Ignoring Rudy

Meadowlark wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Meadowlark wrote:
>
>
>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>
>
>>> I am not this person
>
>
>> That's a lie, Karen. You *are* Karen Winter. You used to post as
>> "Cynomis", and before that as "Rat".
>
>
> I am not this person.

You *are* Karen Winter. Stop LYING, Karen. You
wouldn't be accused of lying if you wouldn't lie.

Derek caught you out. You made your same, stale
references to a bunch of dogma-pounding "ar" writers
("authors" is too generous), and Derek flushed you out.
You're posting from virtually the same Cybermesa IP
address you used when you were "Cynomis". You're using
the same version of Mozilla Thunderbird.

You are Karen Winter. Stop LYING, Karen.


> I am not interested in posting in a group where
> people are regularly accused of lying.

Then either stop lying, or stop posting here, Karen.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Rudy Canoza wrote:



> You wouldn't be accused of lying if you wouldn't lie.

Take that to heart yourself, Rudy.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Meadowlark wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> You wouldn't be accused of lying if you wouldn't lie.

> Take that to heart yourself, Rudy.

You can see why there is no point in posting substantive discussion to
this group. If any of the anti-AR regulars really knew anything about
AR, or had actually read any of the material about it, they would
be asking the real questions:

Is there any scientific evidence to support Sapontzis's claim
that some animals are moral agents?

What exactly does he mean by that claim?

Does this, in fact, undercut Regan's argument, and is it
fatal to Regan's basic thesis?

You would think that last would matter to the anti-AR crowd,
since they want to attack Regan.

Those are real questions, but they require real knowledge
of AR, and real ability to wrestle with theory. None of those
on either side appears to have any ability to address them.
Instead, Rudy concentrates on claiming I am someone I am not,
someone who seems to be a figment of his, and Usual's, imagination.
Dutch starts by ignoring ideas and attacking motivation. Derek
clearly has no grasp of even rudimentary information on animals.
Shevik seems to have no idea what a moral agent even is.

Whoever I am, why should I bother with any of you?

So I will go elsewhere for real discussion.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On 2 Aug 2005 15:40:37 -0700, Goo bawled in desperation:

>Go waste someone else's time

Come on Goo...what did you learn?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter, using "Meadowlark" this week, wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>
>> You wouldn't be accused of lying if you wouldn't lie.
>
>
> Take that to heart yourself, Rudy.

I'm not lying, Karen. YOU are.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - THE Goo - wrote:

> On 2 Aug 2005 15:40:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>Go waste someone else's time, Fuckwit.
>
>
> Come on

Go waste someone else's time, Fuckwit.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter, for some bizarre reason responding to her
own post, wrote:

> Karen Winter wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>> You wouldn't be accused of lying if you wouldn't lie.
>
>
>> Take that to heart yourself, Rudy.
>
>
> You can see why there is no point in posting substantive discussion to
> this group.

Why are you responding to your own post, Karen, and
throwing out a lot of horseshit that doesn't address
anything in the earlier post?

Have you finally gone round the bend?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Meadowlark" <YoMama.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dcuc3l$ned$1@reader2.nmix.net...
> Meadowlark wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>> You wouldn't be accused of lying if you wouldn't lie.
>
>> Take that to heart yourself, Rudy.
>
> You can see why there is no point in posting substantive
> discussion to
> this group. If any of the anti-AR regulars really knew
> anything about
> AR, or had actually read any of the material about it, they
> would
> be asking the real questions:
>
> Is there any scientific evidence to support Sapontzis's claim
> that some animals are moral agents?
================
Doesn't matter. Your case is lost even more by the claims you
make that animals should/do have rights. You prove that they do
not, and that you believe they do not with each and every inane
post you make to usenet. If animals did have rights, AND you
believed that, you wouldn't be here on usenet in the first place.
You are here for entertainment. You have no survival need to be
here, yet here you are contributing to the unnecessary death and
suffering of millions upon millions of animals every year. Why
is that? Are all ARs this hypocritical, or just the usenet loons
spewing their ignorance around the world for all to see?




>
> What exactly does he mean by that claim?
>
> Does this, in fact, undercut Regan's argument, and is it
> fatal to Regan's basic thesis?
>
> You would think that last would matter to the anti-AR crowd,
> since they want to attack Regan.
>
> Those are real questions, but they require real knowledge
> of AR, and real ability to wrestle with theory. None of those
> on either side appears to have any ability to address them.
> Instead, Rudy concentrates on claiming I am someone I am not,
> someone who seems to be a figment of his, and Usual's,
> imagination.
> Dutch starts by ignoring ideas and attacking motivation. Derek
> clearly has no grasp of even rudimentary information on
> animals.
> Shevik seems to have no idea what a moral agent even is.
>
> Whoever I am, why should I bother with any of you?
>
> So I will go elsewhere for real discussion.
=============
LOL you mean backpatting ageement...
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:11:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy.DeleteThis@ph.con> wrote:

>Goo Fuckwit David Harrison - THE Goo - wrote:
>
>> On 2 Aug 2005 15:40:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Go waste someone else's time, Fuckwit.
>>
>>
>> Come on
>
>Go waste someone else's time, Fuckwit.

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way

Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it’s sinking
And racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in the relative way, but you’re older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death

Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time
Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way
The time is gone, the song is over, thought I’d something more to say

Time - Pink Floyd
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:14:14 -0600, Meadowlark <YoMama.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Derek clearly has no grasp of even rudimentary information on animals.

Sorry 'bout that, but until that information can be
extracted from an animal in a meaningful way I'd
hate to make the mistake and presume.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Derek" <usenet.email.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p5e5f19a4uqtb2drp9squo93ub3rqrvo58@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:14:14 -0600, Meadowlark <YoMama.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Derek clearly has no grasp of even rudimentary information on animals.
>
> Sorry 'bout that, but until that information can be
> extracted from an animal in a meaningful way

If under certain circumstances a human displays specific
cues and undergoes specific physiological changes, and
reports experiencing emotion, every time, then an animal
which displays similiar cues and undergoes similiar
physiological changes, is more likely than not experiencing
a similiar emotion.

> I'd
> hate to make the mistake and presume.

You are presuming an absence of emotion, contrary to
all available evidence.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:14:14 -0600, Karen Winter <YoMama DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Derek clearly has no grasp of even rudimentary information on animals.
>
>
> Sorry 'bout that, but until that information can be
> extracted from an animal in a meaningful way I'd
> hate to make the mistake and presume.

Why do you suppose Karen is lying about who she is?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:39:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy.DeleteThis@ph.con> wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:14:14 -0600, Karen Winter <YoMama.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Derek clearly has no grasp of even rudimentary information on animals.
>>
>> Sorry 'bout that, but until that information can be
>> extracted from an animal in a meaningful way I'd
>> hate to make the mistake and presume.
>
>Why do you suppose Karen is lying about who she is?

Your guess is as good as mine or even better on that.
The real question is; what makes her think she can
get away with it.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy