Thousands of chicks die every day because no one has use for them:

http://tinyurl.com/evy2q

If they were instead relieved of what appears to be a miserable death
before they even get to experience life, and provided with an environment
like this or better for a while:

http://tinyurl.com/er56m
http://www.wcsh6.com/home/article.asp?id=34029

before getting a more humane death, would you or anyone you know
who's interested in human influence on animals consider buying
products from such an arrangement, if it was available?

On Sat, 06 May 2006, a badly commoved Goober excoriated:

dh asked:

Thousands of chicks die every day because no one has use for them:

http://tinyurl.com/evy2q

If they were instead relieved of what appears to be a miserable death
before they even get to experience life, and provided with an environment
like this or better for a while:

http://tinyurl.com/er56m
http://www.wcsh6.com/home/article.asp?id=34029

before getting a more humane death, would you or anyone you know
who's interested in human influence on animals consider buying
products from such an arrangement, if it was available?

There is no moral reason for them to "get to experience
life"

LOL! Goobernicus says he wouldn't even consider it, as expected,
so maybe it's a fine idea. What would be a good thing to call it?

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006, a badly commoved Goober excoriated:

dh asked:

Thousands of chicks die every day because no one has use for them:

http://tinyurl.com/evy2q

If they were instead relieved of what appears to be a miserable death
before they even get to experience life, and provided with an environment
like this or better for a while:

http://tinyurl.com/er56m
http://www.wcsh6.com/home/article.asp?id=34029

before getting a more humane death, would you or anyone you know
who's interested in human influence on animals consider buying
products from such an arrangement, if it was available?

There is no moral reason for them to "get to experience
life"

LOL! Goobernicus says he wouldn't even consider it, as expected,
so maybe it's a fine idea. What would be a good thing to call it?

How about “postponed devouring of the little ones�?

On Sat, 6 May 2006 23:13:40 +0200, bojster wrote:

dh@. wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006, a badly commoved Goober excoriated:

dh asked:

Thousands of chicks die every day because no one has use for them:

http://tinyurl.com/evy2q

If they were instead relieved of what appears to be a miserable death
before they even get to experience life, and provided with an environment
like this or better for a while:

http://tinyurl.com/er56m
http://www.wcsh6.com/home/article.asp?id=34029

before getting a more humane death, would you or anyone you know
who's interested in human influence on animals consider buying
products from such an arrangement, if it was available?

There is no moral reason for them to "get to experience
life"

LOL! Goobernicus says he wouldn't even consider it, as expected,
so maybe it's a fine idea. What would be a good thing to call it?

How about “postponed devouring of the little ones”?

Too long.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
On Sat, 6 May 2006 23:13:40 +0200, bojster wrote:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:

On Sat, 06 May 2006, Leif Erikson rubbed ****wit David Harrison's nose in the dogshit *again*:

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:

Thousands of chicks die every day because no one has use for them:

http://tinyurl.com/evy2q

If they were instead relieved of what appears to be a miserable death
before they even get to experience life, and provided with an environment
like this or better for a while:

http://tinyurl.com/er56m
http://www.wcsh6.com/home/article.asp?id=34029

before getting a more humane death, would you or anyone you know
who's interested in human influence on animals consider buying
products from such an arrangement, if it was available?

There is no moral reason for them to "get to experience
life"

LOL! Leif says he wouldn't even consider it,

Nothing meaningful to consider.


What would be a good thing to call it?

How about "postponed devouring of the little ones"?

Too long.

How about "ignorant cracker ****wittery"? That's perfect.

On 15 May 2006, a childish dimwitted Goober suggested:

dh pointed out:
On Sat, 6 May 2006 23:13:40 +0200, bojster wrote:

dh asked:

What would be a good thing to call it?

How about "postponed devouring of the little ones"?

Too long.

How about "ignorant cracker ****wittery"? That's perfect.

Well Goo, since you're still a #1 Google hit:
__________________________________________________ _______
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 652 for Goobernicus. (0.35 seconds)

newsbackup.com ~ View topic - The cowardice of Goo
Goobernicus Gonad - - the moron who thinks he's a genius ... significant issues which Goobernicus has lied about
repeatedly , ...
www.newsbackup.com/post-4636424.html - 80k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Newsgroup Article sci.psychology.misc:6340
Goo is short for Goobernicus. You're so funny. You kill me every time. ... Therefore he is an ignorant moron deserving of
the title Goobernicus. ...
news.quipo.it/scripts/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=sci.psychology.misc &item=6340&utag= - 11k - Supplemental Result -
Cached - Similar pages

Google Groups: alt.food
Goobernicus says he wouldn't even consider it, as expected, so maybe it's a fine idea. What would be a good thing to call
it? ...
groups.google.com/group/alt.food/browse_thread/thread/a1fc8df1524ffdbf/238c424481ad5ce5 - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

Proof of anticipation in ducks
search for Goobernicus , because you are the number one Goober . ... Goobernicus Gonad - - the moron who thinks he's a
genius . . . significant issues ...
www.vocaboly.com/forums/ftopic7069-0-asc-15.html - 96k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

cat- Animals cannot be disappointed.
You are Goobernicus Gonad . You " think " you are a genius ... Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting . This is
classic ! ..
www.catbanter.com/showthread.php?t=26921&page=3 - 69k - Supplemental Result
....

www.google.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
maybe we should use your celebrated title and call it anti-Goobal chicken, or
something similar since it works against Goobal theory:

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to experience life"
deserves no consideration when asking whether or not it is moral to
kill them. Zero." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo