the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>

>>>>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
>>>>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
>>>>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
>>>>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the
>>>relative judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will
full
>>>perspective) consider not doing it
>>
>>That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
>>the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
>>or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
>>CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.
>>
>
>
> errrrrm i know - but once existing, you can consider not existing

ERRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMM - *I* know, but PRIOR to existing,
there is no 'you' to consider that you might be 'better
off' coming into existence.

What the **** is the matter with you, ****tard?