On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated" > wrote:

>Blah blah
>
>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is why
>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.

You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
doing so.

>Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life
>before they are culled for my consumption.
>
>Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught up
>in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.

I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer
are the most anti-animal people on this planet.

>People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull moral
>agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision

Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality
they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic
animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in
that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the
only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but
misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management
entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to
even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little
bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation
these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other
people into having.

>while
>refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take
>heed of how the universe actually works.

Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much
more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially
to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't
matter in the least to eliminationists.

>PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"

Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not
less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So
to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any
rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do
cause more suffering by things they do and things they would
like to do.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
> > wrote:
>
>>Blah blah
>>
>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is
>>why
>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>
> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
> doing so.

That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Blah blah
>>>
>>> Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which
>>> is why
>>> I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>
>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>> doing so.
>
> That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.


Oh yeah? I got a five dollar coupon that says you're full of it!

--
* Radio Free Entropy: http://just-john.com/cn/rfe.shtml

On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:39:14 -0400, just john > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Blah blah
>>>>
>>>> Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which
>>>> is why
>>>> I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>>
>>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>>> doing so.
>>
>> That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>
>
>Oh yeah? I got a five dollar coupon that says you're full of it!

He is certainly full of bullshit claims...nothing to back them up,
but he is full of them. Here's one of his classics:

"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"

On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Blah blah
>>>
>>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is
>>>why
>>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>
>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>> doing so.
>
>That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.

It must be, since you perceive it as being one even though I didn't
make any comments about whether it is good or bad. From the way
I worded it the criticism could be towards people who DO deliberately
contribute to decent lives of positive value for livestock. Since you
think it's wrong for me to encourage people to think about doing that,
you certainly should be opposed to seeing anyone actually DO it!
Since you insist that it's in some mysterious unimaginable and
unexplainable way ethically superior to oppose consideration of the
animals' lives, you certainly should feel that trying to avoid contributing
to them entirely is in some mysterious unimaginable and unexplainable
way ethically superior to deliberately contributing to them.

>>>Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life
>>>before they are culled for my consumption.
>>>
>>>Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught up
>>>in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.
>>
>> I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer
>>are the most anti-animal people on this planet.

Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?

>>>People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull moral
>>>agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision
>>
>> Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality
>>they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic
>>animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in
>>that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the
>>only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but
>>misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management
>>entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to
>>even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little
>>bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation
>>these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other
>>people into having.

Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?

>>>while
>>>refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take
>>>heed of how the universe actually works.
>>
>> Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much
>>more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially
>>to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't
>>matter in the least to eliminationists.

Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?

>>>PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"
>>
>> Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not
>>less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So
>>to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any
>>rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do
>>cause more suffering by things they do and things they would
>>like to do.

Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?

On May 4, 7:59*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>Blah blah
>
> >>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is
> >>>why
> >>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>
> >> * *You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
> >> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
> >> doing so.
>
> >That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>
> * * It must be, since you perceive it as being one even though I didn't
> make any comments about whether it is good or bad. From the way
> I worded it the criticism could be towards people who DO deliberately
> contribute to decent lives of positive value for livestock. Since you
> think it's wrong for me to encourage people to think about doing that,
> you certainly should be opposed to seeing anyone actually DO it!
> Since you insist that it's in some mysterious unimaginable and
> unexplainable way ethically superior to oppose consideration of the
> animals' lives, you certainly should feel that trying to avoid contributing
> to them entirely is in some mysterious unimaginable and unexplainable
> way ethically superior to deliberately contributing to them.
>
> >>>Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life
> >>>before they are culled for my consumption.
>
> >>>Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught up
> >>>in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.
>
> >> * *I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer
> >>are the most anti-animal people on this planet.
>
> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
> criticism of eliminationists too?
>
> >>>People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull moral
> >>>agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision
>
> >> * *Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality
> >>they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic
> >>animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in
> >>that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the
> >>only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but
> >>misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management
> >>entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to
> >>even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little
> >>bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation
> >>these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other
> >>people into having.
>
> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
> criticism of eliminationists too?
>
> >>>while
> >>>refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take
> >>>heed of how the universe actually works.
>
> >> * *Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much
> >>more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially
> >>to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't
> >>matter in the least to eliminationists.
>
> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
> criticism of eliminationists too?
>
> >>>PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"
>
> >> * *Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not
> >>less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So
> >>to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any
> >>rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do
> >>cause more suffering by things they do and things they would
> >>like to do.
>
> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
> criticism of eliminationists too?

don't you vegan creeps get it, alt.slack is an saucer cult waiting for
aliens to burn everything.
Hell at this point I would support cannibalism if it was prepared
correctly. Laser beam blackened vegan might be tasty for all I know.
Turns out herbivores make the best meat in the rest of the animal
kingdom, i bet they do in the human race as well.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:39:14 -0400, just john >
> wrote:
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Blah blah
>>>>>
>>>>> Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which
>>>>> is why
>>>>> I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>>>
>>>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>>>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>>>> doing so.
>>>
>>> That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>>
>>
>>Oh yeah? I got a five dollar coupon that says you're full of it!
>
> He is certainly full of bullshit claims...nothing to back them up,
> but he is full of them. Here's one of his classics:
>
> "Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
> existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
> life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"

Thanks for repeating the argument, you've never challenged it. You can't.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Blah blah
>>>>
>>>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is
>>>>why
>>>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>>
>>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>>> doing so.
>>
>>That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>
> It must be, since you perceive it as being one

That is a completely illogical conclusion, AND I do not perceive it to be a
valid criticism. I perceive it correctly to be just more evidence of your
confused state.

On Mon, 4 May 2009 18:02:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 04 May 2009 10:59:39 -0100, dh@. pointed out:
>
>>On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Blah blah
>>>>>
>>>>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is
>>>>>why
>>>>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>>>
>>>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>>>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>>>> doing so.
>>>
>>>That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>>
>> It must be, since you perceive it as being one even though I didn't
>>make any comments about whether it is good or bad. From the way
>>I worded it the criticism could be towards people who DO deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives of positive value for livestock. Since you
>>think it's wrong for me to encourage people to think about doing that,
>>you certainly should be opposed to seeing anyone actually DO it!
>>Since you insist that it's in some mysterious unimaginable and
>>unexplainable way ethically superior to oppose consideration of the
>>animals' lives, you certainly should feel that trying to avoid contributing
>>to them entirely is in some mysterious unimaginable and unexplainable
>>way ethically superior to deliberately contributing to them.
>
>That is a completely illogical conclusion,

LOL! There's nothing illogical about concluding that you should
be opposed to people actually DOING something that you're opposed
to them even talking about, you poor drooling fool.

>AND I do not perceive it to be a
>valid criticism. I perceive it correctly to be just more evidence of your
>confused state.

What I'm doing is pointing out a significant FACT. What makes
you feel that pointing out significant facts is evidence of being in
a confused state?

>>>>>Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life
>>>>>before they are culled for my consumption.
>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught up
>>>>>in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.
>>>>
>>>> I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer
>>>>are the most anti-animal people on this planet.
>>
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
>>
>>>>>People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull moral
>>>>>agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision
>>>>
>>>> Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality
>>>>they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic
>>>>animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in
>>>>that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the
>>>>only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but
>>>>misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management
>>>>entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to
>>>>even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little
>>>>bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation
>>>>these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other
>>>>people into having.
>>
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
>>
>>>>>while
>>>>>refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take
>>>>>heed of how the universe actually works.
>>>>
>>>> Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much
>>>>more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially
>>>>to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't
>>>>matter in the least to eliminationists.
>>
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
>>
>>>>>PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"
>>>>
>>>> Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not
>>>>less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So
>>>>to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any
>>>>rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do
>>>>cause more suffering by things they do and things they would
>>>>like to do.
>>
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?

On Mon, 4 May 2009 17:58:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:39:14 -0400, just john >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Blah blah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which
>>>>>> is why
>>>>>> I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>>>>
>>>>> You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>>>>> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>>>>> doing so.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh yeah? I got a five dollar coupon that says you're full of it!
>>
>> He is certainly full of bullshit claims...nothing to back them up,
>> but he is full of them. Here's one of his classics:
>>
>> "Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
>> existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
>> life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
>
>Thanks for repeating the argument, you've never challenged it. You can't.

I can point out that IF you have any point at all, it ONLY applies
to animals that are used for sex and not at all to any who are not.
That being the case, it's obvious that you're being dishonest by
trying to compare child prostitution to animals who are never used
for sexual porposes so therefore can't be considered as ever having
suffered from the sexual abuse the children are.

On Mon, 4 May 2009 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT), Pisces > wrote:

>On May 4, 7:59*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>Blah blah
>>
>> >>>Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is
>> >>>why
>> >>>I only buy free range eggs and chickens.
>>
>> >> * *You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those
>> >> animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever
>> >> doing so.
>>
>> >That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
>>
>> * * It must be, since you perceive it as being one even though I didn't
>> make any comments about whether it is good or bad. From the way
>> I worded it the criticism could be towards people who DO deliberately
>> contribute to decent lives of positive value for livestock. Since you
>> think it's wrong for me to encourage people to think about doing that,
>> you certainly should be opposed to seeing anyone actually DO it!
>> Since you insist that it's in some mysterious unimaginable and
>> unexplainable way ethically superior to oppose consideration of the
>> animals' lives, you certainly should feel that trying to avoid contributing
>> to them entirely is in some mysterious unimaginable and unexplainable
>> way ethically superior to deliberately contributing to them.
>>
>> >>>Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life
>> >>>before they are culled for my consumption.
>>
>> >>>Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught up
>> >>>in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.
>>
>> >> * *I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer
>> >>are the most anti-animal people on this planet.
>>
>> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
>> criticism of eliminationists too?
>>
>> >>>People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull moral
>> >>>agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision
>>
>> >> * *Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality
>> >>they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic
>> >>animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in
>> >>that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the
>> >>only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but
>> >>misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management
>> >>entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to
>> >>even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little
>> >>bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation
>> >>these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other
>> >>people into having.
>>
>> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
>> criticism of eliminationists too?
>>
>> >>>while
>> >>>refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take
>> >>>heed of how the universe actually works.
>>
>> >> * *Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much
>> >>more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially
>> >>to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't
>> >>matter in the least to eliminationists.
>>
>> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
>> criticism of eliminationists too?
>>
>> >>>PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"
>>
>> >> * *Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not
>> >>less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So
>> >>to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any
>> >>rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do
>> >>cause more suffering by things they do and things they would
>> >>like to do.
>>
>> * * Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
>> criticism of eliminationists too?
>
>don't you vegan creeps get it,

"Dutch" is the eliminationists, and I'm opposed to it.

>alt.slack is an saucer cult waiting for
>aliens to burn everything.

Why do it that way?

>Hell at this point I would support cannibalism if it was prepared
>correctly. Laser beam blackened vegan might be tasty for all I know.

I like meat, and eat whatever types of animal and their guts,
except I don't want to eat balls or eyeballs unless they're ground
up in something, and I don't want to eat human flesh just because
I have a thing against that.

>Turns out herbivores make the best meat in the rest of the animal
>kingdom,

It's the safest. Omnivores like chicken and pigs need to be
cooked well or they can make you damn sick, and probably
even kill you. I've gotten very sick from both.

>i bet they do in the human race as well.

Eating human meat could probably make you even more
sick than chicken and pork.

dh@. hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
Thunder crashed, dh@. laughed madly, then wrote:

>>don't you vegan creeps get it,
>
> "Dutch" is the eliminationists, and I'm opposed to it.
>

"eliminationists" versus vegans is like protestants versus catholics
or shiites versus sunnis. The only people who really get the
difference are the crazy ones who want to kill somebody over it.

>>alt.slack is an saucer cult waiting for
>>aliens to burn everything.
>
> Why do it that way?
>

Because that's FUN.

The Church of the SubGenius doesn't discriminate against catholics
versus protestants, or shiites versus sunnis, or eliminationists
versus vegans, or yellow-hankie-people versus pink-hankie-people. We
say KILL THEM ALL. And WHY BOTHER sorting them out? Have a big
barbeque.

>>Hell at this point I would support cannibalism if it was prepared
>>correctly. Laser beam blackened vegan might be tasty for all I know.
>
> I like meat, and eat whatever types of animal and their guts,
>except I don't want to eat balls or eyeballs unless they're ground
>up in something, and I don't want to eat human flesh just because
>I have a thing against that.
>

Pussy.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Why don't you die and give your brain a rest?

:: Currently listening to The Power of the Flower, 2000, by Praga Khan, from "Mutant funk"

On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:53:12 -0700, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:

>dh@. hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
>Thunder crashed, dh@. laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>>>don't you vegan creeps get it,
>>
>> "Dutch" is the eliminationists, and I'm opposed to it.
>>
>
>"eliminationists" versus vegans

We're not seeing any of that. "Dutch" is an eliminationist
and therefore almost certainly a vegan, but he's dishonest
about it. I'm opposed to elimination, but in favor of decent
animal welfare providing lives of positive value for billions
of domestic animals.

>is like protestants versus catholics

That's evidence that Satan could be true to me. I've
heard various protestanst say that other Christians,
like Catholics for example, are going to Hell. I was taking
a Bible study about revalation by a man who really made
some excellent observations, but he was of that mind set.
One of the women seemed very concerned because she
had a good friend who was Catholic, and she asked the
man if *all* of the Catholics were really going to Hell. He
acted sad about but said something like: 'well, the Bible
does say...'.

>or shiites versus sunnis. The only people who really get the
>difference are the crazy ones who want to kill somebody over it.
>
>>>alt.slack is an saucer cult waiting for
>>>aliens to burn everything.
>>
>> Why do it that way?
>>
>
>Because that's FUN.

I've always thought they'd be more likely to just put something
between us and the sun for a while, then come back later.

>The Church of the SubGenius doesn't discriminate against catholics
>versus protestants, or shiites versus sunnis, or eliminationists
>versus vegans, or yellow-hankie-people versus pink-hankie-people. We
>say KILL THEM ALL. And WHY BOTHER sorting them out? Have a big
>barbeque.

You should begin with yourself. Start with your legs and have
a nice feast that you can enjoy with your friends, and then after
the feast off yourself so they can enjoy you a few more times in
the future. Do it the respectable way instead of imposing your
subgenius idiotics on people you have no business imposing
them on.

>>>Hell at this point I would support cannibalism if it was prepared
>>>correctly. Laser beam blackened vegan might be tasty for all I know.
>>
>> I like meat, and eat whatever types of animal and their guts,
>>except I don't want to eat balls or eyeballs unless they're ground
>>up in something, and I don't want to eat human flesh just because
>>I have a thing against that.
>
>Pussy.

Not that so much as flesh in general. Maybe in your farewell
feast you could work out having some pussy for dessert.

dh@. hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
Thunder crashed, dh@. laughed madly, then wrote:

>>say KILL THEM ALL. And WHY BOTHER sorting them out? Have a big
>>barbeque.
>
> You should begin with yourself.

I mean kill all of everybody else.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world."
- Jelaleddin Rumi

:: Currently listening to Any Colour You Like, 1973, by Pink Floyd, from "The Dark Side of the Moon"

On May 12, 3:00*pm, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
> dh@. hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, dh@. laughed madly, then wrote:
>
> >>say KILL THEM ALL. *And WHY BOTHER sorting them out? *Have a big
> >>barbeque.
>
> > * *You should begin with yourself.
>
> I mean kill all of everybody else.
>
> --
> Zapanaz
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Support Specialisthttp://joecosby.com/
> "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world."
> *- Jelaleddin Rumi
>
> :: Currently listening to Any Colour You Like, 1973, by Pink Floyd, from "The Dark Side of the Moon"

KILL THIS ****ING THREAD.

"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message
...
> dh@. hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> Thunder crashed, dh@. laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>>>say KILL THEM ALL. And WHY BOTHER sorting them out? Have a big
>>>barbeque.
>>
>> You should begin with yourself.
>
> I mean kill all of everybody else.

Kill you first after promising to kill everyone else afterward
>
>
> --
> Zapanaz
> International Satanic Conspiracy
> Customer Support Specialist
> http://joecosby.com/
> "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it
> would overturn the world."
> - Jelaleddin Rumi
>
> :: Currently listening to Any Colour You Like, 1973, by Pink Floyd, from
> "The Dark Side of the Moon"

On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:00:50 -0700, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:03:33 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:53:12 -0700, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
>>>Thunder crashed, dh@. laughed madly, then wrote:
>>>
>>>>>don't you vegan creeps get it,
>>>>
>>>> "Dutch" is the eliminationists, and I'm opposed to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"eliminationists" versus vegans
>>
>> We're not seeing any of that. "Dutch" is an eliminationist
>>and therefore almost certainly a vegan, but he's dishonest
>>about it. I'm opposed to elimination, but in favor of decent
>>animal welfare providing lives of positive value for billions
>>of domestic animals.
>>
>>>is like protestants versus catholics
>>
>> That's evidence that Satan could be true to me. I've
>>heard various protestanst say that other Christians,
>>like Catholics for example, are going to Hell. I was taking
>>a Bible study about revalation by a man who really made
>>some excellent observations, but he was of that mind set.
>>One of the women seemed very concerned because she
>>had a good friend who was Catholic, and she asked the
>>man if *all* of the Catholics were really going to Hell. He
>>acted sad about but said something like: 'well, the Bible
>>does say...'.
>>
>>>or shiites versus sunnis. The only people who really get the
>>>difference are the crazy ones who want to kill somebody over it.
>>>
>>>>>alt.slack is an saucer cult waiting for
>>>>>aliens to burn everything.
>>>>
>>>> Why do it that way?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because that's FUN.
>>
>> I've always thought they'd be more likely to just put something
>>between us and the sun for a while, then come back later.
>>
>>>The Church of the SubGenius doesn't discriminate against catholics
>>>versus protestants, or shiites versus sunnis, or eliminationists
>>>versus vegans, or yellow-hankie-people versus pink-hankie-people. We
>>>say KILL THEM ALL. And WHY BOTHER sorting them out? Have a big
>>>barbeque.
>>
>> You should begin with yourself. Start with your legs and have
>>a nice feast that you can enjoy with your friends, and then after
>>the feast off yourself so they can enjoy you a few more times in
>>the future. Do it the respectable way instead of imposing your
>>subgenius idiotics on people you have no business imposing
>>them on.
>
>I mean kill all of everybody else.

No. Do it right. If you do it right then you only have to kill
one person, and you also don't **** things up for a bunch
of people who don't deserve it. BBQ YOU!