On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
>>>>>> those
>>>>>>facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
>>>>>>fact is
>>>>>>what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing
>>>>>>out
>>>>>>for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?
>>>>>
>>>>>A meaningless one.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that
>>>> would
>>>> be no reason for you to hate it.
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
>>>>>don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?
>>>>
>>>> People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.
>>>
>>>That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.
>>>
>>>"Decent AW" <retch> is promoted over "poor AW"
>>
>> It's also promoted over eliminations.
>
>By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
.. . .
>>>"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).
>>>
>>>Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.
>>
>> That's one of the reasons why people who are truly in favor of decent AW
>>over elimination must necessarily be opposed to elimination, as I've been
>>pointing out to you and you've been trying futiley to oppose for years. Are you
>>all of a sudden beginning to finally realise the significance of the fact? If
>>so, do you think you'll be able to remember it or do you think you'll unlearn it
>>again? Do you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your last
>>unlearning?
>
>Fa

DO you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your mysterious
unlearning?