"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo



"Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo

"Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo

""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo



"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - 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" - Goo

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

On Mar 24, 10:50*am, dh@. wrote:
> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever" - Goo
>
> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> of consideration." - Goo
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>
> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
> consideration" - Goo
>
> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>
> "Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>
> "Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>
> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> a benefit at all" - Goo
>
> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>
> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>
> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>
> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
> aspects of their lives." - Goo
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
> existing entities" - Goo
>
> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>
> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - 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" - Goo
>
> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
> "Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>
> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
> consideration." - Goo




"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo


"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo


ROTFLMAO!!

Poor stupid Goo.;o)

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

>On Mar 24, 10:50*am, dh@. wrote:
>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>> whatever" - Goo
>>
>> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
>> of consideration." - Goo
>>
>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
>> moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>>
>> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
>> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
>> consideration" - Goo
>>
>> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>>
>> "Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>>
>> "Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>>
>> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
>> a benefit at all" - Goo
>>
>> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
>> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>>
>> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
>> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>>
>> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>> existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>>
>> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
>> aspects of their lives." - Goo
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>> existing entities" - Goo
>>
>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>>
>> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>>
>> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - 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" - Goo
>>
>> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
>> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>> "Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>>
>> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
>> consideration." - Goo
>
>
>
>
>"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
>
>"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>
>
>ROTFLMAO!!
>
>Poor stupid Goo.;o)

No one outstupids himself like that Goober. I miss
the days when you would think you'd seen Goob be
as stupid as a person can get, and then he'd surprise
you with something even stupider...ah the days of Goo...

On Mar 25, 11:22*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >On Mar 24, 10:50*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> >> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> >> whatever" - Goo
>
> >> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> >> of consideration." - Goo
>
> >> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> >> moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>
> >> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
> >> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
> >> consideration" - Goo
>
> >> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>
> >> "Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>
> >> "Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>
> >> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> >> a benefit at all" - Goo
>
> >> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> >> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>
> >> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> >> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>
> >> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> >> existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>
> >> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
> >> aspects of their lives." - Goo
>
> >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> >> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
> >> existing entities" - Goo
>
> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>
> >> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
> >> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - 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" - Goo
>
> >> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
> >> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
> >> "Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>
> >> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
> >> consideration." - Goo
>
> >"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
> >"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>
> >ROTFLMAO!!
>
> >Poor stupid Goo.;o)
>
> * * No one outstupids himself like that Goober. I miss
> the days when you would think you'd seen Goob be
> as stupid as a person can get, and then he'd surprise
> you with something even stupider...ah the days of Goo...-


I gave up thinking that Goo couldn't say anything stupider than his
last post because he'd always do what I thought couldn't be done: he'd
outstupid himself.

Ah,...The good old days. I wonder if the younger generation will
believe us when we regale them with stories of Goo?

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote
Ah,...The good old days. I wonder if the younger generation will
believe us when we regale them with stories of Goo?
----------

The younger generation will laugh in your face then kick your lardy faggot
ass, just like they do now.

On Mar 27, 12:38*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote
> Ah,...The good old days. I wonder if the younger generation will
> believe us when we regale them with stories of Goo?
> ----------
>
> The younger generation will laugh in your face then kick your lardy faggot
> ass, just like they do now.


F.O. Goo.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:38:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote
>Ah,...The good old days. I wonder if the younger generation will
>believe us when we regale them with stories of Goo?
>----------
>
>The younger generation will laugh in your face

You may take Goo for granted because he's your brother in
love of anal intrigue and all the like, but that Goober regularly
displayed monolithic idiotics and dishonesties of world class
proportions. It's possible Goo is the most dishonest person to
ever be so actively involved with ngs. Sociologists and
shrinks interested in idiotically blatant dishonesties would do
well to study Goo. They, the younger generation, and anyone
else who is amused by the stupidity associated with such
idiotically blatant dishonesties could enjoy hours of amusement
laughing at Goo. It pains you because of your love and admiration
for him, but for those of us who don't hold contemptously dishonest
clownery in high esteem as you do this Goober that is worthy of
reverent adoration in your eyes, is no more than a stupid lying clown
in ours.

>then kick your lardy faggot ass,

Assholein intrigue noted.

>just like they do now.

They don't do it here. Nor do you or Goo. In fact now that you
mention it, if I remember correctly Mr. Smartypants provided several
examples of you disagreeing with yourself about things like your
faith in the misnomer and your lies about having children, which you
most likely are holding prisoner in your basement. It's interesting that
having consideration for the lives of other beings makes you feel dirty,
but keeping your own children prisoner in your basement does not.
Maybe you flip-flop around with it feeling guilt at some times and none
at others, like your apparent on/off relationship with your faith in the
misnomer?

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:55:45 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:

>On Mar 25, 11:22*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>> >On Mar 24, 10:50*am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>> >> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>> >> whatever" - Goo
>>
>> >> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
>> >> of consideration." - Goo
>>
>> >> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
>> >> moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>>
>> >> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
>> >> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
>> >> consideration" - Goo
>>
>> >> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>>
>> >> "Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>>
>> >> "Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>>
>> >> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
>> >> a benefit at all" - Goo
>>
>> >> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
>> >> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>>
>> >> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
>> >> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>>
>> >> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>> >> existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>>
>> >> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
>> >> aspects of their lives." - Goo
>>
>> >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>> >> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>> >> existing entities" - Goo
>>
>> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>>
>> >> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>>
>> >> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - 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" - Goo
>>
>> >> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
>> >> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>> >> "Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>>
>> >> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
>> >> consideration." - Goo
>>
>> >"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>>
>> >"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>>
>> >ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>> >Poor stupid Goo.;o)
>>
>> * * No one outstupids himself like that Goober. I miss
>> the days when you would think you'd seen Goob be
>> as stupid as a person can get, and then he'd surprise
>> you with something even stupider...ah the days of Goo...-
>
>
>I gave up thinking that Goo couldn't say anything stupider than his
>last post because he'd always do what I thought couldn't be done: he'd
>outstupid himself.
>
>Ah,...The good old days. I wonder if the younger generation will
>believe us when we regale them with stories of Goo?

We--meaning you--should write a book about ng idiots. Goo
can be one of your main subjects. I can help you with quotes
from Goo, and probably help find stuff on similar Goobers in
other groups. It would not only be hours of amusement but
also a warning to people about how stupid they could end up
if they just let themselves go...

On Mar 30, 5:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:55:45 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 11:22*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> >> >On Mar 24, 10:50*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> >> >> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> >> >> whatever" - Goo
>
> >> >> "I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
> >> >> of consideration." - Goo
>
> >> >> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
> >> >> moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo
>
> >> >> "I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
> >> >> that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
> >> >> consideration" - Goo
>
> >> >> "There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>
> >> >> "Life is not a benefit for farm animals." - Goo
>
> >> >> "Their lives may be pleasant for them." - Goo
>
> >> >> ""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
> >> >> a benefit at all" - Goo
>
> >> >> "We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
> >> >> existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>
> >> >> "Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
> >> >> *IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo
>
> >> >> "The topic is not and never has been whether or not
> >> >> existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>
> >> >> "IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
> >> >> aspects of their lives." - Goo
>
> >> >> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> >> >> "We are not and never were talking about benefits for
> >> >> existing entities" - Goo
>
> >> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
>
> >> >> "Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
> >> >> "I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - 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" - Goo
>
> >> >> "the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
> >> >> deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
> >> >> "Intent doesn't matter" - Goo
>
> >> >> "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
> >> >> consideration." - Goo
>
> >> >"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo
>
> >> >"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo
>
> >> >ROTFLMAO!!
>
> >> >Poor stupid Goo.;o)
>
> >> * * No one outstupids himself like that Goober. I miss
> >> the days when you would think you'd seen Goob be
> >> as stupid as a person can get, and then he'd surprise
> >> you with something even stupider...ah the days of Goo...-
>
> >I gave up thinking that Goo couldn't say anything stupider than his
> >last post because he'd always do what I thought couldn't be done: he'd
> >outstupid himself.
>
> >Ah,...The good old days. I wonder if the younger generation will
> >believe us when we regale them with stories of Goo?
>
> * * We--meaning you--should write a book about ng idiots. Goo
> can be one of your main subjects. I can help you with quotes
> from Goo, and probably help find stuff on similar Goobers in
> other groups. It would not only be hours of amusement but
> also a warning to people about how stupid they could end up
> if they just let themselves go...-


Indeed. Goo is the primary reason such a book should be produced.