collateral damage of organic rice

On 17 Jan 2004 13:33:41 -0800, kanddbxxx.RemoveThis@excite.com (K D B) wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote in message news:<ilji00lj7416bp18cij06emccd2occq2hi.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>> >dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan <labrat.RemoveThis@cybermesa.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>><snip>
>> >>>
>> >>>>The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
>> >>>>"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
>> >>>>manifold:
>>
>> >>>>- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
>> >>>> requiring a response
>> >>>
>> >>>As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
>> >>>use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
>> >>>the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
>> >>>believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
>> >>>why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ball says:
>> >>
>> >> The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>> >> follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>> >> and logical conclusion."
>> >
>> >No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>> >wrote that sentence.
>>
>> It's what you meant. You need to tell her that she
>> should be a vegan,
>
> She already is, Jethro Fuckwit.

The Gonad should tell her he believes she should be one, not
pretend he believes she should be something else, Brandumbass.
He doesn't even suggest that she do anything else. That's because
he wants to support "AR", and pretending (very badly) to be an
"AR" opponent with no suggestion(s) about doing anything better
makes him look like a moron, which is the impression he wants to
create of "AR" opponents.

> and you believe she has arrived
>> at a natural and logical conclusion, because you do
>> feel that way.
>>
>> >You cobbled that sentence
>> >togteher from two sentences I did write.
>>
>> Since you "ARAs" work together, we can be fairly
>> certain
>
> YOU aren't capable of any degree of certainty on anything.

We can be certain that he thinks Rat *should be* a vegan.
_________________________________________________________
From: jonball52.RemoveThis@altavista.com (Jonathan Ball)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan
Subject: Re: How Jonathan Ball wants people to feel about the silly arse, Fuckwith
Date: 11 Apr 2002 18:53:15 -0700

People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". "Vegans"
aren't interested in contributing to lives of any quality for farm
animals: they don't want there to be farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>You
>don't even understand the sentences you falsely attribute to someone
>else,
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@earthlink.NS.net>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Article about animal interests
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:07:55 -0800
Message-ID: <3A101FEB.D8F8366B.RemoveThis@mindspring.com>

"they follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its
natural and logical conclusion."
[That natural and logical conclusion being the elimination
of domestic animals.]
"You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself."
[That other bizarre direction being to improve the animals'
welfare instead of to eliminate them.]
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>much less the true quotes.
>
>
> that you aren't all pissy just because Rat knows
>> you think "AR" is a logical conclusion
>
> You ignorant, illiterate fuck. Why do you quote material you can't
>even comprehend? He never said ar is a "logical conclusion", he said
>aras follow their belief to ITS logical conclusion. Are you really so
>stupid you can't understand the vast difference in those two
>statements?

He feels that they have arrived at a natural and logical conclusion,
and you both very obviously believe it's a more natural and logical conclusion
than it would be if they decided to contribute to decent lives for farm animals
instead. And you/they/Gonad all feel that way because contributing to decent
lives for farm animals goes against what you "ARAs" want to accomplish.

>Here's a hint: Jonathan has never said anything you
>foolishly think he has said (for that matter, neither has anyone
>else). Your stupidity sinks to new depths with every post. You are the
>dumbest fuck on this side of the Atlantic.
>
>
>
>
>...she has
>> probably been well aware of that for years. But since
>> you obviously are all a piss about other people learning
>> how you feel, who is it that you're so worried about
>> finding out?
>
>
> Quit raping the English language.
>
> Kevin
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:31:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan <labrat.TakeThisOut@cybermesa.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
>>>>>>>"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
>>>>>>>manifold:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
>>>>>>>requiring a response
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
>>>>>>use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
>>>>>>the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
>>>>>>believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
>>>>>>why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ball says:
>>>>>
>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>>>>>follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>>>>>and logical conclusion."
>>>>
>>>>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>>>>wrote that sentence.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's what you meant.
>>
>>I didn't write it, fucking queer; you did.
>

[snip stuff that doesn't address FUCKWIT'S forgery]

Why did you post that crap, FUCKWIT? It doesn't change
the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
under my name and posting address, FUCKWIT.


>>>>You cobbled that sentence
>>>>together from two sentences I did write.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you "ARAs" work together,
>>
>>I'm not an "ara", and you know it.
>
>
> I don't know it

That's a lie, FUCKWIT. You do know it, and you do
believe it. Stop lying, FUCKWIT.

>
>
>>Stop posting using my name and posting address, FUCKWIT.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On 17 Jan 2004 21:51:05 -0800, kanddbxxx DeleteThis @excite.com (K D B) wrote:
>ipse dixit <nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message news:<hidj009o2rjlcvjeg4deo3rvh6tdbqlr5q DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Jan 2004 13:39:10 -0800, kanddbxxx DeleteThis @excite.com (K D B) wrote:
>> >ipse dixit <nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message news:<uiki00taupgduffgrogd9cp08l2siab8o9 DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
>> >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:59 GMT, dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>> >> >>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> Ball says:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>> >> >>> follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>> >> >>> and logical conclusion."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>> >> >>wrote that sentence.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's what you meant.
>> >>
>> >> So, you lied. Despite your repeated claims that
>> >> Jon has lied about you, it's plainly obvious now
>> >> that you in fact lie about him instead. I see you've
>> >> also been forging posts using his name and email
>> >> address, too. Whatever next? You're an habitual
>> >> liar, Harrison.
>> >
>> > Pot, kettle...
>> >
>> > Snipping without notation is dishonest even when
>> >the victim is Jethro Harrison.
>>
>> No, it isn't, but if you're sincere about that claim
>> why don't you say the same to Jon who always
>> snips without notation, you little coward?
>
> Pot, kettle...
>
> Do you mean as a retaliatory measure against trolls who make
>use of the same practice?

No. I mean that he snips without notation, something
you claim is dishonest and leaves the snipper with "no
ethical grounds for accusing someone else of dishonesty."

Why don't you say the same to Jonathan if you're
sincere about that claim?

>Your use of the word "always" makes your
>claim a demonstrable lie.

I've never noted a single instance where he has
made a note of his snips, so my use of the word
"always" is correct. He always snips without
notation, especially over the last few months or
years, and if you weren't such a coward you
would point this out to him. You won't though,
because you're worried he'll rip your head off in
his reply to you. Your safest bet is to continue
trying to beat up on the slow-witted types like
Harrison as usual instead.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not> wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:31:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan <labrat.DeleteThis@cybermesa.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
>>>>>>>>"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
>>>>>>>>manifold:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
>>>>>>>>requiring a response
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
>>>>>>>use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
>>>>>>>the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
>>>>>>>believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
>>>>>>>why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ball says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>>>>>>follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>>>>>>and logical conclusion."
>>>>>
>>>>>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>>>>>wrote that sentence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's what you meant.
>>>
>>>I didn't write it, fucking queer; you did.
>>
>
>[snip stuff that doesn't address FUCKWIT'S forgery]
>
>Why did you post that crap, FUCKWIT?

To show what you wrote. Why did you snip it Gonad?

>It doesn't change
>the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
>under my name and posting address, FUCKWIT.
>
>
>>>>>You cobbled that sentence
>>>>>together from two sentences I did write.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you "ARAs" work together,
>>>
>>>I'm not an "ara", and you know it.
>>
>>
>> I don't know it
>
>That's a lie, FUCKWIT. You do know it, and you do
>believe it.

I don't know it or believe it.

>Stop lying, FUCKWIT.

Gonad, I still believe you're the most dishonest of the dishonest
"ARAs" in the ngs. One reason being that you can't present even
one example of your opposition to it. And if you ever do, it's not
likely that it will have anything to do with animals or their rights.
It will just be a lame attempt to make you look like an opponent
without presenting anything that would work against "AR". But
as yet you haven't even been able to do that much. I have several
reasons to believe you're an "ARA", and no reasons to believe
you're an opponent.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:41:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:

>FUCKWIT David Harrison dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>>>>>>>>follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>>>>>>>>and logical conclusion."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>>>>>>>wrote that sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's what you meant.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't write it, fucking queer; you did.
>>>>
>>>[snip stuff that doesn't address FUCKWIT'S forgery]
>>>
>>>Why did you post that crap, FUCKWIT?
>>
>>
>> To show what you wrote.
>
>I didn't write it, FUCKWIT.

LOL! You did so Gonad, you liar, and obviously
you're ashamed of it too. Otherwise you wouldn't
keep denying it. LOL...you are still hilarious Gonad.

>You did. I am going to
>see to it that Earthlink makes you stop, or closes your
>account.
>
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't change
>>>the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
>>>under my name and posting address, FUCKWIT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>You cobbled that sentence
>>>>>>>together from two sentences I did write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you "ARAs" work together,
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not an "ara", and you know it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know it
>>>
>>>That's a lie, FUCKWIT. You do know it, and you do
>>>believe it.
>>
>>
>> I don't know it or believe it.
>
>You know it, and you believe it.
>
>>
>>
>>>Stop lying, FUCKWIT.
>>
>>
>> I still believe you're the most dishonest of the dishonest
>> "ARAs" in the ngs.
>
>That's another lie. You know I am not an "ara".

I believe that you are an "ARA" Gonad, as I have for
years. Remember I've got several reasons to believe that
you are one, and not one damned reason to believe that
you're not.

>You
>have always known it. You hate my guts ONLY because I
>have shown your particular FUCKWITTED anti-"ar"
>thinking to be nonsense.

You've never done that now that you mention it Gonad,
but if you think you can then do it. And while you're trying
to do that, why not share some of your "opposition" if you
have any...which we know you don't.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:41:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>FUCKWIT David Harrison dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>>>>>>>>>follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>>>>>>>>>and logical conclusion."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>>>>>>>>wrote that sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's what you meant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't write it, fucking queer; you did.
>>>>>
>>>>[snip stuff that doesn't address FUCKWIT'S forgery]
>>>>
>>>>Why did you post that crap, FUCKWIT?
>>>
>>>
>>> To show what you wrote.
>>
>>I didn't write it, FUCKWIT.
>
>
> LOL! You did so

I did'nt write it, FUCKWIT. You took two sentences I
did write and put them together. That's a forgery,
FUCKWIT. You are a liar and a forger.


>>You did. I am going to
>>see to it that Earthlink makes you stop, or closes your
>>account.

Don't take this lightly, FUCKWIT.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>It doesn't change
>>>>the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
>>>>under my name and posting address, FUCKWIT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>You cobbled that sentence
>>>>>>>>together from two sentences I did write.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you "ARAs" work together,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not an "ara", and you know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know it
>>>>
>>>>That's a lie, FUCKWIT. You do know it, and you do
>>>>believe it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know it or believe it.
>>
>>You know it, and you believe it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Stop lying, FUCKWIT.
>>>
>>>
>>> I still believe you're the most dishonest of the dishonest
>>>"ARAs" in the ngs.
>>
>>That's another lie. You know I am not an "ara".
>
>
> I believe that you are an "ARA"

I am not an "ara", and you have always known I'm not an
"ara". Stop lying, FUCKWIT.

>
>>You
>>have always known it. You hate my guts ONLY because I
>>have shown your particular FUCKWITTED anti-"ar"
>>thinking to be nonsense.
>
>
> You've never done that

I have done it, FUCKWIT, over and over. It's why you
hate me: you thought you had this cool little trick to
pull on "aras", and I, an opponent of "ar", showed that
it was nothing but a shabby, poorly executed trick.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:28:50 GMT, dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:41:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>FUCKWIT David Harrison dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>>>>>>>>>follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>>>>>>>>>and logical conclusion."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>>>>>>>>wrote that sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's what you meant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't write it, fucking queer; you did.
>>>>>
>>>>[snip stuff that doesn't address FUCKWIT'S forgery]
>>>>
>>>>Why did you post that crap, FUCKWIT?
>>>
>>> To show what you wrote.
>>
>>I didn't write it, FUCKWIT.
>
> LOL! You did so Gonad,

No, he didn't, Harrison. You wrote that quote.

>you liar

Then find that quote he supposedly wrote and
bring it here in your reply.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

Jonathan Ball wrote in message ...
>Anyway, if your store carries the New Zealand beef,
>give it a try. Be aware it's leaner than American
>beef, precisely because it's grass-fed: one of the
>reasons for feeding the grain in the first place is the
>increased development of intramuscular fat, which
>improves juiciness and tenderness. If you overcook the
>NZ beef, you'll dry it out.
>

we dont :< oh well. like i said, we dont eat too much red meat anyhow, so
its not such a big deal. im just wishing i had a yard so i could start my
own garden and get to canning!

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

Hangovers only last a day, but a good drinking story lives on forever....
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:06:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:41:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>FUCKWIT David Harrison dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:23:30 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
>>>>>>>>>>follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
>>>>>>>>>>and logical conclusion."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, FUCKWIT, you fuckwitted inept forger. I never
>>>>>>>>>wrote that sentence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's what you meant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't write it, fucking queer; you did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>[snip stuff that doesn't address FUCKWIT'S forgery]
>>>>>
>>>>>Why did you post that crap, FUCKWIT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To show what you wrote.
>>>
>>>I didn't write it, FUCKWIT.
>>
>>
>> LOL! You did so
>
>I did'nt write it, FUCKWIT. You took two sentences I
>did write and put them together. That's a forgery,
>FUCKWIT. You are a liar and a forger.
>
>
>>>You did. I am going to
>>>see to it that Earthlink makes you stop, or closes your
>>>account.
>
>Don't take this lightly, FUCKWIT.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't change
>>>>>the fact that I didn't write the sentence you posted
>>>>>under my name and posting address, FUCKWIT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You cobbled that sentence
>>>>>>>>>together from two sentences I did write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you "ARAs" work together,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not an "ara", and you know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know it
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a lie, FUCKWIT. You do know it, and you do
>>>>>believe it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know it or believe it.
>>>
>>>You know it, and you believe it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stop lying, FUCKWIT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still believe you're the most dishonest of the dishonest
>>>>"ARAs" in the ngs.
>>>
>>>That's another lie. You know I am not an "ara".
>>
>>
>> I believe that you are an "ARA"
>
>I am not an "ara", and you have always known I'm not an
>"ara".

I know that you're a liar, and believe you're an "ARA".

>Stop lying, FUCKWIT.
>
>>
>>>You
>>>have always known it. You hate my guts ONLY because I
>>>have shown your particular FUCKWITTED anti-"ar"
>>>thinking to be nonsense.
>>
>>
>> You've never done that
>
>I have done it, FUCKWIT, over and over.

None of you ever have or ever will Gonad.

>It's why you
>hate me: you thought you had this cool little trick to
>pull on "aras", and I, an opponent of "ar",

There is no evidence that you're an opponent of "AR"
afaik, and you can't present any.

>showed that
>it was nothing but a shabby, poorly executed trick.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice 

dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:50:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote:
>
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> I know that you're a liar, and believe you're an "ARA".
>>
>>You don't know that I'm a liar:
>
>
> Yes I do. (lie 1)

Nope. You can't point to a single lie.

>
>
>>I have never lied here.
>
>
> That's a lie. (2)

No, it isn't.

>
>
>>You do not believe I am an "ara":
>
>
> Yes I do. (3)

No, you don't.

>
>
>>in fact, you KNOW that I'm not one.
>
>
> That's a lie. (4)

No, it isn't.

>
>
>>You are lying when you say you believe I am one,
>
>
> That's a lie. (5)

No, it isn't.

>
>
>>because you KNOW I'm not one.
>
>
> That's a lie. (back to 4)

Nope. There's nowhere to go, FUCKWIT.

>
>
>>>
>>>>Stop lying, FUCKWIT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You hate my guts ONLY because I
>>>>>>have shown your particular FUCKWITTED anti-"ar"
>>>>>>thinking to be nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You've never done that
>>>>
>>>>I have done it, FUCKWIT, over and over.
>>>
>>>
>>> None of you ever have or ever will
>>
>>I have, FUCKWIT,
>
>
> That's a lie. (6)

No, it isn't.

>
>
>>and I have persuaded *all* the real
>>opponents of "ar" participating here that you are a
>>liar, a crackpot, and that you believe non-existent
>>animals have a right to be conceived and born.
>
>
> What else would an "ARA" in your position want
> to do?

An "ara" could never *be* in my position, FUCKWIT; he
wouldn't be an "ara" if he were in my position, because
I'm not an "ara". You've always known this.

>
>>>
>>>>It's why you
>>>>hate me: you thought you had this cool little trick to
>>>>pull on "aras", and I, an opponent of "ar",
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no evidence that you're an opponent of "AR"
>>>afaik, and you can't present any.
>>
>>There is more than sufficient evidence in the minds of
>>rational people. You are a crackpot, and evidence has
>>no effect on you.
>
>
> Not when you can't present the slightest bit of it

I have done. I have logically demonstrated why your
story is bullshit. I have persuaded everyone who reads
here that your story is bullshit, and that you are an
irrational all-but-"ara" loon.

Ask anyone.
 >> Stay informed about: collateral damage of organic rice