
>>> Bullseye!
>>
>>Then you are reversing your position?
>
> Not at all. See above.

Above is a lot of diversion.

>>You seem to have come back mindlessly trying to
>>engratiate yourself to your hero Jonathan Ball,
>
> Why would I regard someone you says the things
> he says about me and my family as a hero, and
> why would I ever want to try ingratiating myself
> with someone who says such things about them,
> stupid?

He's your hero because he has a talent at expressing
himself and insulting people that you admire. He also
has a firm grasp of logic that you envy. You want
to engratiate yourself to him because you don't want to
be a target.

> Apart from a few issues between us there are
> some key areas that cannot be denied, and logic
> dictates that I must agree with him in those key
> areas, whatever I might think about him personally.

You've chosen the wrong issue to agree with him on.
He's dead on 99% of the time, you picked the 1%.

>> in
>>the process you have taken a position that even he
>>would not take. Emotions are not uniquely human,
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>>*some complex* emotions are uniquely human.
>
> All emotions are uniquely human.

When you became enraged and raised the broomhandle
to your dog, was he not experiencing fear as he cringed,
pissing himself behind the sofa?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Ron" <banmilk DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in news:1122914374.822126.55010
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

(snip)

>> Have fun, you doddering twit. Senile Davey is in his
>> seventies, and ever farther down the path to unhinged neverland than
>> you are.
>

Better to be on the path than never having found it in the first place like
Rudy. The only reason he knows where his ass is that he has his head up it.

David

P.S. I still several years to go before I am in my seventies. When does Rudy
become old enough to call himself a pre-teen?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy