swamp wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:


On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp wrote:


On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:


No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.

--swamp

I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?


Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

ONE exceptionally dimwitted goofball named "Polly"
(sheesh) halfway agreed with it. She used to describe
it as a "'neat' side benefit". To whom, she didn't
say, but it seemed evident to me she meant it was a
benefit to *humans*, not to any animals. It's further
obvious she meant to humans *like her*. See
http://tinyurl.com/r90b

As far as I can recall, she's the only one. She was a
good pal and confederate to that fat ugly asshole Sue
Bitchup, so that ought to tell you something.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

swamp wrote:

[snip]

Go Sox!

Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.

Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.

Admittedly bitter,

--swamp

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:15:57 GMT, d wrote:

piddock wrote:

"rick etter" wrote in message news:rx0jb.330$



and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals.


And you anti-animal meat-eating folks

Nope. Wanting to eat animals doesn't make one
anti-animal. You're a moron.

You are a moron Jon, sadly born to it.

murder thousands upon thousands of humans each year

Nope. Strike two. First, accidental industrial deaths
aren't murder, by definition. It's conceivable that
human deaths due to negligence might be prosecuted as
manslaughter, but that's pretty unusual.

with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on
society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in
processing plants,

Where?

to the additional trasportation needed
to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes.
I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human
than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals.

Nope. Not anti-animal, not anti-human.



your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might
figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem.


GET THE **** OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS!

MAKE ME, cocksucker! Yeah, you puny ****ing queer!
Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless
****drip.

Best snip it hear, there is something obscene about a lame brain dwarf
called jonathan ball pretending he is rock hard.

Why the nymshift jon?










. . . . . . . .





The facts expressed here belong to everybody,
the opinions to me.
The distinction is yours to draw...

/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'` '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
----. __ / __ \
----|====O)))==) \) /====
----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ /
______( (_ / \______
,' ,-----' | \
`--{__________) \/

I'm a horny devil when riled.


pete who?

-=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97

.""--.._
[] `'--.._
||__ `'-,
`)||_ ```'--.. \
_ /|//} ``--._ |
.'` `'. /////} `\/
/ .""".\ //{///
/ /_ _`\\ // `||
| |(_)(_)|| _// ||
| | /\ )| _///\ ||
| |L====J | / |/ | ||
/ /'-..-' / .'` \ | ||
/ | :: | |_.-` | \ ||
/| `\-::.| | \ | ||
/` `| / | | | / ||
|` \ | / / \ | ||
| `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | ||
/ /` `\ || ||
| . / \|| ||
| | |/ ||
/ / | ( ||
/ . / ) ||
| \ | ||
/ | / ||
|\ / | ||
\ `-._ | / ||
\ ,//`\ /` | ||
///\ \ | \ ||
|||| ) |__/ | ||
|||| `.( | ||
`\\` /` / ||
/` / ||
jgs / | ||
| \ ||
/ | ||
/` \ ||
/` | ||
`-.___,-. .-. ___,' ||
`---'` `'----'`
I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic!

"Dutch" wrote in message
You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!

You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the
past is not a reason to deny it to them now.

Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use
to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America:
that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or
somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned
right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc.
I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers
and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war
(to free people and animals). But many of the so-called
pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE
about which wars they wish to support or criticize. These are the
right-winger extremists.

I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between
a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". snipped below
However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned:
fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another
-- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level
of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is
being given more right or access to property and resources than another.
So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights.

To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we
replace the word "human" with "animal".

How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
to have will, an animal must exist first.

It is called BREEDING. Look into it.

swamp wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


swamp wrote:


[snip]


Go Sox!

Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.


Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.

I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
that he roots for injuries.


Admittedly bitter,

As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and
Miamians wanted to see.

Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the
business of the sport enough to know much about how
teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is
well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know
that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the
Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times
writing that this Florida team was built more in the
good old fashioned way: player development and
"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings.

As I also said before, I'd root for the national team
from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the
Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders
in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in
hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team
I hated that much.

tortured trix wrote:
Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use
to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America:

You blooming idiot. Nobody has been censored in America. Responding to
the critics and their hysteria is NOT censorship, it's free speech.

that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or
somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned
right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc.

That fat slob chose to politicize an awards show. He's had, and still
has, forums open to rant and rave as he's wont to do. Suggesting that
his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's
about good taste. As far as whether or not he earned an Oscar for his
deceitful mockumentary, I'll leave it to the Academy. I didn't see it,
and I probably won't.

I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers
and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war
(to free people and animals).

Our self-preservation was also a very good reason for war. We also
happened to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal thug dictator.
According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.

But many of the so-called
pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE
about which wars they wish to support or criticize.

You've no concept of our laws if you think that. We don't hold elections
just to allow ninnies to pontificate their opposition to war. You were,
and remain, free to oppose any facet of our government you want. Your
opportunity to support or oppose those facets occurs every two years for
the House of Representatives, four years for President, and six years
for Senate.

These are the right-winger extremists.

Non sequitur. Leftist administrations have entangled us in more wars, to
which even leftists objected, than "right-wingers." That doesn't make
them extremists, it only tells us they operate on standards that rise
above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq. The President still enjoys the support of the majority
of Americans despite all the negative press and vilification from prats
like you.

I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between
a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". snipped below

The two aren't necessarily the same. You're not very bright, are you.

However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned:
fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another

Some of us would argue that is NOT an abstract purpose. It's quite
concrete. Ask Saddam and his dead boys.

-- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level
of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is
being given more right or access to property and resources than another.
So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights.

Property and resources are human rights, but the taking of them by force
may be a violation of said rights. How is that fighting for rights?
Consider Saddam's rise to power and his use of the military to control
resources and subjugate the population. The result was a loss of rights,
even though soldiers were being used for Saddam's evil purposes.
Contrast that to selfless allied actions which deposed Saddam and are
now restoring human rights.

It's like a knife: a deadly tool in the wrong hands, but able to give
life in the hands of a surgeon. You really lack a clear grasp of the issue.

To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we
replace the word "human" with "animal".

Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have. It is a
peculiar concept which is of recent origin. Its popularity may be
increasing, albeit marginally, but only because of the urbanization of
our species.

How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
to have will, an animal must exist first.

It is called BREEDING. Look into it.

No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
fertilization? While you're at it, please explain what an animal's will
is and how you know animals have wills.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

swamp wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


swamp wrote:


[snip]


Go Sox!

Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.


Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.

I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
that he roots for injuries.

I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite
understood them. Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so
naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so
I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite
team is whoever's playing Notre Dame. And I like a good hit as much as
anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just
kids playin' ball...

As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and
Miamians wanted to see.

They'll get great ratings on the East coast. Our side, they'll be
lucky to outdraw the History channel.

Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the
business of the sport enough to know much about how
teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is
well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know
that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the
Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times
writing that this Florida team was built more in the
good old fashioned way: player development and
"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings.

More in the old-fashioned way this time than Huizenga's Marlins, yes,
but Pudge was bought. I still have problems rooting for them.

As I also said before, I'd root for the national team
from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the
Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders
in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in
hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team
I hated that much.

You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach,
elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge?

I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match
my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie
stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World
Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the
Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined.

--swamp

swamp wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


swamp wrote:


Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.

I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA
who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says
that he roots for injuries.


I know lots of UCLA grads who feel the same way. Never quite
understood them.

They hate USC, and no one likes ND.

Dad went to SC and took me to games as a kid, so
naturally they're my team. Mom went to Berkeley and I went to UCI, so
I root for UCLA and Cal unless they're playing SC. My second favorite
team is whoever's playing Notre Dame.

That's what UCLA students and alumni say about USC.

I did two years at community college, then completed
undergrad at [lowers voice to whisper] USC. I was
badly fooled. It wasn't a good school. It was L.A.'s
connections school: where young white men went to get
into some dull moneymaking thing like real estate
development or accounting, and women went to meet the
budding real estate developer or accountant to get
married. I got to grad school at UCLA and realized I
was woefully unprepared. UCLA was and is an excellent
school, just a tiny nudge below Berkeley; USC was junk.
USC has gotten a lot better than it once was, but it
still does not match UCLA academically.

And I like a good hit as much as
anyone, but never like to see serious injuries. Hell, they're just
kids playin' ball...

My friend was only expressing his disgust for both
schools, not truly rooting for injuries.



As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and
Miamians wanted to see.


They'll get great ratings on the East coast. Our side, they'll be
lucky to outdraw the History channel.


Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the
business of the sport enough to know much about how
teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is
well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know
that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the
Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times
writing that this Florida team was built more in the
good old fashioned way: player development and
"normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings.


More in the old-fashioned way this time than Huizenga's Marlins, yes,
but Pudge was bought. I still have problems rooting for them.


As I also said before, I'd root for the national team

from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the

Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders
in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in
hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team
I hated that much.


You didn't hate the Celtics? That smug, cigar-faced, racist Auerbach,
elbow-artist McHale, and whiner of Ainge?

I certainly didn't like them, but I wouldn't say I
hated them, although in retrospect I should have hated
that racist shitbag Auerbach. I still remember McHale
practically decapitating Kurt Rambis, and nothing
happened to him.

It seemed to me the team to hate in that era, for
Lakers fans, as the bad boy Pistons, not the Celtics.
The Celtics we just wanted to beat, and soundly.


I don't know any empirical method of quantifying hate, but I'll match
my hatred for the Yankees w/ yours any day. It started when Reggie
stuck his butt out to deflect the double play throw in the '77 World
Series, and has grown ever since. Hate 'em more than Notre Dame, the
Giants, Celtics, and Cowboys combined.

I lived in the Bay Area for a while and became kind of
a secondary Giants fan, although I can't stand Bonds.
I stopped hating the Cowboys as soon as Staubach
retired and we quit hearing that "America's Team" crapola.

usual suspect wrote in message news:qITjb.36161

his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's

Yes it is. It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever
the hell he
wanted. It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want
to air.
If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel.
Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people
complained
about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in
situations which THEY did not ask for. You would defend every action
of
promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse
animal rights people of trying to "censor" you.

Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus
deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced
stop? There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment"
in doing that. Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus
stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store.

You are just jealous because his books are so popular.

According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.

What polls? You may be true, and I hope you are, but it is
ridiculously
naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country
struggling
to build itself out of the ruins of a war.

above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
action in Iraq.

That is false, at best. Polls are not scientific, because they do not
answer
the questions people wish to ask. You are SO hung up on opinion
polls, like they mean ANYthing.

And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the
correctness
of one's argument.

I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military
action
against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most
notably,
Peru) and elsewhere. I would be all for war if it meant freeing
billions
of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other
countries!
But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly
against the violence on one side.

Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have.

That is just YOUR opinion. Many humans believe they DO have rights.

No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
fertilization?

Non-sequitur. I never said animals have a will before, or even after,
fertilization. HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose
to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the
animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the
animals.

You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming
the child if the child shoots themself. After all, YOU did not choose
to make the child shoot themself. But, would you argue that children
have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of
deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)?

Cash Cow wrote in message news:V7Ejb.3147

The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see
through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to
"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
quality of life.

Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole!

I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect
and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian.
Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny
that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed
and who suffer.

They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
tenets of
debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.

The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama",
is NO exaggeration with
his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups.
Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat.

"" wrote in message Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless
****drip.

snip Nice ASCII artwork, ! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all,
pointy brackets!

On 18 Oct 2003 14:33:43 -0700, (exploratory)
wrote:

Cash Cow wrote in message news:V7Ejb.3147

The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see
through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to
"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
quality of life.

Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole!

I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect

Who is also a dwarf called J Ball who has a flat spot on his
backside.& on his forehead.

and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian.
Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter

Who is also a dwarf with a flat spot on his head.

and others who deny
that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed
and who suffer.

That would be Crutch ****flaps, who is also a dwarf, and who also has
a flat spot on his forehead.

The clues are there, all dwarves, all poison and all have flatspots
where they were separated at birth

Now guess who was joined where?

And you have your reasons for the pro hunt stupidity.

They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
tenets of
debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.

The cartoon character Zap Brannigan on the great tv show, "Futurama",
is NO exaggeration with
his insane jabbering and blaming OTHERS for HIS enormous screw-ups.
Rick Etter and Usual Suspect have Zap Brannigan beat.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

On 18 Oct 2003 14:36:06 -0700, (exploratory)
wrote:

"" wrote in message Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless
****drip.

snip Nice ASCII artwork, ! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all,
pointy brackets!

Just how dangerous can a poison, pygmy dwarf be, even with two twins?







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

"exploratory" wrote

being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed and who
suffer.

You assume that, you keep saying it, let's see some proof.

They do so by repeated proclamation, as if they say something enough
times, a million times, it will becaome true. That is one of the major
tenets of
debunking -- an irrational form of discourse.

Quite so, that's what you're doing.


[..]

"exploratory" wrote

"" wrote in message Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless,
powerless
****drip.

snip Nice ASCII artwork,

It's plagarized.

! It seems we got to Jon Ball after all,
pointy brackets!

You've been agreeing with him.