wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:33:15 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:12:03 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

snip

The whole focus of my argument is that the fundamental flaw in
"veganism" as an ethical response to a perceived ethical problem is
manifold:

- no persuasive elaboration of a *real* ethical problem
requiring a response

As it becomes more and more obvious that most of the animals we
use for food, fiber, leather, and other products share many of
the qualities of humans who are granted rights -- or, as I
believe, whose rights we recognize -- the question becomes, not
why they should have rights, but why their rights are NOT respected.


Ball says:

The whole focus of my argument is that they [veg*ns]
follow their sappy, sentimental superstition to its natural
and logical conclusion."

No, ****WIT, you ****witted inept forger. I never
wrote that sentence.


It's what you meant.

I didn't write it, ****ing queer; you did.

You cobbled that sentence
together from two sentences I did write.


Since you "ARAs" work together,

I'm not an "ara", and you know it.

Stop posting using my name and posting address, ****WIT.