pearl wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" indefensibly and stupidly > wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Billy Bligh wrote:
>
>
> <..>
>
>>>>>>This is a very strange situation indeed,
>>>>>
>>>>>The only strange situation going on here is your hate campaign against her and your
>>>>>refusal to accept the fact that she rejects at least two of the things you're all accusing
>>>>>her of.
>
>
>>>>She didn't reject it outright, dummy. Go back and look. It was qualified in every
>>>>clause:
>
>
>>>>"*IF* it's contrary to an animals' [sic] instinct *AND* requires
>>>>conditioning *OR* abuse..."
>
>
> Twisterrrrr.
>
> "To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
> instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it."

But *only* if the animal has to be conditioned to
accept it. If not, then you're all for it.

You also believe in <guffaw> "zero point field". You
self consciously go out of your way to embrace weird,
irrational, ANTI-scientific bullshit.

'There are those who believe that science is not
just mistaken on some interesting theoretical
possibilities, but IRREDEEMIBLY wrong on the most
fundamental questions science can ask.'

lesley, the foot-rubbing whore of Cork
http://tinyurl.com/o8uwn

You have zero credibility on matters of science. That
includes nutrition.