On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:45:05 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:18:53 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:34:26 +0000, ipse dixit > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:15 GMT, wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>Well? Which is it, then? Does lying matter or
>>>doesn't it?
>>
>> Replace what you snipped and see for yourself.
>>
><unsnip>
>>>>>> 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
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>How does Newkirk's statement take anything away
>from the facts I've pointed out to you? Farmers
>infect their cattle for exactly the reason you gave
>and to fraudulently claim compensation from 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.
>That's not being "honest even when it hurts", you idiot.
>It's thoroughly dishonest and unethical.
>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>Well, stupid? How is what they do being, "honest even
>when it hurts"?
><end>
>
>There. Now answer the question, Harrison.

I did. Do you know when?