****wit David Harrison choked wrote:

> For years I've been pointing out that Jonathan Ball (from here on
> referred to dishonestly as the Gonad) and Dutch are dishonest
> "ARAs", pretending very poorly to be "AR" opponents.

You've failed, ****wit, because you don't believe it
yourself. You're merely trying to be insulting in as
cheaply dishonest a way as possible.

> They did it
> attempting to win the confidence of true "AR" opponents

No. First, we didn't do "it". Secondly, neither Dutch
nor I was trying to "win the confidence" of anyone; we
already HAD it, ****wit, in my case because I was
correctly seen as an opponent of "ar", and in Dutch's
because he made an open, honest repudiation of it.

ALL we were doing, ****wit, is showing that *your*
****witted tale is NOT opposition to "ar"; it's pure
****wittery, THAT'S ALL. It's rubbish; crap; bullshit.


> Ball's character was also designed to
> make "AR" opponents appear as childish,

No, ****wit: only YOU.


> One of their main objectives was to oppose suggestions that people
> consider any alternative to veg*nism

No, ****wit: only yours, because it isn't an
alternative, it's illogical nonsense.


> Though their position has been clear for all to see, we now have
> absolute proof that both Dutch and Ball are "ARAs"

No, ****wit, you don't. More to the point, ****wit NO
ONE believes you.


> who accept
> the beliefs of one of the earliest fathers of the "AR" concept, and one
> of the earliest promoters of vegetarianism. That early father of "AR" was
> Henry S. Salt. Here is absolute proof that they both accept Salt's beliefs
> ...this particular incredibly anthropomorphic example is from a fantasy that
> they consider to be the position of pigs:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: "Dutch" >
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
> Subject: Time for you to throw in the towel, ****wit
> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:48:53 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
> for the pig here, you ought to listen.
>
> ". . . I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in
> no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery.
> If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
> hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for his sake,
> but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and fed, and at the end
> barbarously butchered."
>
> Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
> then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

And that's RIGHT, ****wit. Your self-serving bullshit
is to imagine that you have "given the 'gift' of life"
to the pig. You haven't, and in order to drive the
point home, Salt creates the fable of a talking pig who
explains it to the philosopher. None of us - not Salt,
not Dutch, not Usual Suspect, not me, not Common Man,
not Abner Hale, not John Mercer, not Martin Martens -
none of us believes pigs can talk, nor that they have
an awareness of their fate. We all understand it is
merely a literary device by Salt to get his CORRECT
point of view across: existence is not a "benefit"
that meat eaters have given to animals.

> For all who have suspected the truth that Dutch and Ball are
> dishonest "ARAs"

NO ONE has suspected that, ****wit, including you. No one.