On aug. 8, 18:55, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

No, it's not. In any event my remark:

'When David Harrison wrote ""LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly
blatant of lies, every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn
animal", it is quite obvious that by "unborn animal" he means an
animal which may have been conceived, but has not yet been born.'

was unassailable.