<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 15:04:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:27:32 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:12:15 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:qug4g79cl3elu7kd4jl1j64jrcla7l8dbi@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> extent,
>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your
>>>>>>>>>>arguments
>>>>>>>>>>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I sure doubt that of course
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course you would, you love your little pet arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You often do things that ONLY an eliminationist has reason to do,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>> not forget that part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My objection to ...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in
>>>>>>lives
>>>>>of positive value for livestock] is that it is a circular,
>>>>>>irrational, self-serving and weak position to assume.
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY from an eliminationist pov.
>>>>
>>>>No
>>>
>>> Yes. We've seen that to be the case.
>>
>>No
>
> Yes. We've seen that ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose the
> LoL.

That's a lie and you know it.