On 8/8/2012 8:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On aug. 8, 17:49, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 8/8/2012 8:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On aug. 8, 17:37, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2012 8:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On aug. 8, 17:22, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On aug. 8, 16:53, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 2:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On aug. 7, 17:26, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 8:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2012 12:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 12:23 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2012 3:02 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies,
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then? That's what we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying you believe all along. Why do you deny believing it when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so obvious that you *do* believe it?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course unborn animals exist. The issue has been whether animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist before they are conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't be such a pedantic literalist ****. As ****wit uses it, "unborn
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals" means animals that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The context is his statement "In contrast to that most stupidly
>>>>>>>>>>> blatant of lies, every pregnantanimal carries at least one unborn animal."
>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
>>>>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>>>>>>>> David Harrison wrote "LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant
>>>>>>>>> of lies, every pregnant
>>>>>>>>> animal carries at least one unborn animal."
>>
>>>>>>>> He's bullshitting, trying to be cute. We know that what he means is
>>>>>>>> "future farm animals" that haven't even been conceived.
>>
>>>>>>> Well, actually, no, on this particular occasion it is clear that that
>>>>>>> is not what he means.
>>
>>>>>> He's bullshitting. He's equivocating on "unborn animals", as Dutch has
>>>>>> already patiently explained to you. He's done this before.
>>
>>>>>> ****wit *always* means, in his bullshit expressions of his core
>>>>>> bullshit, unconceived "future farm animals." That's what he means.
>>
>>>>> Your claims strike me as absurd.
>>
>>>> No, they don't.
>>
>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>> Forget that, time-waster. Focus on the obvious: ****wit is
>> equivocating when he begins blabbering about pregnant animals. When he
>> ****es and moans about "vegans" not "considering the lives" of unborn
>> farm animals, he is not talking about animals that are conceived. He is
>> talking about "future farm animals", animals that will be bred into
>> existence if there is demand for the products that come from them.
>> Don't be such a literalist ****, you wobbly ****.
>
> When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
> blatant of lies,

When he wrote that, you plodding time-wasting ****wit, he was trying to
be cute by equivocating. This is obvious - even to you.