On Jul 1, 11:40 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:23 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:06 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:08 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it,
It is not "just a troll", but it is utterly predictable that even though
you believe it is stupid to reply to it, you reply to it anyway. You
fatuous ****.
Can I just clarify one thing, Rudy.
No. You are incapable of clarification. You're a windy, wheezy ****
who always obscures, never clarifies.
I always pound sand up my ass.
Right.
It just never stops, does it,
No, rupie - regrettably, your fatuous bullshit never stops.

You do have the option of not bothering to read it

It's entertaining to let you know that others are aware of your fatuous
bullshit.

Why? Are you worried that I might be confused about the fact that when
I post to Google Groups a few people might read what I have to say?

Not following you, Ball.

You think that simply by letting me know you've read my post you've
scored a point?

On Jun 29, 7:12*pm, Rupert wrote:
I'll just explore the topic of bullying and the right to free speech a
bit further. A good friend of mine, about my age, just finishing off
an accounting degree and with a fairly small salary working for Animal
Liberation NSW, was recently in court facing a seven-figure lawsuit
because she went to Pitt Street Mall a couple of times and handed out
a few leaflets discussing a practice that quite a lot of Australian
sheep farmers do known as "mulesing". With this procedure a large
chunk of flesh is removed from a sheep's backside with a pair of
gardening shears, for the purpose of preventing blowfly strike. At the
time of the protests my friend was doing it was usual to do this
procedure without any anaesthetic. There is now a legal requirement to
use anaesthetic and the wool industry has made a commitment to phase
out the practice, I think our campaign can take some of the credit for
that. We made the statement that mulesing is cruel, there was some
discussion of that in court, apparently they found the statement in
some way objectionable. Anyway, Australian Wool Innovation claimed
that we had violated the Trade Practices Act by calling for a boycott
of Australian wool (which we hadn't, although PETA had done that, but
they had to bring us into court along with PETA because it's an
Australian law and they had to get an Australian organisation
involved). They sued two Animal Liberation NSW activists and claimed
that they should be liable for $5 million to cover the costs of an
advertising campaign that they had to do in response to our campaign.
They kept Animal Liberation NSW tied up with the initial hearings for
many months. This of course meant that we had to devote time and money
into arguing our case that the matter shouldn't go to court, thereby
preventing us from functioning effectively as an organisation. I
myself was involved in these protests and it is only a matter of good
fortune that I did not have to go to court myself. As you can imagine,
for individuals like myself or my friend the idea of potentially being
liable for seven-figure amounts, even if the possibility is fairly
remote, is fairly stressful. I think at the time we were handing out
the leaflets we had this crazy idea that we lived in a liberal
democracy and were allowed to publicly express our opinions about
practices that concerned us.

That may help to clarify the concept of "bullying" for you.

The McLibel trial is another example, though that one backfired.

Understand? That's what bullying is. A public expression of an opinion
that it's immoral or in some other way undesirable to eat meat is an
exercise of the right to free speech, phenomena like the above two
examples are what you call bullying.

I have meat for eating. Maybe I FORCE MY WILL on the public and SHOW
HOW YUMMY MEAT IS.

OR maybe I act like a FORCEFUL SISSY, like PETA does. Be gentle to
nature, Have a salad, don't add bacon bits, be gentle, enjoy the
greens, destroy your economy and be sissies, have a salad, your
economy will survive without meat, try to conserve, use grass and
dandelions, earth likes gentleness, HEY THANKS FOR THE SISSY IDEAS

Take that shit to the retards that already follow your stupidity.
We'll take your retards back with the smell of delicious cooked meat,
and you'll be broken and back to your pamphlets.

On Jul 3, 4:59*pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists
wrote:
On Jun 29, 7:12*pm, Rupert wrote:





I'll just explore the topic of bullying and the right to free speech a
bit further. A good friend of mine, about my age, just finishing off
an accounting degree and with a fairly small salary working for Animal
Liberation NSW, was recently in court facing a seven-figure lawsuit
because she went to Pitt Street Mall a couple of times and handed out
a few leaflets discussing a practice that quite a lot of Australian
sheep farmers do known as "mulesing". With this procedure a large
chunk of flesh is removed from a sheep's backside with a pair of
gardening shears, for the purpose of preventing blowfly strike. At the
time of the protests my friend was doing it was usual to do this
procedure without any anaesthetic. There is now a legal requirement to
use anaesthetic and the wool industry has made a commitment to phase
out the practice, I think our campaign can take some of the credit for
that. We made the statement that mulesing is cruel, there was some
discussion of that in court, apparently they found the statement in
some way objectionable. Anyway, Australian Wool Innovation claimed
that we had violated the Trade Practices Act by calling for a boycott
of Australian wool (which we hadn't, although PETA had done that, but
they had to bring us into court along with PETA because it's an
Australian law and they had to get an Australian organisation
involved). They sued two Animal Liberation NSW activists and claimed
that they should be liable for $5 million to cover the costs of an
advertising campaign that they had to do in response to our campaign.
They kept Animal Liberation NSW tied up with the initial hearings for
many months. This of course meant that we had to devote time and money
into arguing our case that the matter shouldn't go to court, thereby
preventing us from functioning effectively as an organisation. I
myself was involved in these protests and it is only a matter of good
fortune that I did not have to go to court myself. As you can imagine,
for individuals like myself or my friend the idea of potentially being
liable for seven-figure amounts, even if the possibility is fairly
remote, is fairly stressful. I think at the time we were handing out
the leaflets we had this crazy idea that we lived in a liberal
democracy and were allowed to publicly express our opinions about
practices that concerned us.

That may help to clarify the concept of "bullying" for you.

The McLibel trial is another example, though that one backfired.

Understand? That's what bullying is. A public expression of an opinion
that it's immoral or in some other way undesirable to eat meat is an
exercise of the right to free speech, phenomena like the above two
examples are what you call bullying.

I have meat for eating. *Maybe I FORCE MY WILL on the public and SHOW
HOW YUMMY MEAT IS.

OR maybe I act like a FORCEFUL SISSY, like PETA does. *Be gentle to
nature, Have a salad, don't add bacon bits, be gentle, enjoy the
greens, destroy your economy and be sissies, have a salad, your
economy will survive without meat, try to conserve, use grass and
dandelions, earth likes gentleness, HEY THANKS FOR THE SISSY IDEAS

Take that shit to the retards that already follow your stupidity.
We'll take your retards back with the smell of delicious cooked meat,
and you'll be broken and back to your pamphlets.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for your intelligent feedback. You conclusively proved that
I've been completely mistaken about this issue, and I've actually
started eating meat again in response to your thoughtful philosophical
arguments.

Thank you for showing me the way, my intellectual superior.

On Jul 3, 6:59*pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists
wrote:
On Jun 29, 7:12*pm, Rupert wrote:





I'll just explore the topic of bullying and the right to free speech a
bit further. A good friend of mine, about my age, just finishing off
an accounting degree and with a fairly small salary working for Animal
Liberation NSW, was recently in court facing a seven-figure lawsuit
because she went to Pitt Street Mall a couple of times and handed out
a few leaflets discussing a practice that quite a lot of Australian
sheep farmers do known as "mulesing". With this procedure a large
chunk of flesh is removed from a sheep's backside with a pair of
gardening shears, for the purpose of preventing blowfly strike. At the
time of the protests my friend was doing it was usual to do this
procedure without any anaesthetic. There is now a legal requirement to
use anaesthetic and the wool industry has made a commitment to phase
out the practice, I think our campaign can take some of the credit for
that. We made the statement that mulesing is cruel, there was some
discussion of that in court, apparently they found the statement in
some way objectionable. Anyway, Australian Wool Innovation claimed
that we had violated the Trade Practices Act by calling for a boycott
of Australian wool (which we hadn't, although PETA had done that, but
they had to bring us into court along with PETA because it's an
Australian law and they had to get an Australian organisation
involved). They sued two Animal Liberation NSW activists and claimed
that they should be liable for $5 million to cover the costs of an
advertising campaign that they had to do in response to our campaign.
They kept Animal Liberation NSW tied up with the initial hearings for
many months. This of course meant that we had to devote time and money
into arguing our case that the matter shouldn't go to court, thereby
preventing us from functioning effectively as an organisation. I
myself was involved in these protests and it is only a matter of good
fortune that I did not have to go to court myself. As you can imagine,
for individuals like myself or my friend the idea of potentially being
liable for seven-figure amounts, even if the possibility is fairly
remote, is fairly stressful. I think at the time we were handing out
the leaflets we had this crazy idea that we lived in a liberal
democracy and were allowed to publicly express our opinions about
practices that concerned us.

That may help to clarify the concept of "bullying" for you.

The McLibel trial is another example, though that one backfired.

Understand? That's what bullying is. A public expression of an opinion
that it's immoral or in some other way undesirable to eat meat is an
exercise of the right to free speech, phenomena like the above two
examples are what you call bullying.

I have meat for eating. *Maybe I FORCE MY WILL on the public and SHOW
HOW YUMMY MEAT IS.

OR maybe I act like a FORCEFUL SISSY, like PETA does. *Be gentle to
nature, Have a salad, don't add bacon bits, be gentle, enjoy the
greens, destroy your economy and be sissies, have a salad, your
economy will survive without meat, try to conserve, use grass and
dandelions, earth likes gentleness, HEY THANKS FOR THE SISSY IDEAS

Take that shit to the retards that already follow your stupidity.
We'll take your retards back with the smell of delicious cooked meat,
and you'll be broken and back to your pamphlets.-


Sweet Baby Jeebus!! Another clown like Boobs.

How many clowns can these newsgroups support at one time?

On Jun 29, 6:01*pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists
wrote:
It must have been inevitable for the PETA people to become Fascists
just like the MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists. *We can expect more
non-stop bullying until they get their way, like a bunch of cry-
babies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-rights-group-...

Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters

After helping to make fur coats taboo, campaigners at Peta are using
hardline tactics on A-list carnivores

By Rachel Shields
Sunday, 29 June 2008

Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns
against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from
celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of
animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta – People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-
wearers in red paint – has launched an attack on the singer Jessica
Simpson.

Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing
a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat", believed to be a
light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo's vegetarian ex-
girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might
have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to
eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some
people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political
correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really
doing is standing up for the status quo."

The animal rights group doctored a photo of Ms Simpson to read "Only
Stupid Girls Eat Meat", and listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat
meat".

In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for
admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China.

The Peta attacks are seen as a sign of the radicalisation of some
vegetarian groups. They claim eating meat causes environmental
destruction, damages human health and contributes to global hunger, as
well as inflicting suffering on billions of animals.

Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) claims that there
are currently between five and six million vegetarians in the UK but
estimates that as many as a third of population have significantly
reduced their meat intake.

"Vegetarians are still in a minority – most people eat meat. You're
sticking your neck out as a vegetarian, and so most are passionate
about it," said Annette Pinner, the chief executive of the Vegetarian
Society.

A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency
that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn
vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.

Paul McCartney, a veteran vegetarian campaigner, recently launched
"Meat Free Mondays" to encourage meat-eaters to eat vegetarian food
once a week, citing the UN's statement as a good reason to forgo
meat.

Yet there is evidence that the British public might be rebelling
against pressure to cut their meat consumption. Despite the cost of
meat hitting a 22-year high, British supermarkets actually report a
rise in sales. Waitrose has recorded big year-on-year increases in the
sale of most meats, while sales of Asda's "2p sausage" have gone up by
42 per cent.



so? even us vegetarians don't take PETA seriously.


they're useless.. all those things are, if they were useful, they'd
be out of a job.


and joblessness means no productivity.



just because fakey vegetarians go on about how not eating an animal is
going to save it... doesn't mean us real ones believe that shit.


eat your god damned meat.. i don't give a ****... what you do is your
hamster sammich.

On Jun 29, 6:53*pm, Rupert wrote:
This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it, but
I'll just observe that the Centre for Consumer Freedom has a perfect
right to do an advertising campaign pointing out that PETA has made a
financial contribution to a group which is currently classified as a
terrorist organisation in an effort to discredit the philosophical
positions that the group takes, they have a perfect right to engage in
pot-calling-the-kettle-black tactics claiming that the name of the
organisation Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine is a
misnomer, they are really a group pushing an animal rights agenda,
when we all know perfectly well that the Centre for Consumer Freedom
is a lobby group for the meat and tobacco industries, and PETA has a
perfect right to do an ad campaign saying that it is stupid to eat
meat for whatever reasons they can come up with to defend that
contention, and none of this is bullying, it is just exercise of the
right to free speech.

If you want to explore the meaning of the word "bullying" then have a
look at some footage of factory farms and slaughterhouses.



but you replied to it anyways?

On Jun 30, 3:58*pm, charley wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:01*pm, Watcher of MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists





wrote:
It must have been inevitable for the PETA people to become Fascists
just like the MarxoFascists and EnviroFascists. *We can expect more
non-stop bullying until they get their way, like a bunch of cry-
babies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-rights-group-...

Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters

After helping to make fur coats taboo, campaigners at Peta are using
hardline tactics on A-list carnivores

By Rachel Shields
Sunday, 29 June 2008

Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns
against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from
celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of
animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta – People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-
wearers in red paint – has launched an attack on the singer Jessica
Simpson.

Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing
a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat", believed to be a
light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo's vegetarian ex-
girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might
have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to
eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some
people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political
correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really
doing is standing up for the status quo."

The animal rights group doctored a photo of Ms Simpson to read "Only
Stupid Girls Eat Meat", and listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat
meat".

In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for
admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China.

The Peta attacks are seen as a sign of the radicalisation of some
vegetarian groups. They claim eating meat causes environmental
destruction, damages human health and contributes to global hunger, as
well as inflicting suffering on billions of animals.

Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) claims that there
are currently between five and six million vegetarians in the UK but
estimates that as many as a third of population have significantly
reduced their meat intake.

"Vegetarians are still in a minority – most people eat meat. You're
sticking your neck out as a vegetarian, and so most are passionate
about it," said Annette Pinner, the chief executive of the Vegetarian
Society.

A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency
that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn
vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.

Paul McCartney, a veteran vegetarian campaigner, recently launched
"Meat Free Mondays" to encourage meat-eaters to eat vegetarian food
once a week, citing the UN's statement as a good reason to forgo
meat.

Yet there is evidence that the British public might be rebelling
against pressure to cut their meat consumption. Despite the cost of
meat hitting a 22-year high, British supermarkets actually report a
rise in sales. Waitrose has recorded big year-on-year increases in the
sale of most meats, while sales of Asda's "2p sausage" have gone up by
42 per cent.

PETA = left wing wackos- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



putting effortless thought agenda

On Jul 15, 4:17*am, "white, fat and fugly"
wrote:
On Jun 29, 6:53*pm, Rupert wrote:





This is just a troll so it is stupid to bother replying to it, but
I'll just observe that the Centre for Consumer Freedom has a perfect
right to do an advertising campaign pointing out that PETA has made a
financial contribution to a group which is currently classified as a
terrorist organisation in an effort to discredit the philosophical
positions that the group takes, they have a perfect right to engage in
pot-calling-the-kettle-black tactics claiming that the name of the
organisation Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine is a
misnomer, they are really a group pushing an animal rights agenda,
when we all know perfectly well that the Centre for Consumer Freedom
is a lobby group for the meat and tobacco industries, and PETA has a
perfect right to do an ad campaign saying that it is stupid to eat
meat for whatever reasons they can come up with to defend that
contention, and none of this is bullying, it is just exercise of the
right to free speech.

If you want to explore the meaning of the word "bullying" then have a
look at some footage of factory farms and slaughterhouses.

but you replied to it anyways?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup!