Considering human influence on animals
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 31, 11:38 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> > For years "aras" have been insisting that we give no consideration to
>> > the lives of livestock. Some have taken it to the extent of insisting
>> > that
>> > we must never consider the lives of anything, though those in that
>> > position from time to time also pretend to understand the value of some
>> > lives, for some never explained reason(s). So what are we allowed to
>> > consider? It is okay to consider the lives of any of the following,
>> > when
>> > considering human influence on animals:
>>
>> What do you mean by "consider"? Be more explicit.
>
> I would never tell you what to do, but I would suggest that in
> replying to a blatant ****wit David Harrison sock puppet, you should
> always be sure to include something to the effect that you recognize
> it as a sloppily put together sock puppet, and heap some ridicule on
> him for doing it.
I considered it too obvious to even mention.
|