Let Kodak know that you would buy gelatin-free film!

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by WHID, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. WHID

    Pete Guest

    I've set no rules for anyone to follow.
    You shouldn't go around calling people hypocrites on animal groups if you
    don't like being called a hypocrite. You started all the name calling. You
    reap what you sow.
    Pete, Dec 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. WHID

    smb Guest

    There you go again, assuming that name-calling makes your point of
    view a valid one. You really, really, do think much too highly of
    yourself. Who appointed you guardian of whatever it is you think is
    important? The only thing you've caught is a bad case of foot in
    mouth disease.

    You're still not paying attention. I said my posts here have been
    cross-posted there because I've been replying to a thread that began
    that way. I have not set foot in your group, nor have I even
    downloaded headers from it. Would a screenshot of Agent showing that
    I don't subscribe to that group or read any posts there convince you?
    I doubt it.

    Google all you want. If you can find any instance where I've been
    there other than this crossposted thread, you are a god. Otherwise
    you're still just blowing hot air. I've not invaded your group any
    more than you have invaded the alt.photography group. We're both
    "victims" of crossposting in a thread where some other individual
    rather lamely tried to connect the use of film to animal rights.

    I still think you confuse me with Rick. He must spend a lot of time
    in your group. Your argument has been with him from the beginning,
    not me.

    Nope. You simply don't get it. Read it again until you do. If -
    then refers to a hypothetical situation. It cannot be a rule of any
    kind. And of course it refers to Rick. His name is the second word
    in that statement.

    I'll try to explain it at a lower level for you. IF (important big
    word, which means something that is not certain) Rick or anyone else
    were preaching the injustice or whatever of humans being killed by
    electric power... THEN ( another important big word which defines the
    results if what was mentioned after "IF" were true) you could accuse
    him of being a hypocrite. When someone makes an if-then statement
    there are always conditions that go with it. If the "IF" isn't true,
    then the "THEN' is not true either. In this case, the "IF" was not
    true. He was making no such claims about humans. Neither am I.

    I was clearly describing your treatment of Rick. Again, your argument
    is with him, not me.

    You haven't put a stop to anything. All you've done is show everyone
    that you don't understand English and that you think bullying tactics
    are the same thing as making a rational point.

    Even your response, "yes, you was" shows you have difficulties with
    the language.

    You trip yourself up one more time. Those statements don't promote
    human rights, they are simple statements of fact. (I even made it easy
    for you to understand by saying clearly, "the fact is.." ) Those
    things don't need to be promoted by anyone because they exist by

    I'll make it simpler for you: Human rights do not need to be promoted
    because they already exist. The same is not true of animal rights.
    Animal rights DO need to be promoted because they do not exist, at
    least under the concept of "rights" as understood by humans.

    And you still resort to childish name-calling in the midst of your
    lack of understanding. When will you get it through your head that
    this kind of schoolyard bullying simply does not work?

    smb, Dec 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. WHID

    Pete Guest

    I haven't
    You started all the name calling on that animal group. Animal rights people
    don't like being called hypocrites from the off so stop all your

    so who's
    You are because you started all the name calling over there. Simple.
    Pete, Dec 13, 2006
  4. WHID

    Derek Guest

    Quotes which show what an incompetent liar you are.
    Then you cannot insist that you've never posted to that
    group. You have posted there, whether you've cross-
    posted there or otherwise. You could've easily
    removed t.p.a. from your posts, but you didn't. Instead
    you decided to post there, so stop lying.
    No matter how many times I read it there's no reference
    to my alleged rude behaviour toward Rick in that statement,
    so why lie and pretend there is if not to try and create the
    impression that that statement is something other than what
    it is: a clear statement which defines your rule regarding
    anyone who uses electricity while being against the human
    collateral deaths that result from our use of it in our
    industrial society, and that those who do both are hypocrites?
    I don't agree with your rule, but you clearly do, so tell us
    when you're going to unplug or face the charge of hypocrisy
    according to the standard you've set everyone, hypocrite.
    Yes, I have.
    They are your "statements of fact" which promote the
    proposition of human rights with your explanation for
    why you think they have them, so don't lie; you have
    promoted human rights, as seen by looking at your
    Stop whining about the name-calling and using it as an
    excuse for dodging your obligation to address the points
    being put to you, nebbish. If you hadn't been so hostile
    to the vegans you went looking for in that group, and if
    you hadn't started calling them hypocrites in the first
    place, you probably wouldn't be called a hypocrite in
    Derek, Dec 13, 2006
  5. WHID

    smb Guest

    Perhaps you still think childish name-calling makes you look
    intelligent or superior? I assure you, it doesn't.

    I'm not conceding anything. My statement means the same thing now as
    it did when I first said it. Just because *you* don't understand
    what an if-then statement is, that's no excuse for calling someone
    else a stupid jerk.

    What you so sadly miss is that it is universally accepted that when
    someone resorts to name calling like that it means that they don't
    have anything intelligent to say. You're playing the part perfectly,
    digging a hole for yourself with each not-so-clever put-down you come
    up with.
    Nope again. There is no lie there at all. Look at what I actually
    said. "I was speaking of Rick, not Derek." That's absolute truth.
    The fact that I mentioned Rick specifically, along with "anyone
    beating the drum of stopping human deaths resulting from industrial
    society", has no bearing on what you're trying to prove. You say I'm
    an incompetent liar, when the fact is that you are simply an
    incompetent reader.

    Or, *are* you beating that drum? That would be the only condition
    under which you would be included in that statement. If so, just
    declare so openly and I'll stand corrected on saying I wasn't
    referring to you. As it was, I was giving you the benefit of the
    doubt because I believe that to be a red herring.

    However, if you do admit to beating that drum, then that also opens
    you up to additional charges of hypocrisy by using electric power if
    you knowingly do so while believing it kills humans.

    So are you or aren't you? Yes or no, please.

    Nope again. I don't hold you to any standard. To hold you to a
    standard, I would have to have the power to enforce that standard. I'm
    only an observer here. I've told you directly that I personally have
    no problem with you using electric power. Rick is the one who blasted
    you for that, not me. What I said was merely an observation. I still
    stand by it.

    That doesn't change my statement that vegans *are* open to charges of
    hypocrisy if they knowingly do things that result in the death of
    animals. You may believe otherwise, but what I said was my
    observation, and I'm entitled to it. My observation is that vegans
    should hold *themselves* to the standard they created for themselves
    by believing animals have the same rights as humans. I could care
    less personally what you do. That's what I observed when I first made
    that statement, and nothing has changed to cause me to have a
    different opinion about it.

    It would seem that your way of dodging those charges of hypocrisy is
    to point the fingers at non-vegans, accusing them of other hypocrisy
    and calling them liars. The problem with that approach is that, even
    if successful, it does nothing whatsoever to change your own guilt.

    Nope yet again. You are still stuck on that idea that I am making
    rules for you to follow. I have no standards against electric power
    use. I believe everyone should use it freely regardless of the
    potential hazards to humans and animals, as long as no laws are
    broken. Period.

    I explained that my stock answers were simply a response to your
    stupid childish bullying tactics. You will still get stock responses
    until you grow up and learn how to ask questions without calling
    people stupid lying hypocrites and the like. You weren't interested
    in serious discussion, you admittedly were on a mission to not let
    Rick and I "get away with" such and such. Therefore you prejudiced
    yourself from the beginning without even knowing what you were talking

    As to not answering every point to your satisfaction, I told you my
    answer was that I simply found the level of passion you had for those
    issues was boring. I also repeatedly told you that I was more
    interested in the forest than the trees, and that your tit-for-tat
    arguments about the trees were with Rick, not with me. I am not his
    spokesman, yet you kept demanding that I answer your little witch hunt
    inquiries. Rick has since wisely stayed out of this discussion,
    though I can imagine he is taking great satisfaction at watching you
    implode like this.

    What you don't understand is that, while you have the right to free
    speech in a forum like this, you don't have the right to demand that
    someone answer all of your points to your satisfaction. And you
    certainly don't have the right to attempt slander when they don't
    respond in the way you want them to.

    Nope, you have yet to present any questions in a clear, non-accusing,
    logical fashion. You haven't changed. You think I "can't" answer
    your questions when the blunt fact is that I am just playing with you
    like I would any whining little child who can't get his way.
    See? This is a prime example. You'll never get respect as long as
    you continue down this path. You think I'm in some kind of trouble,
    which is laughable. Who am I in trouble with? You and the vegan
    thought control Nazis? Don't make me laugh too hard, please. I'm
    just swatting down the ranting of a disturbed little boy who has to
    try to put down others to make himself look good.

    Good one. Now we can add the word "dummy" to your vocabulary. Does
    it make you feel better? Why not also call me a gunky poo-poo head
    while you're at it? Oh, and you have yet to prove that I have lied
    about anything. All you've done is shown your inability to grasp the
    English language and your ability to overreact when someone points
    that out to you.

    The difference is that Pete behaves like a civil human being. You act
    like a spoiled little boy who has been throwing a tantrum ever since I
    snipped some of your text in a long-previous message and said "blah,
    blah" to your rhetoric.

    Nope. The rules I said that I haven't stated were the ones you
    falsely accused me of. I told you what "my rules" were, which
    basically are that I have no rules regarding the use of electric power
    in terms of incidental animal or human deaths. The rules I follow are
    the laws of the land, and they aren't my rules.

    One example is the above. You said I freely admitted to something
    when that just didn't happen. You made that up, and then you call me
    a liar? That might make sense in your world, but in the real world
    it makes *you* the liar.

    Nope. Show me the quote where I said that I *insisted* that you do
    something, you incompetent reader.

    Nope, I stand by everything I said just as closely as when I first
    said it. If you still don't understand it after repeated
    explanations, I can't help you. If you do understand and you simply
    don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.

    Wow, you are really grasping at straws. Give up, you're playing
    outside of your league. But if you want to have a rational
    discussion, without your superior attitude and with an apology for
    your childish attempts at slander, I'll be happy to accommodate you.

    But since this is a photography forum where these messages have been
    cross-posted, I suggest you keep things in line with the topic of the
    thread, which is the use of film as an animal rights issue. Any
    future discussion should be along those lines; I have virtually no
    interest to debate other animal rights issues in another newsgroup.
    I'm done with this off-topic conversation.

    My apologies to anyone who is offended that the topic has strayed from
    that original subject. I also apologize for my part in letting this
    go on by not simply ignoring Derek's childish rants, as I should have
    at the beginning.

    Derek, please don't respond at all unless you can do so without your
    juvenile taunts and lying accusations. If you do so, you will not be
    given a serious reply. Play nice or return from whence you came. Stop
    trolling for people to argue with in other newsgroups. I'm sure there
    are plenty in your animal rights group who are looking for a fight.
    I'm not.

    smb, Dec 13, 2006
  6. WHID

    smb Guest

    Nope, didn't happen. Someone else did that and I just agreed in
    principle with the point he was making. I called nobody names, nor
    was I rude about what I said. If you think that, you're just not
    smb, Dec 14, 2006
  7. WHID

    smb Guest

    Another meaningless statement only used for slanderous purposes. Which
    again means you have nothing meaningful to say.

    Pay attention. I said I have never been there. That's true. It's
    also true that my posts are crossposted. JUST AS YOURS ARE
    CROSSPOSTED HERE. If I removed tpa from replies to your posts, you
    wouldn't get them. Then what would you do, thump your chest and
    boast that you chased me away because I couldn't answer your charges?

    No use explaining it again. You are obviously not intelligent enough
    to understand what a hypothetical if-then statement is by confusing it
    with some kind of rule I'm setting for you.
    You lie by continuing to call it a rule, and you lie even more by
    saying that I "clearly" apply it to myself. I have told you exactly
    what I believe. How can you live with yourself, knowing that you lie
    like that?

    No, you haven't. You still show yourself to be a liar and a
    hypocrite, even while calling others the same thing.
    You still don't get it.
    You lie again by saying I went looking for vegans in that group. That
    is a bold, blatant and shameless lie. Either that or you are just too
    stupid to understand how my posts got there in the first place.

    Nor have I been hostile to anyone. Put up or shut up. It was Rick
    that was taking that hostile approach, and I don't agree with his
    methods any more than I agree with your pathetic name-calling tactics.

    I have no obligation whatsoever to you. But I am willing to discuss
    the matter with you if you learn to stop your lying and your idiotic
    name calling.

    As I said in the other post today, this is way off topic. If you want
    to keep your lies and shrill whining about rules, just stay out of
    alt.photgraphy. You'll find plenty of people to argue with you

    smb, Dec 14, 2006
  8. WHID

    smb Guest

    Surely you understand the context of what I said and you understand
    the purpose of figurative speech. If not, sorry about that.

    That would be a good point, had I done that.

    If you can show how I've done that, I'll give you a cigar. But you
    can't because it didn't happen. I've responded to posts in this
    thread in alt.photography cross-posted by someone in the animal
    groups. It wasn't me who started the name calling. He/you are
    still confusing me with Rick.

    It's not a matter of me not liking being called a hypocrite because I
    know it's a meaningless charge He's accused me of hypocricy when
    there is no basis for it -- the name calling is just childish
    retaliation because he didn't like my ideas. I agreed with someone
    else about the principle of how vegans could be seen as hypocrites
    under some conditions, but I did not go in there and single people out
    to harrass like he has. If someone hadn't cross posted this thread,
    which evidently had relevance to both groups, he wouldn't have had his
    feathers ruffled. If you can't tell the difference, I can't help

    OTOH, it can be demonstrated that to be preachy about animal rights
    while knowingly doing things that kill animals can be pretty good
    evidence of hypocricy. If he doesn't like that thought, that's just
    the bed he made and has to sleep in.

    To keep this on topic, the same applies to those who decry the use of
    animal products but use film in their cameras, which is an animal
    based product.

    His other gems like nebbish, liar, stupid liar, incompetent liar,
    stupid jerk, etc, are just products of a mind that can't produce
    rational thoughts when it feels threatened by something. He is just
    trying to provoke me with those tactics, but all it does is take away
    his credibility.

    smb, Dec 14, 2006
  9. WHID

    Pete Guest

    Steve, gentle down and accept the fact that you've denied making rules twice
    and then said you've clearly stated what your rules are. How is that not
    You were the first to start calling vegans on that animal group hypocrites.
    All they've done is retaliate in kind and call you a hypocrite for not
    standing by the rules you've tried to set for them. Simple. Why can't you
    just leave it at that and stop trying to get the last word? You're making a
    world class fool of yourself.

    But you
    Yes it was Steve. You called them hypocrites before they called you one.

    He/you are
    I've not seen any evidence of that. No one is confusing you with anyone
    Sorry, but there is a basis for it. You started all the name calling first.
    If you don't want to be called a hypocrite don't go to the animal groups and
    start calling them hypocrites. Simple. I'm trying to tell you in the
    friendliest way possible that you are at fault because it was you that
    started all the name calling. I see no evidence of them coming over here and
    calling us hypocrites for any particular reason but there's plenty of
    evidence showing where you went over there calling them hypocrites for your
    reasons/rules/standards or whatever. If you can't stand the heat over there
    or keep up with them in a firendly way without calling them hypocrites,
    don't crosspost. That way you won't get eaten alive by them. :)

    -- the name calling is just childish
    Pete, Dec 14, 2006
  10. WHID

    Derek Guest

    No, it's the truth. If there was anything of use to you in
    what you snipped away you would've left it in. You
    snipped it all away because it shows your incompetent
    lying and hypocrisy.
    You've been cross-posting your hostility, lies and hypocrisy
    there since the 18th of November, so stop lying.
    No, it's a lie.
    YOU cross-posted them there, you stupid imbecile, so
    stop lying by insisting you "have never been there."
    That's right. I've been posting here for a while now.
    Nonsense. To continue what you started I subscribed to
    alt.photography straight away.
    No, there isn't, because it's patently clear that there's no
    reference to my alleged rude behaviour toward Rick in
    that statement. You lied to create the impression that
    your statement was something other than what your
    statement actually was: a rule which you're not prepared
    to stand by. To keep insisting , "I was referring to your
    rude treatment of Rick in that statement." when there's
    no reference to Rick or my alleged rude behaviour
    toward Rick in that statement, you lie, and it's obviously
    clear that you're not able or willing to admit it.
    It is a rule, just as clear as the rule, "If you steal from
    shops, then you are a thief." There's no getting away
    from it, however hard you try.
    No, my argument against you is that you DON'T apply it to
    yourself, you incompetent liar. You should, being that you've
    set that standard by making that rule, but you don't, and that's
    what makes you the hypocrite and not the vegans, because
    they don't make that rule.
    I've put a stop to you defending Rick, and I've put a stop
    to your name-calling by showing you that you're the rank
    hypocrite by own rule.
    Yes, I do get it. You have been promoting human rights
    with your "statements of fact" which you reckon explain
    why humans have rights, so why lie and pretend you
    haven't when this thread shows conclusively that you
    have, liar?
    Like most meat-eaters who stumble into that group, you
    went looking for the vegans there and became hostile to
    them by calling them hypocrites according to your bogus
    rule which you refuse to stand by, hypocrite. If you hadn't
    started with all the name-calling in the first place, the good
    chances are that you probably wouldn't have been called
    a hypocrite in return. As it turns out, you did start all the
    name-calling, and when that name-calling was returned
    you used it as an excuse to dodge the challenges being put
    to you and your rule.
    Calling people a hypocrite for failing to live by the rules
    you set them is being hostile.
    Rick always uses that hostile approach, and you followed
    his lead by calling vegans hypocrites. You can't blame Rick
    for your own hostile behaviour and name-calling.
    You DO agree with them, hence your hostile name-calling
    in an effort to emulate them.
    No, you don't get to tell me which groups I can or cannot
    subscribe to.
    Derek, Dec 14, 2006
  11. WHID

    Derek Guest

    Dead right, Pete.
    Yes, it did, so stop lying. You started all the name-calling, and
    when that name-calling was returned you whined and used it as
    an excuse to avoid responding to the valid challenges being put
    to you and your bogus rule you refuse to live by, hypocrite.
    You've been calling vegans hypocrites for failing to live by your
    rule. That's name-calling, you incompetent liar. If it wasn't you
    wouldn't be whining about the name-calling you're getting in
    return. Is this another double standard of yours? Is the term
    'hypocrite' only name-calling when it's applied to you and not
    to the vegans?
    Setting rules for others to follow and calling them hypocrites
    for failing to live by it or rejecting it is rude.
    Derek, Dec 14, 2006
  12. WHID

    Noons Guest

    get a life, dickhead.
    Noons, Dec 14, 2006
  13. WHID

    smb Guest

    So you found yourself a cheerleader. Good for you. The Detroit
    Lions and Oakland Raiders also have their share of fans, and they have
    the worst record in the NFL.
    Nope, you are just being thinking-challenged. Pay attention.

    I didn't start the name calling. You are the only one using personal
    attacks as a way to try to get your point across. I'm not whining
    about it, just constantly pointing out to you how stupid it makes you
    look since you have to resort to such tactics. I'll tell you again,
    constantly calling people childish names like "dummy," "incompetent
    liar," etc, does nothing to give you credibility. It just causes
    people to ignore everything else you say.

    But I will grant that it does have some entertainment value to see
    what names you will come up with next.
    Nope. I made a general statement about how vegans can be open to
    charges of hypocricy if they talk about protecting animals yet
    knowingly do things that harm animals. That's not name calling,
    that's a simple statement of fact. You keep saying it's my rule when
    it isn't a rule at all. You must think that if you say something
    often enough then it will become true. The Nazis were good at those
    tactics. You learn well.

    Name calling would be if I spoke in your manner and called you
    something like "stupid vegan," "dummy vegan hypocrite," or the like. I
    have not done that. That's your lame gig, not mine.

    When I've called you a hypocrite it's because you have shown yourself
    to be one here by blatantly lying in the same breath as calling me a
    liar. In that, you remain a hypocrite.
    Nope, no rules set for anyone to follow coming from me. You have yet
    to show how I've set a rule for anyone to follow. Again, it's a
    simple statement of fact that if a vegan or anyone else says one thing
    and does another, they are open to charges of hypocricy. I think that
    message strikes something deep within you so you are trying to shoot
    the messenger with your childish barbs. If the shoe fits, wear it.
    And a leather shoe, at that.

    Or do you think I'm setting a rule that vegans should do everything in
    their power to protect the rights of animals? Nope, I could care less
    what vegans do in that regard. Just don't try to take away my right
    to use animals for the purposes for which they were intended.

    smb, Dec 16, 2006
  14. WHID

    smb Guest

    Nope. I've snipped things that were redundant or irrelevent. There's
    nothing in any of this thread that supports the charges you keep

    Pay attention. I acknowleged that this thread is cross posted, but
    I am not the one who started cross posting it. I am simply replying
    to messages and I have the integrity to respond to them in all of the
    groups in which the originals appeared. If you don't want to see my
    replies going to t.p.a, just take that group off the list in your
    messages; and when I reply to your posts they won't go there. Or is
    it that you want your brethren to witness how well you imagine you are
    doing in battle against the infidel? Be honest, now.

    It is true that I have never been in your group. I've never looked
    at it, I don't know what other threads are there, nor do I care to.
    I've only been responding to those messages which were already cross
    posted here in the alt.photography group.

    So stop your lying about me lying.
    Nope. Liar, liar, pants on fire...

    A hint for you: If you are trying to belittle someone, don't use
    redundant put-downs. It just makes you look idiotic. A stupid
    imbecile goes without saying, unless you know any smart imbeciles.

    I explained what "have never been there" means as being distinct from
    replying to messages that are already cross-posted. If you don't
    understand the difference, good luck with that. It seems that
    anything you don't understand becomes a lie in your mind.
    You see, it's an absolute bold-faced lie that I started the
    crossposting. Anyone who cares to take the time to review the
    posting history of this thread can see that. So that makes you the
    liar, doesn't it? And an incompetent one, at that. Or if I give
    you the benefit of the doubt that you simply are mistaken, at best you
    are just going off half-cocked with incomplete information. You
    know, something a stupid imbecile might do.

    But I see you admit that you intentionally invaded this group by
    subscribing to it. That's something I never did in your group. That
    would also make you a troll, since all you've done here is try to bait
    people with name-calling and bullying arguments to perpetuate a
    discussion that has gotten off-topic. Why don't you just go back to
    your group and stay there? If you stop your little vendetta over
    here, you will see no more cross-posted responses to your accusations
    and life will be beautiful again for you. You can even brag to your
    friends about how you slew some dragons during your brief stay.

    I'll even help you in that regard... let's see, where is the killfile
    command located?
    Nope, you just didn't get it right the first time, and you're just
    ignoring explanations, even when I pointed out the obvious for you.
    You really are wasting my time. Where's that killfile command again?
    Hmmm... if you steal from shops, then you ARE a thief. That's not a
    rule, that's a definition.

    If you say you believe animals have the same rights as humans and you
    decry using them for any purpose that would restrain or harm them; and
    then you do things that harm or kill animals, then you are a
    hypocrite. Again, that's not a rule, that's a statement of fact.

    If you want to play semantics and call it a rule, that's fine. Call
    it what you want. Even then, it's not "my" rule. It's a universal
    rule that is self-evident.

    You still ignore the point that even if you DO successfully point the
    finger at the hypocrisy of meat eaters, that doesn't do a thing to
    change your own. Do vegans or do they not do things which harm or
    kill animals? Yes or no?

    You say I don't apply it to myself. You're right, why should I? I
    don't believe that animals have the same rights as humans. Therefore
    it is not a "rule" for me to follow. However, it is "your" rule, if
    you insist on calling it one. Trying to call me a hypocrite for not
    following "your" rule is something a stupid imbecile might do.

    Remember, you're the one calling it a rule, not me.

    You've tried to turn the tables on me by saying that I preach human
    rights and therefore am a hypocrite because I may do things that
    indirectly result in human deaths. That's an invalid point because
    1. I don't preach human rights, nor do I have to because they already
    exist, and 2. The example you used of electric power causes a net gain
    in human lives, so therefore it promotes human well-being. You're
    just using a lame "you too" argument to hide your own guilt because
    you cannot live up to your own standards of protecting animal rights.

    And your attempt at turning tables backfires, because if you truly
    believe that humans are killed by power generation and you believe
    humans have the same rights as animals, then by your definition you
    are making a rule that you don't follow yourself, either.
    See the above. If you missed it, the short version is that I don't
    hold you to any rules at all, nor is it a rule that I made. The rule,
    as you call it, was there all along. Not doing what you say you
    believe is the universal definition of hypcrite.

    Oh, nice touch with the "incompetent liar" remark. But don't you
    think you could be more original? That one is getting rather old, and
    is starting to lose its entertainment value.

    You still think much too highly of yourself, thinking you're even
    capable of putting a stop to anything.

    I was never defending Rick, I'm sure he is a big boy and capable of
    doing that for himself. He seemed to be holding his own quite well
    before I commented on the exchange between the two of you.

    Oh, and you haven't put a stop to my name-calling because I haven't
    stooped to your level of name-calling in the first place. Is that
    what you want me to do? Maybe that would make you feel like you're
    speaking to an equal, if I drop down to your level? Would you feel
    better if I punctuated every paragraph with "stupid lying incompetent
    vegan hyopcrite?" That would make the conversation a bit more equal
    now, wouldn't it?

    So the bottom line is that you haven't put a stop to ANYTHING. What
    you thought was happening wasn't, ** and I still stand by my
    statement about vegans being open to charges of hypocrisy.** And
    since this thread is still being cross-posted, anybody who cares to
    read this in your newsgroup will also see that you haven't put a stop
    to anything.

    But regardless, you are a hypocrite by virtue of the fact that you
    blatantly lie to justify calling me a liar. Whether or not you are a
    hypocrite by virtue of your treatment of animals is something for your
    fellow vegans to decide, not me. I can say that you look like one to
    me, but I'm not your judge and jury. You must feel guilty or you
    wouldn't be spending so much effort trying to bag the scalp of a
    meat-eater who said something that struck a nerve.

    Just because you don't understand what promoting is doesn't make me a
    liar. And you clearly don't understand, unless you are twisting my
    words deliberately. That would make you worse than a liar. Pay
    attention this time. I don't need to promote human rights because
    they already exist. That would be like me trying to promote oxyen in
    air. It's already a given.
    Which is another example of your lies. I have not gone looking for
    anyone. It's unfortunate that someone started cross-posting this
    thread which has gotten off topic, but that wasn't me. You came here
    with that chip on your shoulder and loaded for bear to get some
    meat-eater's scalps. That makes YOU the hostile one, and the liar.

    And your hostility is blatant with the very term "meat-eater." I'm
    sure that's a derogatory term of contempt within your little circle.
    Nobody here called you a "plant-eater."
    Nope, I did no such thing. If you want to blame someone to satisfy
    your ego, you can blame Rick. He started by calling you all sorts of
    things like "hypocrite" and "killer." You still must be confusing me
    with him. I simply made a general observation based on your
    responses to his posts. So just buzz off and bug him, not me.

    Where is that killfile command again? I'm sure it's here somewhere.
    Again, if the shoe fits...

    Nope. You are a hypocrite if you don't live up to your own goals and
    ideals that you expect others to follow. That isn't name calling.
    That's self-evident. It doesn't need me or anyone else to point that
    out. But I did point it out, and it struck a nerve. Sorry about your

    Before you deny it, your movement DOES expect others to follow your
    goals. That's why it is called an animal rights movement. That's
    why one of your numbers started this thread in the alt.photography
    group in the first place, to try to recruit people to petition Kodak
    to eventually make film from non-animal sources. If you say you
    don't eventually hope to have enough political clout to make the world
    see things your way, be careful lest that lie be eventually made

    Nope. You are the one who has done the hostile name-calling. I
    haven't said anything to you in the manner that Rick has. Your lies
    are getting as bold as they are obvious.

    You're right, I can't tell you what groups to subscribe to. But
    neither do I have to continue to read the repetitive hostile drivel
    you post in this group. I hope you enjoy your stay here and get some
    good photo tips. But I won't be reading any more from you. Go ahead
    and respond with more posts filled with accusations and childish
    taunts if you think it impresses others, but it will be wasted on me.
    I told you that if you learned to play nice I would be happy to
    discuss your issues. Now you've passed the point of no return.

    Here's that killfile command I was looking for... PLONK! You're
    history, mate.

    smb, Dec 16, 2006
  15. WHID

    smb Guest

    I'm being quite gentle.

    What I denied was making the rules I was accused of making. Then I
    said what "my" rules were, by contrast. That isn't lying. It is
    more a matter of misunderstanding and playing semantics with what a
    "rule" is, nothing more. To call someone a liar based on that is,
    well, to be nice I'll just say it is incorrect.


    Actually, that's not true. Perhaps you haven't read the entire
    thread? The poster named Rick was first to to that, making direct
    accusations of hypocricy. I had nothing to do with that. He and
    Derek got into it. I agreed in principle about how vegans could be
    open to charges of hypocricy, based on that heated discussion between
    the two of them, which is a statement I still stand by. But the idea
    that I started calling any names or set up any rules that anyone has
    to follow is fantasy.

    No, I said they were open to charges of hypocrisy, I didn't start by
    singling anyone out and call them a hypocrite. And again, what I said
    was based on the context of what he and Rick were already discussing.
    I did not object to "them" (ie Derek) calling me a hypocrite because I
    know that was just a kneejerk "no, you are" jab. The basis he was
    using to call me a hypocrite was meaningless. The name calling I'm
    referring to was Derek's incessent childish taunts like "stupid,"
    "liar," "jerk." etc. It was moronic behavior on his part that he
    resorted to because he couldn't bully me into agreeing with his
    points. All it showed is that he couldn't make his points without
    feeling the need to belittle his opponent.
    Its obvious because both you and Derek say I went in there calling
    them names when that is obviously false. I agreed with part of what
    Rick said, but not with his methods. I said they were open to charges
    of hypocrisy, in the context of that discussion that was already
    underway, and that was interpreted by Derek that that I was in
    partnership with Rick. Not so. He speaks for himself, as do I. He
    started the hypocrisy thing, not I.
    No, if you understand the above.

    I appreciate your friendly approach, but you are missing the entire
    picture. I did not go over there, I was responding to cross-posted
    messages. I did not initiate the cross posting, nor was I the one
    who started any hypocrisy discussion. And before you criticize me
    for crossposting, I see that you crossposted this message to me that
    I'm replying to. I'm just responding with "reply to all groups" which
    just copies the groups that your message went to.
    Actually, I don't feel eaten alive in the slightest. Those posts of
    his are just his way of lashing out and I don't take them seriously at
    all. I've actually had some entertainment value from it giving him
    enough line and watching him come back with more insults as he gets
    more flustered. If he approached the subject with an attitude of
    respectful discussion, I would have responded in kind.

    I've offered to discuss the matter seriously with him if he dropped
    his childish taunting name-calling tactics. He has refused. No
    matter now, since I plonked him with my killfile list. He can beat
    his fists into the air now, if he wants.

    Nothing against you, I know you came in this as an outside observer
    just as I came in as an outside observer between him and Rick. I mean
    no harm to him or any other vegans. But are they open to charges of
    hypocrisy? Sure, if they don't practice what they preach. That's all
    I was saying.
    smb, Dec 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.