John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 10:35:09 -0800, wrote:
John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 09:14:16 -0800, wrote:
John H wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005 06:33:37 -0800, wrote:
John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 12:19:18 -0800, wrote:
John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -0800, wrote:
John H wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005 09:13:05 -0800,
wrote:
John H wrote:
I see nothing wrong with taking an animal for
food.
Then you must get violently upset about the two
major
reasons
they're
killed,
i.e., their pelts and their penises!
--
John H
Hmm, let's see if I can understand you
logic.....nope.
Try harder.
--
Well, then, John, do tell! I've asked you to be
explicit.
What
would
make you think that I'd "get violently upset" about
seals
being
killed
for "their pelts and their penises".
You have shown no evidence of trying harder.
--
John H
As suspected from you. John, may I suggest that if you
don't
know
what
you are talking about, then don't say anything? You had no
idea
about
whether I would "get violently upset" about anything. And
having
no
idea, is, by definition, ignorant.
You *seem* a little upset.
--
John H
ANOTHER ignorant statement. Please show how you came to such a
conclusion. Remember, now, we're talking about seals here, not
your
inability to realize that you don't know what you are talking
about,
when making statements about me. Where did I ever say anything
that
would make you think that I'd get either "violently upset"
over
taking
seals for their body parts, or, that I "seem to be a little
upset"
over
taking seals for their body parts?
Does it not upset you that "pelts and penises" are the primary
reasons for
killing the little buggers?
--
John H
Hmm, so, you aren't going to answer my above questions, huh? By
the
way, by now ASKING if it upsets me, proves that by definition,
your
posts about me being violently upset, as well as the one that I
"seem
to be a little upset", were posted in ignorance. Thank you for
helping
make my point!
You're welcome! Goodness, that's the nicest thing you've said all
day!
--
John H
Great, at least you've thereby agreed that you were posting in pure
ignorance!
Pure ignorance? Yes, see number 7 below.
1=2EHaving a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed: pure oxygen.
2=2EFree from adulterants or impurities: pure chocolate.
3=2EFree of dirt, defilement, or pollution: "A memory without blot or
contamination must be... an inexhaustible source of pure refreshment"
(Charlotte Bront=EB).
5=2EFree of foreign elements.
6=2EContaining nothing inappropriate or extraneous: a pure literary
style.
7=2EComplete; utter: pure folly.
8=2EHaving no faults; sinless: "I felt pure and sweet as a new baby"
(Sylvia Plath).
What is impure ignorance?
Moot point. Do you think that because there is a pure ignorance, that
there must be an IMPURE ignorance? Sheesh.......
Were you not upset by the pelt and penis collecting?
--
John, let's back up. Why are you now asking IF I was "upset by the pelt
and penis collecting"? Before you made a statement that I MUST get
upset about it. Which IS it, John?