"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> liars like Lesley who trades
> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
>
> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
> yourself as a vegan. Why?

The small moneys received were no more than partial
recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.

I have never described myself as vegan. You lie.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><..>
> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
> >> himself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>
> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
> my own accord.
>
> >OK, I've read
> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>
> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
> regrets.
>
> >And yes, you regret it and
> >blame yourself. Too late!
>
> That's unfortunately true.
>
> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>
> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > They weren't baseless accusations
>
> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
> and lies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> [..]

restored.

> >You've done the same to many other AR supporters
> >here, and still are.
>
> I've chased off a few AR pretenders while they
> promote vivisection, if that's what you mean.

A good example of your clinging to your misinterpretations
in order to harass ("chase off", bully) other AR supporters.

Zakhar wrote:
"for example if one rabbit would save 1000 humans, then
I could accept that the rabbit should die".'

I emphasised then, in an effort to explain the meaning:
"for example *if* one rabbit *would* save 1000 humans,
then I could accept that the rabbit should die.

If = A hypothetical situation. Would = 100% certainty.

If one rabbit would save you from dying of starvation,
you (similarly) would accept that the rabbit should die.

"Eating meat for survival is perfectly ethical and correct. "
Dec 18 2003, 11:26 pm by ipse dixit (Derek)

> >What the hell's the matter with you?
>
> I'm fine, thank you.

No, you are most definitely not "fine".