Goo

On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:
Goo

He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all!

On Jun 25, 9:10*am, Rupert wrote:
On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:

* * Goo

He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all!


well, just be careful. Boobs gets really pouty if you use big words he
doesn't understand.

On Jun 24, 8:10*pm, "Mr. Smartypants" wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:10*am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:

* * Goo

He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all!

well, just be careful. Boobs gets really pouty if you use big words he
doesn't understand.



oh, look, a hanger on and to a worthless piece of shit.

interesting, you'd think they hang onto something worthwhile and
contributary.

i guess not, doesn't take much for a leech to string along. they
don't have to think about what they are doing.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:
Goo

He's playing with me again!

Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. I would
love to see him try explaining how he thinks pre-existent
entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their
existence, but so far all he's been able to do is suggest
very strongly that they do. That leaves a great big:
"How Goo?" in its wake.

We're still friends after all!

Don't fall for it. Sometimes Goo will try to suck someone
in. Of course you could play along with him and then kick
his ass over it, if he tries sucking up to you. Be careful not
to get dragged down like this guy:
__________________________________________________ _______
"he's [Goo] the most intelligent tutor available to me here
on Usenet, and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage"
- "Derek"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
"There's no doubt that he [Goo] knows more
about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
manner he was prepared to give it" - "Derek"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but that might just be Goo playing the "Derek" character
too. Who knows how many different people Goo "is"?
Quite possibly even Goo doesn't know.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT), e-vamp wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:10*pm, "Mr. Smartypants" wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:10*am, Rupert wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:

* * Goo

He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all!

well, just be careful. Boobs gets really pouty if you use big words he
doesn't understand.



oh, look, a hanger on and to a worthless piece of shit.

interesting, you'd think they hang onto something worthwhile and
contributary.

Such as?

dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:
Goo
He's playing with me again!

Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. I would
love to see him try explaining how he thinks pre-existent
entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their
existence, but so far all he's been able to do is suggest
very strongly that they do. That leaves a great big:
"How Goo?" in its wake.

Trust me when I say, Rupert doesn't agree with you on anything except
your common dislike of Rudy.

On Jun 27, 4:58*am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

Rudy A. Canoza wrote:
* * Rudy
He's playing with me again!

* * Good luck getting him to try to explain anything.

I have fully explained why your view of animals, which depends on
"pre-existent entities", is bullshit.


You've never been able to explain *anything*, Boobs.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:54:50 GMT, Dutch wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:
Goo
He's playing with me again!

Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. I would
love to see him try explaining how he thinks pre-existent
entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their
existence, but so far all he's been able to do is suggest
very strongly that they do. That leaves a great big:
"How Goo?" in its wake.

Trust me when I say, Rupert doesn't agree with you on anything except
your common dislike of Rudy.

I don't doubt that we would disagree on a number of things.
But even if we do, dislike for the Goober is probably not the
only thing we would agree on. He might agree with me that
so far neither of you clowns have been able to explain exactly
how you think anything to do with pre-existence is able to
prevent existing beings from benefitting from their own existence,
for example. I hope he would agree with that, since you certainly
haven't been able to do it.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote:

dh wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

He's playing with me again!

Good luck getting him to try to explain anything.

I have fully explained why your view of animals,

You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals Goo, much less have you ever shown any
evidence that you could explain it to anyone. In contrast to that,
you have repeatedly and absolutely consistently indicated that
you're unable to do so by insisting that my views are different
than they actually are.

which depends on "pre-existent entities",

No, YOURS does Goober. Do you really want people to
believe you're too stupid to grasp even that much, Goo?
Let's compare views. Here's mine:

Many of the billions of domestic animals on this planet have
decent lives of positive value.

Is that in any way dependant on "pre-existent entities" Goob?
You're stumped dead on that one of course, so I'll just tell you
the answer is no Goo. So where does the idea come from if
not from my view, Goober? Stumped again, so here's a clue:

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

Right there, Goobernicus, is where the concept of any dependance
on pre-existence begins...it begins with YOUR views like:

"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, ****wit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo

"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate" - Goo

""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

Notice that my view is in no way dependant on pre-existence,
while the Goobal view--ie YOURS--is entirely dependant on it.

is bullshit.

Billions of animals are raised by humans Goober so you
certainly can't show that fact to be bullshit. Many of them
do have decent lives of positive value so you can't show
that fact to be bullshit either, Goo. You can't do it. You're
also stumped by your own claims Goob, because you can't
explain HOW you think anything to do with pre-existence
manages to prevent existing entities from benefitting from
decent lives of positive value. Your stumped dead, and
stranded on the bottom, Goo.

On Jul 1, 10:49*pm, dh@. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote:
dh wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

He's playing with me again!

* * Good luck getting him to try to explain anything.

I have fully explained why your view of animals,

* * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals Goo, much less have you ever shown any
evidence that you could explain it to anyone. In contrast to that,
you have repeatedly and absolutely consistently indicated that
you're unable to do so by insisting that my views are different
than they actually are.

which depends on "pre-existent entities",

* * No, YOURS does Goober. Do you really want people to
believe you're too stupid to grasp even that much, Goo?
Let's compare views. Here's mine:

Many of the billions of domestic animals on this planet have
decent lives of positive value.

Is that in any way dependant on "pre-existent entities" Goob?
You're stumped dead on that one of course, so I'll just tell you
the answer is no Goo. So where does the idea come from if
not from my view, Goober? Stumped again, so here's a clue:

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

Right there, Goobernicus, is where the concept of any dependance
on pre-existence begins...it begins with YOUR views like:

"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote. *
THEREFORE, ****wit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
*- Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
is *NOT* the topic." - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: *they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo

"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
for souls to incarnate" - Goo


Remember when we were discussing the pre-existence of lives? Boobs was
raving that there were no such things as "souls" and yet just like pre-
existence we see the Boober also believes in "souls", yet maintaining
they don't exist.

I'd like to know which clown school Boobs got his degree from.













""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. *It can't be." - Goo

Notice that my view is in no way dependant on pre-existence,
while the Goobal view--ie YOURS--is entirely dependant on it.

is bullshit.

* * Billions of animals are raised by humans Goober so you
certainly can't show that fact to be bullshit. Many of them
do have decent lives of positive value so you can't show
that fact to be bullshit either, Goo. You can't do it. You're
also stumped by your own claims Goob, because you can't
explain HOW you think anything to do with pre-existence
manages to prevent existing entities from benefitting from
decent lives of positive value. Your stumped dead, and
stranded on the bottom, Goo.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, the Goober wrote:

dh pointed out to the Goober:

You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals

I comprehend it

LOL! You have never indicated that you can, Goo. I challenge
you to try, and KNOW that you will fail.

On Jul 4, 4:45*am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
and presented no challenge:





On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Rudy I. (for 'intrepid') Canoza wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:

* * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals
I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully explained

the wrongness of it. *It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: *fits you
like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. *You do not understand animals, Goo. *
You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and WRONG view
of animals.

You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker.

* * LOL! You have never indicated that you can,

Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker.
* I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron.


When did you do that? How come no one saw it?





You are so stupid, Goo - stupid and illiterate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants" wrote:

On Jul 4, 4:45*am, Goo wrote:
Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
and presented no challenge:





On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:

* * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals
I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully explained

the wrongness of it. *It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: *fits you
like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. *You do not understand animals, Goo. *
You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and WRONG view
of animals.

You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker.

* * LOL! You have never indicated that you can,

Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker.
* I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron.


When did you do that? How come no one saw it?

And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of
him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about
it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never,
in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever
does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile
task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense
to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never
going to make the attempt.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:44:06 -0100, David dh@. wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants" wrote:

On Jul 4, 4:45*am, Goo wrote:
Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
and presented no challenge:





On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:

* * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend
my view of animals
I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully explained

the wrongness of it. *It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: *fits you
like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. *You do not understand animals, Goo. *
You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and WRONG view
of animals.

You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker.

* * LOL! You have never indicated that you can,

Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker.
* I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron.


When did you do that? How come no one saw it?

And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of
him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about
it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never,
in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever
does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile
task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense
to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never
going to make the attempt.

who cares... shut the **** up, all of you...
--

`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson