Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
Goo |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote:
> Goo He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Jun 25, 9:10*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote: > > > * * Goo > > He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all! well, just be careful. Boobs gets really pouty if you use big words he doesn't understand. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Jun 24, 8:10*pm, "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:10*am, Rupert > wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote: > > > > * * Goo > > > He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all! > > well, just be careful. Boobs gets really pouty if you use big words he > doesn't understand. oh, look, a hanger on and to a worthless piece of shit. interesting, you'd think they hang onto something worthwhile and contributary. i guess not, doesn't take much for a leech to string along. they don't have to think about what they are doing. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote: >> Goo > >He's playing with me again! Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. I would love to see him try explaining how he thinks pre-existent entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their existence, but so far all he's been able to do is suggest very strongly that they do. That leaves a great big: "How Goo?" in its wake. >We're still friends after all! Don't fall for it. Sometimes Goo will try to suck someone in. Of course you could play along with him and then kick his ass over it, if he tries sucking up to you. Be careful not to get dragged down like this guy: __________________________________________________ _______ "he's [Goo] the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet, and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage" - "Derek" ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ "There's no doubt that he [Goo] knows more about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only a fool would waste the opportunity to take full advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever manner he was prepared to give it" - "Derek" ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ but that might just be Goo playing the "Derek" character too. Who knows how many different people Goo "is"? Quite possibly even Goo doesn't know. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT), e-vamp > wrote:
>On Jun 24, 8:10*pm, "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote: >> On Jun 25, 9:10*am, Rupert > wrote: >> >> > On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote: >> >> > > * * Goo >> >> > He's playing with me again! We're still friends after all! >> >> well, just be careful. Boobs gets really pouty if you use big words he >> doesn't understand. > > > >oh, look, a hanger on and to a worthless piece of shit. > >interesting, you'd think they hang onto something worthwhile and >contributary. Such as? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > >> On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote: >>> Goo >> He's playing with me again! > > Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. I would > love to see him try explaining how he thinks pre-existent > entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their > existence, but so far all he's been able to do is suggest > very strongly that they do. That leaves a great big: > "How Goo?" in its wake. Trust me when I say, Rupert doesn't agree with you on anything except your common dislike of Rudy. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Jun 27, 4:58*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rudy A. Canoza wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > > >> Rudy A. Canoza wrote: > >>> * * Rudy > >> He's playing with me again! > > > * * Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. > > I have fully explained why your view of animals, which depends on > "pre-existent entities", is bullshit. You've never been able to explain *anything*, Boobs. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
|
|||
|
|||
Stranded, on the bottom.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:54:50 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> >>> On Jun 25, 3:36 am, dh@. wrote: >>>> Goo >>> He's playing with me again! >> >> Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. I would >> love to see him try explaining how he thinks pre-existent >> entities prevent existing ones from benefitting from their >> existence, but so far all he's been able to do is suggest >> very strongly that they do. That leaves a great big: >> "How Goo?" in its wake. > >Trust me when I say, Rupert doesn't agree with you on anything except >your common dislike of Rudy. I don't doubt that we would disagree on a number of things. But even if we do, dislike for the Goober is probably not the only thing we would agree on. He might agree with me that so far neither of you clowns have been able to explain exactly how you think anything to do with pre-existence is able to prevent existing beings from benefitting from their own existence, for example. I hope he would agree with that, since you certainly haven't been able to do it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote:
>dh wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: >> >>> He's playing with me again! >> >> Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. > >I have fully explained why your view of animals, You have never even indicated that you can comprehend my view of animals Goo, much less have you ever shown any evidence that you could explain it to anyone. In contrast to that, you have repeatedly and absolutely consistently indicated that you're unable to do so by insisting that my views are different than they actually are. >which depends on "pre-existent entities", No, YOURS does Goober. Do you really want people to believe you're too stupid to grasp even that much, Goo? Let's compare views. Here's mine: Many of the billions of domestic animals on this planet have decent lives of positive value. Is that in any way dependant on "pre-existent entities" Goob? You're stumped dead on that one of course, so I'll just tell you the answer is no Goo. So where does the idea come from if not from my view, Goober? Stumped again, so here's a clue: "Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to experience the gain" - Goo Right there, Goobernicus, is where the concept of any dependance on pre-existence begins...it begins with YOUR views like: "Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote. THEREFORE, ****wit, existence is not benefit to farm animals." - Goo "coming into existence didn't make me better off than I was before." - Goo "We are not and never were talking about benefits for existing entities" - Goo "Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist is *NOT* the topic." - Goo "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo "The topic is not and never has been whether or not existing animals enjoy living." - Goo "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the existence we know" - Goo "I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo "we don't know if that move improves its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a benefit to it." - Goo "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was" - Goo "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial" for souls to incarnate" - Goo ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not a benefit at all" - Goo "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo Notice that my view is in no way dependant on pre-existence, while the Goobal view--ie YOURS--is entirely dependant on it. >is bullshit. Billions of animals are raised by humans Goober so you certainly can't show that fact to be bullshit. Many of them do have decent lives of positive value so you can't show that fact to be bullshit either, Goo. You can't do it. You're also stumped by your own claims Goob, because you can't explain HOW you think anything to do with pre-existence manages to prevent existing entities from benefitting from decent lives of positive value. Your stumped dead, and stranded on the bottom, Goo. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Jul 1, 10:49*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Goo wrote: > >dh wrote: > > >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:10:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote: > > >>> He's playing with me again! > > >> * * Good luck getting him to try to explain anything. > > >I have fully explained why your view of animals, > > * * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend > my view of animals Goo, much less have you ever shown any > evidence that you could explain it to anyone. In contrast to that, > you have repeatedly and absolutely consistently indicated that > you're unable to do so by insisting that my views are different > than they actually are. > > >which depends on "pre-existent entities", > > * * No, YOURS does Goober. Do you really want people to > believe you're too stupid to grasp even that much, Goo? > Let's compare views. Here's mine: > > Many of the billions of domestic animals on this planet have > decent lives of positive value. > > Is that in any way dependant on "pre-existent entities" Goob? > You're stumped dead on that one of course, so I'll just tell you > the answer is no Goo. So where does the idea come from if > not from my view, Goober? Stumped again, so here's a clue: > > "Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to > experience the gain" - Goo > > Right there, Goobernicus, is where the concept of any dependance > on pre-existence begins...it begins with YOUR views like: > > "Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote. * > THEREFORE, ****wit, existence is not benefit to farm animals." > *- Goo > > "coming into existence didn't make me better off than > I was before." - Goo > > "We are not and never were talking about benefits for > existing entities" - Goo > > "Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist > is *NOT* the topic." - Goo > > "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether > existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo > > "The topic is not and never has been whether or not > existing animals enjoy living." - Goo > > "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the > existence we know" - Goo > > "I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo > > "we don't know if that move improves > its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. > Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare > improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the > life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a > benefit to it." - Goo > > "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one > might provide: *they STILL might not be as good as the > "pre-existence" state was" - Goo > > "you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial" > for souls to incarnate" - Goo Remember when we were discussing the pre-existence of lives? Boobs was raving that there were no such things as "souls" and yet just like pre- existence we see the Boober also believes in "souls", yet maintaining they don't exist. I'd like to know which clown school Boobs got his degree from. > > ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not > a benefit at all" - Goo > > "Being born is not a benefit in any way. *It can't be." - Goo > > Notice that my view is in no way dependant on pre-existence, > while the Goobal view--ie YOURS--is entirely dependant on it. > > >is bullshit. > > * * Billions of animals are raised by humans Goober so you > certainly can't show that fact to be bullshit. Many of them > do have decent lives of positive value so you can't show > that fact to be bullshit either, Goo. You can't do it. You're > also stumped by your own claims Goob, because you can't > explain HOW you think anything to do with pre-existence > manages to prevent existing entities from benefitting from > decent lives of positive value. Your stumped dead, and > stranded on the bottom, Goo. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, the Goober wrote:
>dh pointed out to the Goober: > >> You have never even indicated that you can comprehend >> my view of animals > >I comprehend it LOL! You have never indicated that you can, Goo. I challenge you to try, and KNOW that you will fail. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Jul 4, 4:45*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied > and presented no challenge: > > > > > > > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Rudy I. (for 'intrepid') Canoza wrote: > > >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge: > > >>> * * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend > >>> my view of animals > >> I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully explained > > >> the wrongness of it. *It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: *fits you > >> like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. *You do not understand animals, Goo. * > >> You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and WRONG view > >> of animals. > > >> You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker. > > > * * LOL! You have never indicated that you can, > > Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker. > * I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron. When did you do that? How come no one saw it? > > You are so stupid, Goo - stupid and illiterate.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote:
>On Jul 4, 4:45*am, Goo wrote: >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied >> and presented no challenge: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote: >> >> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge: >> >> >>> * * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend >> >>> my view of animals >> >> I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully explained >> >> >> the wrongness of it. *It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: *fits you >> >> like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. *You do not understand animals, Goo. * >> >> You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and WRONG view >> >> of animals. >> >> >> You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker. >> >> > * * LOL! You have never indicated that you can, >> >> Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker. >> * I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron. > > >When did you do that? How come no one saw it? And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never, in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never going to make the attempt. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:44:06 -0100, David <dh@.> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote: > >>On Jul 4, 4:45*am, Goo wrote: >>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied >>> and presented no challenge: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote: >>> >>> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge: >>> >>> >>> * * You have never even indicated that you can comprehend >>> >>> my view of animals >>> >> I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully explained >>> >>> >> the wrongness of it. *It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: *fits you >>> >> like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. *You do not understand animals, Goo. * >>> >> You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and WRONG view >>> >> of animals. >>> >>> >> You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker. >>> >>> > * * LOL! You have never indicated that you can, >>> >>> Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker. >>> * I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron. >> >> >>When did you do that? How come no one saw it? > > And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of >him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about >it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never, >in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever >does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile >task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense >to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never >going to make the attempt. who cares... shut the **** up, all of you... -- `We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, it appears clear that the Goober lied again:
>I have patiently and accurately shown that alllllllll your bullshit >about animals and "benefiting from life" depends on "pre-existence" for >animals. Of course I believe you're lying again, but try doing it now Goo. (Correct prediction: the Goober can not.) |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
"marques de sade" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:44:06 -0100, David <dh@.> wrote: > >>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote: >> >>>On Jul 4, 4:45 am, Goo wrote: >>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied >>>> and presented no challenge: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote: >>>> >>>> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - >>>> >> lied and presented no challenge: >>>> >>>> >>> You have never even indicated that you can comprehend >>>> >>> my view of animals >>>> >> I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully >>>> >> explained >>>> >>>> >> the wrongness of it. It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: fits >>>> >> you >>>> >> like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. You do not understand >>>> >> animals, Goo. >>>> >> You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and >>>> >> WRONG view >>>> >> of animals. >>>> >>>> >> You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker. >>>> >>>> > LOL! You have never indicated that you can, >>>> >>>> Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker. >>>> I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron. >>> >>> >>>When did you do that? How come no one saw it? >> >> And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of >>him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about >>it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never, >>in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever >>does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile >>task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense >>to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never >>going to make the attempt. > > who cares... shut the **** up, all of you... There you have it, boys and girls. Proof of what happens when you throw a collective of people into the mix. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:02:30 +0100, "Flower of romance" > wrote:
> >"marques de sade" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:44:06 -0100, David <dh@.> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:30:20 -0700 (PDT), "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote: >>> >>>>On Jul 4, 4:45 am, Goo wrote: >>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied >>>>> and presented no challenge: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Goo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - >>>>> >> lied and presented no challenge: >>>>> >>>>> >>> You have never even indicated that you can comprehend >>>>> >>> my view of animals >>>>> >> I comprehend it in all its idiotic wrongness, Goo, and I have fully >>>>> >> explained >>>>> >>>>> >> the wrongness of it. It depends on "pre-existence", Goo - Goo: fits >>>>> >> you >>>>> >> like a glove - and it is utter bullshit. You do not understand >>>>> >> animals, Goo. >>>>> >> You only understand a weird, Southern Baptist, anthropomorphic and >>>>> >> WRONG view >>>>> >> of animals. >>>>> >>>>> >> You're stupid, Goo - a stupid cracker. >>>>> >>>>> > LOL! You have never indicated that you can, >>>>> >>>>> Of course I have "indicated" that, Goo, you stupid pig-****ing cracker. >>>>> I "indicated" it by *doing* it, you moron. >>>> >>>> >>>>When did you do that? How come no one saw it? >>> >>> And most curiously: Why can't he produce any example(s) of >>>him doing it? All he can produce is examples of him lying about >>>it...not refuting it or even trying...just lying. As yet he has never, >>>in all these years, even acknowledged what I believe. If he ever >>>does, only then can he begin the what I consider to be futile >>>task of trying to refute it. Maybe the Goober has enough sense >>>to know he can't refute it either, and maybe that's why he's never >>>going to make the attempt. >> >> who cares... shut the **** up, all of you... > >There you have it, boys and girls. Proof of what happens when you throw a >collective of people into the mix. Goo is opposed to anything that suggests some options could be ethically equivalent or superior to the objective to eliminate all domestic animals, which hides beneath the gross mi$nomer of "animal rights". Since I point out that providing decent lives for them by providing decent animal welfare might be better than preventing domestic animals from living, Goo and his fellow eliminationists feel they have to oppose anything that threatens the idea that the elimimation objective is the most ethical approach that humans can take. Anything that encourages appreciation for some livestock having lives of positive value is a direct enemy of advocates of the misnomer. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.satanism
|
|||
|
|||
The influence of "pre-existence"?ż?
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:02:30 +0100, "Flower of romance"
> wrote: >> who cares... shut the **** up, all of you... > >There you have it, boys and girls. Proof of what happens when you throw a >collective of people into the mix. > > more like a collective of morons... -- ``In the Babylonian legends of creation the seven associate-gods, who are the creators in the Egyptian mythos, have been converted into the seven evil spirits of a later theology. And ... it is said of these seven evil spirits, 'The woman from the loins of the man they bring forth.' Thus the creation of woman is made to be the work of seven evil spirits,...'' -Gerald Massey |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
stranded without red rose in Boston | Tea | |||
Bottom Freezers | General Cooking | |||
The Bottom of the Freezer! | General Cooking | |||
Clearing from the bottom???? | Winemaking |