the foot-rubbing skag of Ireland 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.

That's a server name, dummy.

> "To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if

Why the "if"?

> it is contrary to an animals' instinct

Tell us when it IS consistent with "an animals' [sic] instinct" to ****
a human.

> and requires conditioning

When do animals naturally desire to mate outside their own species?

> or abuse,

What else do you call it when a human "entices" an animal for sex?

> I _strongly_ condemn it."

Your condemnation is feeble because you've given so many qualifications
to the issue. You have yet to categorically state that it's always wrong
for humans to **** animals. Why haven't you? Karen's not here to mind
you now so you don't have to worry about offending her predilections in
this area.