On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:02:58 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:12:46 GMT, wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:22 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:04:22 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:38:33 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That's no guarantee that the farmer won't finish
>>>>>his beef in a feedlot on grains far from home
>>>>>later on in the year.
>>>>
>>>> If someone happens to eat beef like that it wouldn't
>>>>really matter anyway
>>>
>>>It does matter when farmers lie to their customers,
>>
>> The lying matters.
>
>You've only just wrote, "that it wouldn't really matter
>anyway", so make up your stupid mind.
>
>>>> Farmers have always
>>>>been honest even when it hurts.
>>>
>>>Then why do they intentionally infect their own
>>>cattle with painful, deadly diseases?
>>
>> To make them sick. Why did you think they do it?
>>
>They do it for exactly the reason you gave and
>to fraudulently claim compensation for what
>should be a safety net for other genuine people
>in need of that money. In short, they lie and
>cheat their own kind, and can't be trusted to look
>after animals,
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>let alone be honest to customers
>about their product.
>
>>>That's not
>>>being "honest even when it hurts",
>>
>> It is if they don't want to make their cattle sick, and
>>only do it as a last resort that they hate to do.
>>
>What a load of rubbish. You start off by claiming
>farmers are "honest even when it hurts" and then
>go on to admit they're anything but honest or even
>responsible enough to look after the animals in their
>charge.
>
>>>and neither
>>>is their lying to customers which YOU think
>>>"wouldn't really matter anyway."
>>
>> The lying does matter.
>
>Then why did you lie by initially claiming, "it wouldn't
>really matter anyway"?

You snipped it, so you know what it is. If you want
to discuss it then put it back.

>>But what and who does it matter to?
>
>Everyone, including themselves.