On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Goo continues to wonder:

>Why should the continued existence of livestock get
>*any* of your "consideration", ****wit, apart from your
>wish to consume them?

Because you/"aras" suggest an influence:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700

"vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products.
That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior
to providing decent AW instead.

>Why are you still evading the question, ****wit: why
>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to
>wild animals, continue to exist?

You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going
on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them"
you do? Could you share that clue, Goo?

(prediction: the answer is: no clue)
(note: Goo's boy "Dutch" had a clue which consists only
of potential future wild mice, frogs and groundhogs who
are supposedly being kept down by the cattle)