Vegetarian Discussion: Explain Why You Whiffed Off On This, Boobs.

Explain Why You Whiffed Off On This, Boobs.
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Mr.Smartypants
2008-07-31 18:33:12 EST
Rupert said:


(p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
right against a set of moral
agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
financially complicit in them
acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
commiting
any comparable moral
wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
that moral agent is a moral
bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."



Dutch
2008-07-31 23:44:37 EST
Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> Rupert said:
>
>
> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> right against a set of moral
> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> financially complicit in them
> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> commiting
> any comparable moral
> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> that moral agent is a moral
> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>
>

You don't understand it. How did you measure the
relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?

Rupert
2008-08-01 19:57:20 EST
On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> > Rupert said:
>
> > (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> > right against a set of moral
> > agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> > financially complicit in them
> > acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> > commiting
> > any comparable moral
> > wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> > than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> > becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> > electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> > complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> > that moral agent is a moral
> > bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>
> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
be an interesting move for him to make.

Dutch
2008-08-02 17:52:49 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>> Rupert said:
>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>> right against a set of moral
>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>> financially complicit in them
>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>> commiting
>>> any comparable moral
>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
> be an interesting move for him to make.

This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.

In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of
the "cruelty-free" belief. Implicit in this is the
belief in a moral gulf between vegans and non-vegans.
Very often as we have frequently seen on this
newsgroup, perhaps not in your case, this manifests
itself in a view that killing and eating animals is
cruel and barbaric (implying that not doing so avoids
the barbarism). This view is often expressed
explicitly, but is almost always implicit in some
form. It underlies much of vegan thinking, and it is
founded in a fallacy. Much of what the vegan wishes
and usually believes to be true is not true, and much
goes on that he is unaware of or chooses to ignore.
There is nothing wrong with avoiding animal products
per se, in fact it is quite harmless and even
beneficial in some ways. What is at issue here is that
divisive mindset that pervades "veganism" that is
rooted in a self-serving and anti-social fallacy.


Rudy Canoza
2008-08-02 18:02:04 EST
Dutch wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>> Rupert said:
>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>>> right against a set of moral
>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>>> financially complicit in them
>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>>> commiting
>>>> any comparable moral
>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
>>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted
>>> text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
>> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
>> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
>> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
>> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
>> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
>> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
>> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
>> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
>> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
>> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
>> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
>> be an interesting move for him to make.
>
> This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
>
> In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of the "cruelty-free"
> belief.

Yep. It's the Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

If I eat meat, I cause cruelty to animals.

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause cruelty to animals ("cruelty free")


> Implicit in this is the belief in a moral gulf between vegans
> and non-vegans.

That's exactly what "vegans" believe. The imaginary gulf is vertical:
"vegans" believe they are on a moral pedestal.


> Very often as we have frequently seen on this newsgroup,
> perhaps not in your case,

It was there, just not quite as nakedly stated.


> this manifests itself in a view that killing
> and eating animals is cruel and barbaric (implying that not doing so
> avoids the barbarism). This view is often expressed explicitly, but is
> almost always implicit in some form. It underlies much of vegan
> thinking, and it is founded in a fallacy. Much of what the vegan wishes
> and usually believes to be true is not true, and much goes on that he is
> unaware of or chooses to ignore. There is nothing wrong with avoiding
> animal products per se, in fact it is quite harmless and even beneficial
> in some ways. What is at issue here is that divisive mindset that
> pervades "veganism" that is rooted in a self-serving and anti-social
> fallacy.
>

Rupert
2008-08-02 19:45:51 EST
On Aug 3, 7:52 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>> Rupert said:
> >>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> >>> right against a set of moral
> >>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> >>> financially complicit in them
> >>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> >>> commiting
> >>> any comparable moral
> >>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> >>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> >>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> >>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> >>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> >>> that moral agent is a moral
> >>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
> >> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
> >> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
> > self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
> > the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
> > a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
> > becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
> > that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
> > be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
> > logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
> > about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
> > I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> > hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
> > sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
> > only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
> > be an interesting move for him to make.
>
> This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
>
> In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of
> the "cruelty-free" belief.

In my case, it was a desire to reduce my contribution to cruelty. I
was aware of the collateral deaths argument during adolescence, before
I first became vegetarian.

> Implicit in this is the
> belief in a moral gulf between vegans and non-vegans.
> Very often as we have frequently seen on this
> newsgroup, perhaps not in your case, this manifests
> itself in a view that killing and eating animals is
> cruel and barbaric (implying that not doing so avoids
> the barbarism). This view is often expressed
> explicitly, but is almost always implicit in some
> form. It underlies much of vegan thinking, and it is
> founded in a fallacy. Much of what the vegan wishes
> and usually believes to be true is not true, and much
> goes on that he is unaware of or chooses to ignore.
> There is nothing wrong with avoiding animal products
> per se, in fact it is quite harmless and even
> beneficial in some ways. What is at issue here is that
> divisive mindset that pervades "veganism" that is
> rooted in a self-serving and anti-social fallacy.

That's no excuse for hurling abuse at me for six years. If you are
going to hurl abuse at people you should take due care to ensure that
it is well-founded.

Rupert
2008-08-02 19:46:29 EST
On Aug 3, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > Rupert wrote:
> >> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>>> Rupert said:
> >>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> >>>> right against a set of moral
> >>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> >>>> financially complicit in them
> >>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> >>>> commiting
> >>>> any comparable moral
> >>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> >>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> >>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> >>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> >>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> >>>> that moral agent is a moral
> >>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
> >>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
> >>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted
> >>> text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
> >> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
> >> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
> >> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
> >> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
> >> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
> >> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
> >> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
> >> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
> >> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> >> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
> >> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
> >> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
> >> be an interesting move for him to make.
>
> > This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
>
> > In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of the "cruelty-free"
> > belief.
>
> Yep.  It's the Denying the Antecedent fallacy:
>
>     If I eat meat, I cause cruelty to animals.
>
>     I do not eat meat;
>
>     therefore, I do not cause cruelty to animals ("cruelty free")
>
> > Implicit in this is the belief in a moral gulf between vegans
> > and non-vegans.
>
> That's exactly what "vegans" believe.  

No, they don't. None of them believe it. It's just something you made
up.

> The imaginary gulf is vertical:
> "vegans" believe they are on a moral pedestal.
>
> > Very often as we have frequently seen on this newsgroup,
> > perhaps not in your case,
>
> It was there, just not quite as nakedly stated.
>
>
>
> > this manifests itself in a view that killing
> > and eating animals is cruel and barbaric (implying that not doing so
> > avoids the barbarism). This view is often expressed explicitly, but is
> > almost always implicit in some form. It underlies much of vegan
> > thinking, and it is founded in a fallacy. Much of what the vegan wishes
> > and usually believes to be true is not true, and much goes on that he is
> > unaware of or chooses to ignore. There is nothing wrong with avoiding
> > animal products per se, in fact it is quite harmless and even beneficial
> > in some ways. What is at issue here is that divisive mindset that
> > pervades "veganism" that is rooted in a self-serving and anti-social
> > fallacy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Rudy Canoza
2008-08-02 20:21:59 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert said:
>>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>>>>> right against a set of moral
>>>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>>>>> financially complicit in them
>>>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>>>>> commiting
>>>>>> any comparable moral
>>>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>>>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>>>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
>>>>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted
>>>>> text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
>>>> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
>>>> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
>>>> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
>>>> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
>>>> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
>>>> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
>>>> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
>>>> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
>>>> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
>>>> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
>>>> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
>>>> be an interesting move for him to make.
>>> This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
>>> In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of the "cruelty-free"
>>> belief.
>> Yep. It's the Denying the Antecedent fallacy:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause cruelty to animals.
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause cruelty to animals ("cruelty free")
>>
>>> Implicit in this is the belief in a moral gulf between vegans
>>> and non-vegans.
>> That's exactly what "vegans" believe.
>
> No, they don't. None of them believe it.

It's what *EVERY* "vegan", including you, started out believing. It
wasn't until you had it kicked back down your throat, with explanation,
that you gave it up.


>> The imaginary gulf is vertical:
>> "vegans" believe they are on a moral pedestal.
>>
>>> Very often as we have frequently seen on this newsgroup,
>>> perhaps not in your case,
>>
>> It was there in rupie's case, just not quite as nakedly stated.

Rupert
2008-08-02 21:58:34 EST
On Aug 3, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert said:
> >>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
> >>>>>> right against a set of moral
> >>>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
> >>>>>> financially complicit in them
> >>>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
> >>>>>> commiting
> >>>>>> any comparable moral
> >>>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
> >>>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
> >>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
> >>>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
> >>>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
> >>>>>> that moral agent is a moral
> >>>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
> >>>>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
> >>>>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted
> >>>>> text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
> >>>> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
> >>>> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
> >>>> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
> >>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
> >>>> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
> >>>> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
> >>>> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
> >>>> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
> >>>> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
> >>>> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
> >>>> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
> >>>> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
> >>>> be an interesting move for him to make.
> >>> This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
> >>> In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of the "cruelty-free"
> >>> belief.
> >> Yep.  It's the Denying the Antecedent fallacy:
>
> >>     If I eat meat, I cause cruelty to animals.
>
> >>     I do not eat meat;
>
> >>     therefore, I do not cause cruelty to animals ("cruelty free")
>
> >>> Implicit in this is the belief in a moral gulf between vegans
> >>> and non-vegans.
> >> That's exactly what "vegans" believe.  
>
> > No, they don't. None of them believe it.
>
> It's what *EVERY* "vegan", including you, started out believing.  It
> wasn't until you had it kicked back down your throat, with explanation,
> that you gave it up.
>

Incorrect. As I stated I was aware of the collateral deaths argument
during adolescence, before I even became vegetarian.

Rudy Canoza
2008-08-03 02:31:06 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:21 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 8:02 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 1, 1:44 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rupert said:
>>>>>>>> (p1) If a moral agent believes that a set of individuals has a moral
>>>>>>>> right against a set of moral
>>>>>>>> agents that they not act in a certain way, and can avoid being
>>>>>>>> financially complicit in them
>>>>>>>> acting in that way, without thereby becoming complicit in or
>>>>>>>> commiting
>>>>>>>> any comparable moral
>>>>>>>> wrong, while accepting a burden no greater
>>>>>>>> than that incurred by a typical citizen of an affluent nation by
>>>>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and
>>>>>>>> electricity, and if that moral agent is knowingly financially
>>>>>>>> complicit in those agents acting in that way, then
>>>>>>>> that moral agent is a moral
>>>>>>>> bankrupt and a filthy shitstained hypocrite."
>>>>>>> You don't understand it. How did you measure the
>>>>>>> relative greatness of the burdens to which he refers?- Hide quoted
>>>>>>> text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> I am assuming that the burden which Ball would incur by becoming fully
>>>>>> self-sufficient in food and electricity, either lowering his income to
>>>>>> the point where he didn't have to pay taxes anymore or else moving to
>>>>>> a different country, would be no greater than that incurred by me by
>>>>>> becoming fully self-sufficient in food and electricity. He can dispute
>>>>>> that if he wants, that is one of the premises of my argument that can
>>>>>> be challenged. I helpfully formalised the argument in first-order
>>>>>> logic to make it clear how Ball can challenge it. There is a problem
>>>>>> about how to quantify burdens, yes. So, if Ball likes he can say, "Oh,
>>>>>> I wouldn't call you a moral bankrupt and a filthy shitstained
>>>>>> hypocrite if it were *really hard* for you to become fully self-
>>>>>> sufficient in food and electricity, it's just that at the moment it's
>>>>>> only *moderately hard*." That move is certainly open to him, it would
>>>>>> be an interesting move for him to make.
>>>>> This is all a diversion. I'll take another stab at it.
>>>>> In every decision to "go vegan" there is some form of the "cruelty-free"
>>>>> belief.
>>>> Yep. It's the Denying the Antecedent fallacy:
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause cruelty to animals.
>>>> I do not eat meat;
>>>> therefore, I do not cause cruelty to animals ("cruelty free")
>>>>> Implicit in this is the belief in a moral gulf between vegans
>>>>> and non-vegans.
>>>> That's exactly what "vegans" believe.
>>> No, they don't. None of them believe it.
>> It's what *EVERY* "vegan", including you, started out believing. It
>> wasn't until you had it kicked back down your throat, with explanation,
>> that you gave it up.
>>
>
> Incorrect.

No, *correct*. You believed it, until someone kicked your ass over it.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron