On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:57:41 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:06:07 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:53:28 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically
>>>>>>>>>reduces
>>>>>>>>>your impact. Go for it. Be the first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with;
>>>>>>>===================
>>>>>>>No, they
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>did not show that it automatically improved anything,
>>>>>>>fool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His statements make perfect sense and demonstrates
>>>>>> quite clearly that, "if you eat meat that you bought at
>>>>>> a store, *you cause more deaths:* the deaths of the
>>>>>> animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in
>>>>>> the course of producing feed for the animals you eat."
>>>>>> *my emphasis* which is ignorance on display...
>>>>>==============
>>>>
>>>> I see you've already started editing my sentences
>>>> without notation before responding to them, liar
>>>> Ricky. I didn't write the last five words in that
>>>> above paragraph; YOU did. You're a lying,
>>>> cheating piece of scum, Etter.
>>>=====================
>>>ROTFLMAO
>>
>> You've nothing to laugh about, scum. Only a liar and
>> cheat would edit their opponent's sentences before
>> responding to them, and that's been proven to be you
>> in more than one case.
>=======================
>Keep proving my point fool. You're the one that has always
>snipped without annotation, hypocrite...
Snipping without notation is perfectly ethical, while
editing your opponent's sentences before responding
to them is not. Only a liar and a cheat alters his
opponent's sentences to make it appear he wrote
something he didn't intend or was disputing, and
that's the level you've displayed here by editing mine.
>>>>>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>>>>>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>>>>>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>>>>>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>>>>>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>>>>>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>>>>>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>>>>>>> feed for the animals you eat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>>>>>>>> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>>>>>>>> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>>>>>>>> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you
>>>>>>>> avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting
>>>>>>>> at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat,
>>>>>>>> for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet,
>>>>>>>> and for just about anything else you can think of without
>>>>>>>> any evidence to even support these claims. And all the
>>>>>>>> while while trying to attack them in this way you have
>>>>>>>> the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> production of foods you eat, as in;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
>>>>>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths
>>>>>>>> they readily accept are associated with their diets, when
>>>>>>>> are you going to support your claim that the beef you
>>>>>>>> eat causes no collateral deaths at all?
>>>>>==========================
>>>>>No where have I ever stated that, fool....
>>>>
>>>> Yes you have, liar.
>>>===================
>>>Nope
>>
>> Your statements are still on this page proving you
>> did, liar, so there's no use in trying to lie your way
>> out of this one.
>========================
>No, they do not, fool.
They reveal your denial of the collateral deaths
associated with the production of the grass fed
beef you claim to eat, yet all the while while
denying them you feebly attack vegans for the
alleged collateral deaths associated with every
morsel of food they eat, and even the power
they use to send messages to Usenet. How's
that for hypocrisy?
>>>> "The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> "The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
>>>> rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7
>>>>
>>>> Support those lies with evidence or retract them,
>>>> hypocrite.
>>>======================
>>>True statements, fool.
>>
>> So, while every morsel of food that passes the vegan's
>> lips causes and promotes collateral deaths, according
>> to you, the production of the foods YOU eat doesn't.
>======================
>By Jove, you've finally got it, killer....
Well, I've got a nasty shock for you, because
believe it or not the production of grass fed
beef does accrue collateral deaths like any
other food stuff. Your denial of this fact while
trying to attack vegans for the collateral deaths
associated with their lifestyles is disgusting and
priceless at the same time.
>> While every message posted to Usenet causes and
>> promotes collateral deaths, the electricity used in the
>> production of grass fed beef does not. What a hoot,
>> and from the most vile hypocrite on Usenet. Not only
>> do you edit your opponent's posts to stay in contention
>> here, you lie as well, pretending that the production of
>> the beef you eat causes no collateral deaths. Keep up
>> that denial, hypocrite.
>=====================
>You should know all
I know a lying hypocrite living in denial when I
see one, Rick Etter.