On 8/8/2012 10:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it is, time-waster.

****wit is playing you like a ****ing violin...because you want to be
played.