Ignoring Rudy

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:15:15 +0100, Derek <usenet.email DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>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

Very nice selection, but you can't save Goo, and
neither can a Floyd tune. The Gonad hasn't learned
a damn thing about animals, which explains why he
doesn't know a damn thing about animals.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:47:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy.DeleteThis@ph.con> wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> 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.
>
>She even put up a post under "Meadowlark" in
>alt.religion.christian.episcopal that was classic
>Karen, too. Same email address, same cybermesa.com
>NNTP host. Weird.

What IS weird is that she chooses to lie about
something so trivial and easily seen as a lie,
because despite her controversial views she does
at least have a peculiar kind of honesty about her
and in normal circumstances would rather stand
her ground than lie. It's not like her to lie, and it's
not like her to play the kind of tricks I play when
using a nym to 'open a new game' here either, so
it beats the Hell out of me.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Goo Fuckwit David Harrison, THE Goo, wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:11:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza 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.
>
>
> I'm just

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

Meadowlark wrote:
>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>
> I am not this person

You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named Sylvia in a
trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

usual suspect wrote:
> Meadowlark wrote:
>
>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.

>> I am not this person

> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named Sylvia in a
> trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.

No, I'm not, and no, I don't.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:39:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy RemoveThis @ph.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:14:14 -0600, Karen Winter
>>>> <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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> She even put up a post under "Meadowlark" in
> alt.religion.christian.episcopal that was classic Karen, too. Same
> email address, same cybermesa.com NNTP host. Weird.

Sylvia has also been posting to alt.tasteless using her entirely
unsuitable "Swan" pseudonym as recently as 24 July. Guess Karen finally
let her out of the attic.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Meadowlark wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Meadowlark wrote:
>>
>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>
>
>>> I am not this person
>
>
>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named Sylvia in
>> a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>
>
> No, I'm not,

Yes, you are Karen Winter. Stop lying, Karen.


> and no, I don't.

Did you kick her out? Or did she leave you? You wrote
over in the churchie group: "I have just learned of a
very serious issue in my life, and need your prayers."
Did that indicate your split with Sylvia?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter, aka "Meadowlark," wrote:
>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>
>>> I am not this person
>
>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named Sylvia in
>> a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>
> No, I'm not,

Yes, you are. On 29 July, you wrote:

I can understand your unwillingness to discuss *anything* in a
forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I am in the same
situation myself.

On 31 July, you also wrote:

Rudy and Usual stalk me if they can, so I have to avoid giving
them opportunity, if possible.

If you're not Karen Winter, aka "Rat," then why this strange sudden
grudge against people against whom you should have no grudge?

Furthermore, everything you've posted lines up with your volunteered
life story when you posted under the pseudonyms of Rat and Cynomis.
Consider your statements to David Wrong about fandom; your prattle about
Regan, et al; and your admission that you "spent six years and a bunch
of money researching to write a completely non-saleable fan novel" on 30
July.

You ARE Karen Winter, or the person who's been known by that name in the
recent past both in these groups and in real life at your church. Maybe
you and Sylvia got a sham wedding and you're going by Karen Stevens or
something else you two bitter old hags made up and you're being
legalistic about that, or maybe Mr Canoza is on to something about you
two coots going separate ways. No matter, you're not fooling anyone, Karen.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Meadowlark wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Meadowlark wrote:
>>
>>>> "meadowlark" is Karen Winter.
>
>
>>> I am not this person
>
>
>> You are indeed Karen Winter. You live with an old hag named Sylvia in
>> a trailer park near the airport in Santa Fe.
>
>
> No, I'm not, and no, I don't.

Yes, you're Karen.

So, tell us: what is the issue to which you made vague
reference ("I have just learned of a very serious issue
in my life, and need your prayers.")? Just tell us
what it is. You certainly haven't had any qualms in
the past about sharing a lot of details of your life.
Come on, just tell us.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Yes, you're Karen.

No, I'm not.

> So, tell us: what is the issue to which you made vague reference ("I
> have just learned of a very serious issue in my life, and need your
> prayers.")? Just tell us what it is. You certainly haven't had any
> qualms in the past about sharing a lot of details of your life. Come on,
> just tell us.


That wasn't me -- but why would anyone tell you anything?
You and Usual wouldn't only try to use it to hurt that person.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Meadowlark wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Yes, you're Karen.
>
>
> No, I'm not.
>
>> So, tell us: what is the issue to which you made vague reference ("I
>> have just learned of a very serious issue in my life, and need your
>> prayers.")? Just tell us what it is. You certainly haven't had any
>> qualms in the past about sharing a lot of details of your life. Come
>> on, just tell us.
>
>
>
> That wasn't me -- but why would anyone tell you anything?

Make that:

> You and Usual would only try to use it to hurt that person.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

shevek4 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:

It's tempting to respond as Takver. :)

> Meadowlark wrote:
<snip>

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

> Well excuse my ignorance about Sapontzis, but if we can't agree on what
> a set of morals is, then we aren't going to agree on the scientific
> evidence for or against. And people have been arguing about that
> forever.

For the most part, people have been arguing about how moral
principles are to be applied, or carried out in specific
situations. Basic moral principles are much the same throughout
human cultures. For example, there is no human culture that I
know of which considers cowardice or cruelty a virtue, but
different cultures, and individuals within cultures, differ on
how cruelty is defined, as we see here on TPA.

People in the Kantian tradition tend to say that actions are only
moral if they are supported by moral reasoning -- that is, if the
person acting can say why his action is moral, or why it follows
some moral principle ("acting for the right reason"). Regan is in
this tradition. What Sapontzis says is that if a being acts by
intent, and acts in a way generally considered moral, he is acting
morally. So Regan does not consider children or non-human animals
moral agents. He calls them moral patients, that is, beings toward
whom we have moral obligations, but who have no moral obligations in
return toward us.

Sapontzis:

"Furthermore, not all moral actions of animals can be plausibly
accounted for as products of instinct and conditioning. ...
there is at least no more reason to think that a pet dog
pulling a drowning child from a swimming pool is acting
instinctively or reflexively than to think that a human being
doing the same thing is acting instinctively or reflexively.
...even if animals are incapable of demonstrating the morality
of their actions, their intentional and straightforward kind,
corageous, and otherwise virtuous acts can be moral actions,
for they accord with accepted moral norms and, consequently, do
not require justification to be moral."

> If you agree that a human is a "moral agent", whatever that may mean,
> and that a human is an animal (no arguments here I hope), then no
> scientific evidence is necessary as only fundamental logic is needed.

True. However, that does not apply to non-human animals.

>>What exactly does he mean by that claim?

See above.

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

> How would it? I just read some decent pieces by Regan, though I don't
> always agree with his language, I don't see the conflict.

I don't think it is fatal to Regan's argument, but I think if we
accept Sapontzis's view above, we might need to reconsider
Regan's definition of non-humans as moral patients. Not difficult,
if we say Regan defines as moral agents only those who can defend their
actions by abstract reason. This would be related to his 18th-century
approach to the definition of rights, IMO.

>>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.

> Either side of what? Beware the false dichotomy.

Well, I think one either accepts that (some) non-humans have rights,
or one doesn't. How rights are defined and applied is definitely
open to varied interpretation.

<snip>

> Because the other is sacred of course. Without faith in your listener,
> your reader - you are completely lost.

Ah, very true. My faith has been severely shaken by the internet. :)
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Beach Runner" <bob.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote
>
> Would you go into a Church and insult their beliefs?

Get over yourself Bob, these are discussion forums,
not a church.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy