Re: Dutch shows his utter dishonesty and a penchant for altering his opponent's comments to suit.

"rick etter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > "rick etter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "Ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if your position could get any weaker, that
> > > > > wouldn't have done it. It was obvious, it was never
> > > > > intended to be anything but an obvious taking the
> > > > > piss and you know it.
> > > > >
> > > > That's very easy to say after been shown your
> > > > dishonesty, and I remember that Jonathan and
> > > > Kevin tried a similar excuse to yours after being
> > > > caught while forging posts using their opponent's
> > > > identity. There is no excuse for editing your
> > > > opponent's replies,
> > > ========================
> > > maybe you should follow your own advice there
> >
> > I don't edit my opponent's replies to suit my argument
> > or make posts using their identities. Those antics belong
> > to the anti side of these animal related groups.
> =====================
> Unethical, unannotated snipping is just as deceitful

Snipping away irrelevant parts of a discussion is
usual and perfectly legitimate. Dutch edited my
reply to his challenge from;

"Fallen apples and mustard cress"

to

"Factory farmed rice, grains, fruits and vegetables
purchased indiscriminately, coffee, tea, cheese,  milk
and eggs, along with some shit that I have no clue
about"

Now that's unethical. He tried to cheat and include
a list of non-vegan foods in place of the list I provided.
He has no credibility.