<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:11:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><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
>>>>>>news:a9jcg7tl15508tm09t74btbnks2pgaa782@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:54:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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
>>> [having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
>>> value
>>> for livestock.]
>>
>>That's a lie and you know it.
>
> LOL. No doubt you would like everyone to believe that some people who
> are in
> favor of AW over elimination are opposed to having appreciation for when
> decent
> AW results in lives of positive value for livestock...LOL! Just describing
> your
> position is hilarious!

A paragraph full of ****wit-isms.