friends,

I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.

Here's a way to deal with it.

Let's keep track of how many messages are posted by these people -
Jonathan Ball, Rick Etter, and a few others.

Every week, or every month, let's donate a certain amount of money to
PETA based on how many messages they post.

I'll take the first step, by becoming a member of PETA, in honor of all
the wonderful messages they have posted in the past. Anyone care to
join me?

Be assured, I would not have become a member of PETA if it weren't for
these guys and their offensive postings. So thanks guys, for
motivating me to support PETA.

From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> friends,
>
> I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
> information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
> etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.

You'll take it, and you'll *like* it.

I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> Gary Beckwith wrote:
>
> > friends,
> >
> > I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
> > information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> > think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> > offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
> > etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.
>
> You'll take it, and you'll *like* it.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!

Suit yourself, crybaby. Maybe I can bankrupt you.

Why can't you address the issues, Gary? In the 'Death
means life; "vegan" means stupid' thread, you posted a
big whine about "locally grown organic". I refuted
everything you wrote, Gary, in common-sense terms. You
just whiffed off, Gary. Here, try again:

>
> My conclusion is, your arguments do not make sense.
>
> You are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Most of your articles refer to use of pesticides and herbicides, and
> their detrimental affect on animals.


No, that's false. Most of the references are to the
killing of sentient, "subject-of-a-life" animals like
mammals and birds by mechanical means, e.g. discs,
harrows, combines.

>
> That is true.
>
> However, many people eat locally grown organic vegetables. Your
> articles and links, your arguments, and your immature name calling, do
> not apply to the consumption of locally grown vegetables.


Bullshit. First of all, "organic" farming doesn't have
anything to do with not killing animals. Organic
farmers *still* kill pests deliberately, and other
animals unintentionally. Secondly, "locally grown" has
even LESS to do with it. It's nothing but a warm-fuzzy
bit of narcissistic feel-goodism on the part of people
who brag that that's what they buy.

>
> Additionally, many of the same arguments can be made against the
> consumption of meat. Cattle farms also produce toxic waste and runoff
> that poisons streams. I personally live on the banks of a small river
> that is unsafe to swim in for several months of the year, and it is from
> cattle and pig farms.


The difference is, "vegans" are making an explicit
moral claim about themselves based on what they *don't*
eat, and the claim is falsified by the collateral
deaths caused by the production of what they *do* eat.
Omnivores, on the other hand, are not making ANY
moral claim about themselves based on their diet.

>
> If you want to have a logical discussion about this, you must compare
> the consumption of locally grown organic vegetables to locally raised
> organic meat. That is the only valid comparsion.


No. FIRST, you have to examine the moral claims being
made, and the basis for them. Collateral deaths works
ONLY against "vegans", because they illustrate that the
claim made CANNOT be true given the basis for it.

>
> You could also compare commercial meat to commercial vegetables.
>
> But you can't compare commercial vegetables to local organic beef. It
> makes no sense and it is a quite twisted argument.
>
> Really, the only valid point that you have made, which is true, is that
> there is a cost even to a vegetarian or vegan diet.


The cost is prohibitive, in terms of what collateral
deaths do to the "vegan" moral claim.

>
> But logically speaking, this is only an argument to go further and
> consume locally grown organic vegetables, not to eat meat.


GIVE UP on "locally grown organic", pal. It just
doesn't make any difference, in terms of your moral
claim. Right now, you are deluding yourself; if you
stick with it, you will be lying.

[snip remaining long-winded, pointles wheeze]

you did not address my comments in common sense terms. you swore at me,
called me (and other vegetarians names) and all that stuff that you do
every day. it's a waste of time to read your disrespectful lies. The
only reason I'm not blocking your address from my newsgroup view is so
that I can keep track of your postings and contribute to PETA. You had
your chance. Go back 5 steps in every thread we've interacted in. I've
continuously asked you to stop being disrespectful and you continuously
refuse. You shot yourself in the foot. It doesn't matter if you are
right anymore. People shouldn't have to read your postings because of
your tone and language, if for no other reason. It's over. You can
post all you want. Keep it up! C'mon, why don't you reply now, and
call me a crybaby again. Please do.





Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> Gary Beckwith wrote:
>
> > I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!
>
> Suit yourself, crybaby. Maybe I can bankrupt you.
>
> Why can't you address the issues, Gary? In the 'Death
> means life; "vegan" means stupid' thread, you posted a
> big whine about "locally grown organic". I refuted
> everything you wrote, Gary, in common-sense terms. You
> just whiffed off, Gary. Here, try again:
>
> >
> > My conclusion is, your arguments do not make sense.
> >
> > You are comparing apples and oranges.
> >
> > Most of your articles refer to use of pesticides and herbicides, and
> > their detrimental affect on animals.
>
> No, that's false. Most of the references are to the
> killing of sentient, "subject-of-a-life" animals like
> mammals and birds by mechanical means, e.g. discs,
> harrows, combines.
>
> >
> > That is true.
> >
> > However, many people eat locally grown organic vegetables. Your
> > articles and links, your arguments, and your immature name calling, do
> > not apply to the consumption of locally grown vegetables.
>
> Bullshit. First of all, "organic" farming doesn't have
> anything to do with not killing animals. Organic
> farmers *still* kill pests deliberately, and other
> animals unintentionally. Secondly, "locally grown" has
> even LESS to do with it. It's nothing but a warm-fuzzy
> bit of narcissistic feel-goodism on the part of people
> who brag that that's what they buy.
>
> >
> > Additionally, many of the same arguments can be made against the
> > consumption of meat. Cattle farms also produce toxic waste and runoff
> > that poisons streams. I personally live on the banks of a small river
> > that is unsafe to swim in for several months of the year, and it is from
> > cattle and pig farms.
>
> The difference is, "vegans" are making an explicit
> moral claim about themselves based on what they *don't*
> eat, and the claim is falsified by the collateral
> deaths caused by the production of what they *do* eat.
> Omnivores, on the other hand, are not making ANY
> moral claim about themselves based on their diet.
>
> >
> > If you want to have a logical discussion about this, you must compare
> > the consumption of locally grown organic vegetables to locally raised
> > organic meat. That is the only valid comparsion.
>
> No. FIRST, you have to examine the moral claims being
> made, and the basis for them. Collateral deaths works
> ONLY against "vegans", because they illustrate that the
> claim made CANNOT be true given the basis for it.
>
> >
> > You could also compare commercial meat to commercial vegetables.
> >
> > But you can't compare commercial vegetables to local organic beef. It
> > makes no sense and it is a quite twisted argument.
> >
> > Really, the only valid point that you have made, which is true, is that
> > there is a cost even to a vegetarian or vegan diet.
>
> The cost is prohibitive, in terms of what collateral
> deaths do to the "vegan" moral claim.
>
> >
> > But logically speaking, this is only an argument to go further and
> > consume locally grown organic vegetables, not to eat meat.
>
> GIVE UP on "locally grown organic", pal. It just
> doesn't make any difference, in terms of your moral
> claim. Right now, you are deluding yourself; if you
> stick with it, you will be lying.
>
> [snip remaining long-winded, pointles wheeze]

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> friends,
>
> I have no problem with people stating their opinions,
===============
Until you have problems refuting anything they say, right, killer?
Afterall, you don't even know the meaning of the wrod troll, so how could
you even come close to defending your ignorant religion?

offering
> information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
> etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.
>
> Here's a way to deal with it.
>
> Let's keep track of how many messages are posted by these people -
> Jonathan Ball, Rick Etter, and a few others.
>
> Every week, or every month, let's donate a certain amount of money to
> PETA based on how many messages they post.
>
> I'll take the first step, by becoming a member of PETA, in honor of all
> the wonderful messages they have posted in the past. Anyone care to
> join me?
======================
For the record, the 'e' in PeTA is lower case in their logo, fool. It's
lower case for a reason. "ethics" have nothing to do with the group. You
do know that they kill more animals than they save once they get their
bloody hands on them, don't you?

>
> Be assured, I would not have become a member of PETA if it weren't for
> these guys and their offensive postings. So thanks guys, for
> motivating me to support PETA.
=================
That's fine. They are a marginalized group, just like you, that does more
to harm animals than even you care about. Afterall, they are all abiout
scamming rubes like you for your money. Thanks for proving yet again how
ignorant and stupid you are, hypocrite...


>
> From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
> others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
> contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
> postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.
==================
Be my guest, killer. You'll still kill more animals for your selfishness,
convenience, and entertainment than you will ever save.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> you did not address my comments in common sense terms. you swore at me,
> called me (and other vegetarians names) and all that stuff that you do
> every day. it's a waste of time to read your disrespectful lies. The
> only reason I'm not blocking your address from my newsgroup view is so
> that I can keep track of your postings and contribute to PETA. You had
> your chance. Go back 5 steps in every thread we've interacted in. I've
> continuously asked you to stop being disrespectful and you continuously
> refuse. You shot yourself in the foot. It doesn't matter if you are
> right anymore. People shouldn't have to read your postings because of
> your tone and language, if for no other reason. It's over. You can
> post all you want. Keep it up! C'mon, why don't you reply now, and
> call me a crybaby again. Please do.
======================
Liar. You've never answered anything I've asked either, and I've never
swore at you. You cannot defend your ignorance, that's your only real
problem with us. You realize how stupid you sound, and the hypocrisy behind
all your hand waving, and are so brainwashed into submission by the delusion
of veganism you won't even try to answer.

You can pretend to be enlightened all you want, but you and I, and the rest
of the world, see your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer.


>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > Gary Beckwith wrote:
> >
> > > I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!
> >
> > Suit yourself, crybaby. Maybe I can bankrupt you.
> >
> > Why can't you address the issues, Gary? In the 'Death
> > means life; "vegan" means stupid' thread, you posted a
> > big whine about "locally grown organic". I refuted
> > everything you wrote, Gary, in common-sense terms. You
> > just whiffed off, Gary. Here, try again:
> >
> > >
> > > My conclusion is, your arguments do not make sense.
> > >
> > > You are comparing apples and oranges.
> > >
> > > Most of your articles refer to use of pesticides and herbicides, and
> > > their detrimental affect on animals.
> >
> > No, that's false. Most of the references are to the
> > killing of sentient, "subject-of-a-life" animals like
> > mammals and birds by mechanical means, e.g. discs,
> > harrows, combines.
> >
> > >
> > > That is true.
> > >
> > > However, many people eat locally grown organic vegetables. Your
> > > articles and links, your arguments, and your immature name calling, do
> > > not apply to the consumption of locally grown vegetables.
> >
> > Bullshit. First of all, "organic" farming doesn't have
> > anything to do with not killing animals. Organic
> > farmers *still* kill pests deliberately, and other
> > animals unintentionally. Secondly, "locally grown" has
> > even LESS to do with it. It's nothing but a warm-fuzzy
> > bit of narcissistic feel-goodism on the part of people
> > who brag that that's what they buy.
> >
> > >
> > > Additionally, many of the same arguments can be made against the
> > > consumption of meat. Cattle farms also produce toxic waste and runoff
> > > that poisons streams. I personally live on the banks of a small river
> > > that is unsafe to swim in for several months of the year, and it is
from
> > > cattle and pig farms.
> >
> > The difference is, "vegans" are making an explicit
> > moral claim about themselves based on what they *don't*
> > eat, and the claim is falsified by the collateral
> > deaths caused by the production of what they *do* eat.
> > Omnivores, on the other hand, are not making ANY
> > moral claim about themselves based on their diet.
> >
> > >
> > > If you want to have a logical discussion about this, you must compare
> > > the consumption of locally grown organic vegetables to locally raised
> > > organic meat. That is the only valid comparsion.
> >
> > No. FIRST, you have to examine the moral claims being
> > made, and the basis for them. Collateral deaths works
> > ONLY against "vegans", because they illustrate that the
> > claim made CANNOT be true given the basis for it.
> >
> > >
> > > You could also compare commercial meat to commercial vegetables.
> > >
> > > But you can't compare commercial vegetables to local organic beef. It
> > > makes no sense and it is a quite twisted argument.
> > >
> > > Really, the only valid point that you have made, which is true, is
that
> > > there is a cost even to a vegetarian or vegan diet.
> >
> > The cost is prohibitive, in terms of what collateral
> > deaths do to the "vegan" moral claim.
> >
> > >
> > > But logically speaking, this is only an argument to go further and
> > > consume locally grown organic vegetables, not to eat meat.
> >
> > GIVE UP on "locally grown organic", pal. It just
> > doesn't make any difference, in terms of your moral
> > claim. Right now, you are deluding yourself; if you
> > stick with it, you will be lying.
> >
> > [snip remaining long-winded, pointles wheeze]

Are you sure you're going to be able to afford this???
I'd be broke in 2 days time.


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:49:21 -0500, Gary Beckwith
> wrote:

>I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!
>
>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>> Gary Beckwith wrote:
>>
>> > friends,
>> >
>> > I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
>> > information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
>> > think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
>> > offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
>> > etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.
>>
>> You'll take it, and you'll *like* it.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> you did not address my comments in common sense terms. you swore at me,

I did address them in common sense terms...THEN I swore
at you.

> called me (and other vegetarians names) and all that stuff that you do
> every day. it's a waste of time to read your disrespectful lies.

Not a single lie, pal. Here's just one example of
something you said that I addressed, and you WHIFFED
OFF. You whiffed off, pal; you simply couldn't address
it, so you whined and cried and ran away.

> However, many people eat locally grown organic
vegetables. Your
> articles and links, your arguments, and your
immature name calling, do
> not apply to the consumption of locally grown
vegetables.



Bullshit. First of all, "organic" farming doesn't
have anything to do with not killing animals.
Organic farmers *still* kill pests deliberately, and
other animals unintentionally. Secondly, "locally
grown" has even LESS to do with it. It's nothing
but a warm-fuzzy bit of narcissistic feel-goodism on
the part of people who brag that that's what they buy.


What's the matter, Gary? I showed EXACTLY how your
claim about "buying locally grown organic" is meaningless.

> The only reason I'm not blocking your address from my newsgroup view is so
> that I can keep track of your postings and contribute to PETA.

I don't give a flying **** if you give money to PeTA or
not, crybaby.

> You had
> your chance. Go back 5 steps in every thread we've interacted in. I've
> continuously asked you to stop being disrespectful and you continuously
> refuse.

I don't respect you. Anyone who can cling to stupid,
principle-free "vegan" beliefs, and who donates to a
terrorist-supporting organization like PeTA, merits
only contempt.

> You shot yourself in the foot. It doesn't matter if you are
> right anymore. People shouldn't have to read your postings because of
> your tone and language, if for no other reason.

People SHOULD have to read my postings, crybaby. It's
good for them.

Why don't you go all out and give PeTA $1000? How
about if I call you crybaby COCKSUCKER? Will that get
you to open the checkbook a little wider?

Girl Beckwith wrote:
> friends,

Those aren't your friends, just fellow travelers.

> I have no problem with people stating their opinions,

Yes, you do.

> offering information, etc.

Respond to points then, rather than casting aspersions about the
character of others.

> But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> offensive.

And what's your response? You encourage others to join a terrorist
organization.

> I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
> etc.

Then grow a pair.

> I don't deserve it

Yes, you do.

> and either do other people who read this group.

Some do, some don't. The ones who sanctimoniously judge others on the
basis of diet certainly do.

> Here's a way to deal with it.

Haha. That's not addressing the issues, that's evading them.

> Let's keep track of how many messages are posted by these people -
> Jonathan Ball, Rick Etter, and a few others.

Must have a lot of time on your sweaty little hands.

> Every week, or every month, let's donate a certain amount of money to
> PETA based on how many messages they post.

Do you earn enough money to support ecoterrorism?

> I'll take the first step, by becoming a member of PETA, in honor of all
> the wonderful messages they have posted in the past. Anyone care to
> join me?

No. PETA is a terrorist front organization.

-----
From:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/activ....cfm?ORG_ID=21

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provides aid and comfort for
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
The two groups are responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996,
causing (by a very conservative FBI estimate) more than $43 million in
damage. ALF's "press office" brags that in 2002, the two groups
committed "100 illegal direct actions" -- like blowing up SUVs,
destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs
in restaurants.

The FBI calls ALF and ELF the nation's "most serious domestic terrorism
threat." Bruce Friedrich, PETA's "vegan campaign director" and
third-in-command, didn't seem to care when he addressed the Animal
Rights 2001 convention in Virginia, telling a crowd of over 1,000
activists that "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" is "a great way
to bring about animal liberation."

"It would be great," he added, "if all the fast-food outlets,
slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded
tomorrow."

PETA's connections to ALF and ELF are indisputable. "We did it, we did
it. We gave $1,500 to the ELF for a specific program," PETA's Lisa Lange
admitted on the Fox News Channel. PETA has offered no fewer than eight
different explanations of what the "specific program" was, but law
enforcement leaders have noted that since the Earth Liberation Front is
a criminal enterprise, it has absolutely no legal "programs" of any kind.

PETA also has given $2,000 to David Wilson, then a national ALF
"spokesperson." The group paid $27,000 for the legal defense of Roger
Troen, who was arrested for taking part in an October 1986 burglary and
arson at the University of Oregon. It gave $7,500 to Fran Stephanie
Trutt, who tried to murder the president of a medical laboratory. It
gave $5,000 to Josh Harper, who attacked Native Americans on a whale
hunt by throwing smoke bombs, shooting flares, and spraying their faces
with chemical fire extinguishers. All of these monies were paid out of
tax-exempt funds, the same pot of money constantly enlarged by donations
from an unsuspecting general public.

Most ominously, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk was involved in the
multi-million-dollar arson at Michigan State University that resulted in
a 57-month prison term for Animal Liberation Front bomber Rodney
Coronado. At Coronado's sentencing hearing, U.S. Attorney Michael
Dettmer said that PETA's Ingrid Newkirk arranged ahead of time to have
Coronado send her a pair of FedEx packages from Michigan -- one on the
day before he burned the lab down, and the other shortly afterward.

The first FedEx, according to the Sentencing Memorandum, was delivered
to a woman named Maria Blanton, "a longtime PETA member who had agreed
to accept the first Federal Express package from Coronado after being
asked to do so by Ingrid Newkirk." The FBI intercepted the second
package, which had been sent to the same address. It contained documents
that Coronado stole before lighting his firebombs, as well as "a
videotape of the perpetrator of the MSU crime, disguised in a ski mask."
Since Coronado was convicted of the arson, we now know that he himself
was that masked man. "Significantly," wrote U.S. Attorney Dettmer,
"Newkirk had arranged to have the package[s] delivered to her days
before the MSU arson occurred." (emphasis in the original)

A search warrant executed at Blanton's home turned up evidence that
PETA's other co-founder, Alex Pacheco, had also been planning burglaries
and break-ins along with Rodney Coronado. The feds seized "surveillance
logs; code names for Coronado, Pacheco, and others; burglary tools;
two-way radios; night vision goggles; [and] phony identification for
Coronado and Pacheco."

Shortly after Coronado's arrest, PETA gave $45,200 to his "support
committee" and "loaned" $25,000 to his father (the loan was never repaid
and PETA hasn't complained). Now free from jail, with an expired parole,
and with the benefit of an expired Statute of Limitations on his many
earlier arsons (to which he readily confesses in his standard stump
speech), Coronado stood before a crowd of hundreds of young people at
American University in January 2003 and demonstrated how to turn a milk
jug into a bomb. A few days later, ALF criminals tried to burn down a
McDonald's restaurant in Chico, California, using a firebomb that
matched Coronado's recipe.

The following month, Ingrid Newkirk told ABC News that Rodney Coronado
is "a fine young man."

Newkirk wrote a book called Free the Animals! The Untold Story of the
U.S. Animal Liberation Front and Its Founder, ‘Valerie.' In it she
writes: "The ALF has, over the years, trusted People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) to receive copies of the evidence of
wrongdoing … I have also become somewhat used to jumping on a plane with
copies of freshly purloined documents and hurriedly calling news
conferences to discuss the ALF's findings." Indeed, PETA has held such
press conferences just hours after ALF arsons and other break-ins.

PETA has published a leaflet called "Animal Liberation Front: the Army
of the Kind." In another pamphlet, "Activism and the Law," PETA openly
offers advice on "burning a laboratory building."

"I will be the last person to condemn ALF," says Newkirk. And in another
interview: "I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all
burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match." In ALF's
publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter),
Newkirk has said: "You can't have all politeness and patience, all
potlucks and epistles … Some people will never budge unless [they are]
pushed to budge."

Perhaps Newkirk's most telling comment, though, came in a 2002 U.S. News
& World Report feature. "Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective,"
she admitted. "We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a
threat, and it works."
-----

See also:
http://www.activistcash.com/index.cfm?bio_id=1460

> Be assured, I would not have become a member of PETA if it weren't for
> these guys and their offensive postings. So thanks guys, for
> motivating me to support PETA.

Don't blame anyone else for your personal propensity to support
terrorists. That is your own flaw.

> From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
> others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
> contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
> postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.

A petition to have PETA's tax-exempt status revoked collected over
10,000 signatures in its first week. That's with relatively little press
about it. The IRS is already investigating PETA. So, too, are law
enforcement agencies as they investigate ALF/ELF terror incidents.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040126/dcmv001_1.html

Girl Beckwith wrote:
> I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!

Liar.

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>Gary Beckwith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>friends,
>>>
>>>I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
>>>information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
>>>think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
>>>offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
>>>etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.
>>
>>You'll take it, and you'll *like* it.

Girl Beckwith wrote:
> you did not address my comments in common sense terms.

Yes, he did. Your issue isn't with substance, it's only with style.

> you swore at me,

Be a man.

> called me (and other vegetarians names) and all that stuff that you do
> every day. it's a waste of time to read your disrespectful lies. The
> only reason I'm not blocking your address from my newsgroup view is so
> that I can keep track of your postings and contribute to PETA.

Liar.

> You had
> your chance. Go back 5 steps in every thread we've interacted in. I've
> continuously asked you to stop being disrespectful and you continuously
> refuse. You shot yourself in the foot.

No, he blows your silly ideas out of the water.

> It doesn't matter if you are right anymore.

Why? Is it because he's wrong or you don't like the way he tells you?

> People shouldn't have to read your postings because of
> your tone and language, if for no other reason.

See? You're more concerned about style than substance.

> It's over. You can
> post all you want. Keep it up!

Take out a second mortgage, lol.

> C'mon, why don't you reply now, and
> call me a crybaby again. Please do.

Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.
Crybaby.

That's 20x. Now send your terrorists $100.

Gary Beckwith > wrote in message >...
> friends,
>
> I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
> information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
> etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.
>
> Here's a way to deal with it.
>
> Let's keep track of how many messages are posted by these people -
> Jonathan Ball, Rick Etter, and a few others.
>
> Every week, or every month, let's donate a certain amount of money to
> PETA based on how many messages they post.
>
> I'll take the first step, by becoming a member of PETA, in honor of all
> the wonderful messages they have posted in the past. Anyone care to
> join me?
>
> Be assured, I would not have become a member of PETA if it weren't for
> these guys and their offensive postings. So thanks guys, for
> motivating me to support PETA.
>
> From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
> others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
> contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
> postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.

Hilarious idea!

If you just set up a killfilter in your newsreader you can filter
these trolls out quite easily.

"MrFalafel" > wrote
> Gary Beckwith > wrote

> > From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
> > others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
> > contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
> > postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.
>
> Hilarious idea!

Not really, and also fake, like most of what veganism stands for.

> If you just set up a killfilter in your newsreader you can filter
> these trolls out quite easily.

Ah yes, filter out dissenting voices until all you hear is the pleasant
sound of people agreeing with you...

no, I'm not a liar. At the end of the month I'll post the receipt.
Until then, be assured, your comments are directly responsible for my
contributions to PETA.


usual suspect wrote:
>
> Girl Beckwith wrote:
> > I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!
>
> Liar.
>
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> >>Gary Beckwith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>friends,
> >>>
> >>>I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
> >>>information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> >>>think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> >>>offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot, hypocrite,
> >>>etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this group.
> >>
> >>You'll take it, and you'll *like* it.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> no, I'm not a liar. At the end of the month I'll post the receipt.
> Until then, be assured, your comments are directly responsible for my
> contributions to PETA.
=================
You should at least get their name right if you're going to support them.
The 'e' is lower case in their logo, check it out.

It's lower case because that's where *they* place their ethics, second to
bilking the rubes out of their money. They also kill more animals than they
save, once they get their bloody hands on them. Word of advice, if you have
a pet that you need to get rid of, and really want it to get another home,
don't take it to your pals at PeTA.


>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
> >
> > Girl Beckwith wrote:
> > > I just contributed another $5 to PETA. Thanks!
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > >
> > >>Gary Beckwith wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>friends,
> > >>>
> > >>>I have no problem with people stating their opinions, offering
> > >>>information, etc. But a handful of people are very rude and seem to
> > >>>think they can accomplish something by calling people names and being
> > >>>offensive. I'm tired of being called a girl, asshole, idiot,
hypocrite,
> > >>>etc. I don't deserve it and either do other people who read this
group.
> > >>
> > >>You'll take it, and you'll *like* it.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> no, I'm not a liar.

Yes, you are. You're a whining, lying crybaby.

> At the end of the month I'll post the receipt.

Good for you, crybaby.

> Until then, be assured, your comments are directly responsible for my
> contributions to PETA.

**** off.

Girly Beckwith wrote:
> no, I'm not a liar. At the end of the month I'll post the receipt.

That should help the FBI deal with you when they use the Patriot Act to
crack down on domestic terrorism.

> Until then, be assured, your comments are directly responsible for my
> contributions to PETA.

Make another one, girly. Do you know they've *killed* animals? They
rescued a bunch of lab animals, fought in court for them, took them to
their Aspen Hills "animal sanctuary," and then euthanized them. Be sure
to ask them about that when you send your money.

usual suspect wrote:

> Girly Beckwith wrote:
>
>> no, I'm not a liar. At the end of the month I'll post the receipt.
>
>
> That should help the FBI deal with you when they use the Patriot Act to
> crack down on domestic terrorism.
>
>> Until then, be assured, your comments are directly responsible for my
>> contributions to PETA.
>
>
> Make another one, girly.

He *does* come across as girlish, doesn't he? That's
the first thing I thought when I read his first post.

> Do you know they've *killed* animals? They
> rescued a bunch of lab animals, fought in court for them, took them to
> their Aspen Hills "animal sanctuary," and then euthanized them. Be sure
> to ask them about that when you send your money.
>

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>> no, I'm not a liar. At the end of the month I'll post the receipt.
>>
>> That should help the FBI deal with you when they use the Patriot Act
>> to crack down on domestic terrorism.
>>
>>> Until then, be assured, your comments are directly responsible for my
>>> contributions to PETA.
>>
>> Make another one, girly.
>
> He *does* come across as girlish, doesn't he? That's the first thing I
> thought when I read his first post.

The sad thing is he brings shame on a great surname. Charlie Beckwith
was founder of SFOD-D, more commonly known as Delta Force. He retired
here in Austin and died about ten years ago. Chargin' Charlie was a
great man and a military visionary. He helped create the foundation of
our chief response to terrorism 30 years ago, and the "task forces"
(like the now famous but still officially unconfirmed Task Force 20
operating in Iraq) mentioned by news reporters are his brainchildren.
It's a shame anyone sharing his last name is making donations to a
terror front group, much less one posing as an animal rights group, for
such flippant, frivolous reasons.

Males usually embrace the vegan "cause":
a. to stupidly impress a female,
b. because of a female's influence (i.e., nagging),
c. because they're very effeminate to start with, and/or
d. because of some mental illness.

The first three also fit into (d). My guess on this numbnut is (c) and
(d). Ol' "Ronny" showed bigger balls in her responses than this clod has
in his.

<snip>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>
> Males usually embrace the vegan "cause":
> a. to stupidly impress a female,
> b. because of a female's influence (i.e., nagging),
> c. because they're very effeminate to start with, and/or
> d. because of some mental illness.
>
"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

I didn't get your reply. Please repost it.

------
Error!
newsgroup server responded:No Such Article In Group

Perhaps the article has expired

> (91245)

"usual suspect" > wrote in message news
> I didn't get your reply. Please repost it.
>
Certainly.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>
> Males usually embrace the vegan "cause":
> a. to stupidly impress a female,
> b. because of a female's influence (i.e., nagging),
> c. because they're very effeminate to start with, and/or
> d. because of some mental illness.
>
"I am vegan"
usual suspect 2002-05-09

"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
usual suspect 2003-06-10

"No thanks, I'm a vegan."
usual suspect 2003-08-14

"You'll find my views have been consistent."
usual suspect 2003-09-05

Dreck wrote:
>>I didn't get your reply. Please repost it.
>
> Certainly.

Thanks, arsehole.

>>Males usually embrace the vegan "cause":
>>a. to stupidly impress a female,
>>b. because of a female's influence (i.e., nagging),
>>c. because they're very effeminate to start with, and/or
>>d. because of some mental illness.
>
> "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
> usual suspect 2003-06-10

You really need to update your list of my quotes.

I thought veganism wasn't political or even monolithically
leftist. I found out it was both. That's when I stopped using
"vegan" to describe anything about me. It is an unsuitable
description of me and my life.
-- usual suspect, 31 January 2004

I don't really identify myself as a vegan (though by definition
my diet is definitely vegan) so it never was like a
Damascus-road experience wherein I worried about what to do with
various things accumulated during my "pre-vegan" life. I've been
a vegetarian over half my life.
-- usual suspect, 10 May 2002

I rarely refer to myself as veg-n unless the issue of eating
comes up in conversation, even though people around me know
there are things I will not eat.
-- usual suspect, 21 November 2002

I've also been quite clear in the past for why my diet is vegetarian,
and that I may eventually consume meat (specifically fish) again in the
future.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Dreck wrote:
> >>I didn't get your reply. Please repost it.
> >
> > Certainly.
>
> Thanks

No problem at all.

> >>Males usually embrace the vegan "cause":
> >>a. to stupidly impress a female,
> >>b. because of a female's influence (i.e., nagging),
> >>c. because they're very effeminate to start with, and/or
> >>d. because of some mental illness.
> >
> > "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan."
> > usual suspect 2003-06-10
>
> You really need to update your list of my quotes.
>
I've really no need to, since what I have are all
I need to show that contrary to your claims on
being consistent, you're anything but.

Which out of that list of four options you gave
relates to your initial embrace of veganism?

Dreck wrote:
<snip>
> Which out of that list of four options you gave
> relates to your initial embrace of veganism?

None of the above. The operative word is "usually." I was under the
impression that "vegan" was a non-political term. I later learned the
truth and disavowed veganism.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" wrote:
> <snip>
> > Which out of that list of four options you gave
> > relates to your initial embrace of veganism?
>
> None of the above. The operative word is "usually."

Then it logically follows that males "usually" DON'T
embrace the vegan "cause":
a. to stupidly impress a female,
b. because of a female's influence (i.e., nagging),
c. because they're very effeminate to start with, and/or
d. because of some mental illness.

usual suspect wrote:

> Dreck wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Which out of that list of four options you gave
>> relates to your initial embrace of veganism?
>
>
> None of the above. The operative word is "usually." I was under the
> impression that "vegan" was a non-political term. I later learned the
> truth and disavowed veganism.

Someday when you're in SoCal, you can look me up and
buy me a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for having opened your
eyes to this reality. Then, I'll buy you one for
having been such an apt pupil.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Which out of that list of four options you gave
>>> relates to your initial embrace of veganism?
>>
>> None of the above. The operative word is "usually." I was under the
>> impression that "vegan" was a non-political term. I later learned the
>> truth and disavowed veganism.
>
> Someday when you're in SoCal, you can look me up and buy me a Sierra
> Nevada Pale Ale for having opened your eyes to this reality. Then, I'll
> buy you one for having been such an apt pupil.

It's a deal.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> usual suspect wrote:
> > "ipse dixit" wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Which out of that list of four options you gave
> >> relates to your initial embrace of veganism?
> >
> > None of the above. The operative word is "usually." I was under the
> > impression that "vegan" was a non-political term. I later learned the
> > truth and disavowed veganism.
>
> Someday when you're in SoCal, you can look me up and
> buy me a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for having opened your
> eyes to this reality. Then, I'll buy you one for having been
> such an apt pupil.
>
I think you ought to as well. He's proving to be your best
pupil ever. He even uses the same insults you use now.
The perfect copy, but you ought to warn him;

And there's a million of us just like me
who cuss like me; who just don't give a **** like me
who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me
and just might be the next best thing but not quite me!

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> usual suspect wrote:
> > "ipse dixit" wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Which out of that list of four options you gave
> >> relates to your initial embrace of veganism?
> >
> > None of the above. The operative word is "usually." I was under the
> > impression that "vegan" was a non-political term. I later learned the
> > truth and disavowed veganism.
>
> Someday when you're in SoCal, you can look me up and
> buy me a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for having opened your
> eyes to this reality. Then, I'll buy you one for having been
> such an apt pupil.
>
I think you ought to as well. He's proving to be your best
pupil ever. He even uses the same insults you use now.
The perfect copy, but you ought to warn him;

And there's a million of us just like me
who cuss like me; who just don't give a **** like me
who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me
and just might be the next best thing but not quite me!

Dreck wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Which out of that list of four options you gave
>>>>relates to your initial embrace of veganism?
>>>
>>>None of the above. The operative word is "usually." I was under the
>>>impression that "vegan" was a non-political term. I later learned the
>>>truth and disavowed veganism.
>>
>>Someday when you're in SoCal, you can look me up and
>>buy me a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for having opened your
>>eyes to this reality. Then, I'll buy you one for having been
>>such an apt pupil.
>
> I think you ought to as well. He's proving to be your best
> pupil ever.

Thanks, that's nice coming from a bluefooted ex-tyre changer with a GCE
in woodwork.

> He even uses the same insults you use now.

I also use many of my own.

> The perfect copy, but you ought to warn him;

I'm not a copy, so no warnings are necessary.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
> others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
> contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
> postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.

I dont' agree with a lot of the stuff people have posted in here, but that's
no reason to donate to a
radical terror-supporting group like PETA! You'll be doing something much
worse than trolling on the
'net if you do that.

And when the ALF or ELF kill somebody, I hope that you feel some remorse for
donating to an organization
that supports them.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message gy.com>...
> "Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
> > From here on in, I'll keep track of how many messages they post, and if
> > others want to join me we can figure out a reasonable amount of money to
> > contribut to PETA, or perhaps the Animal Farm Sanctuary, based on their
> > postings. Perhaps we can even donate the money in their honor.
>
> I dont' agree with a lot of the stuff people have posted in here, but that's
> no reason to donate to a
> radical terror-supporting group like PETA! You'll be doing something much
> worse than trolling on the
> 'net if you do that.
>
> And when the ALF or ELF kill somebody, I hope that you feel some remorse for
> donating to an organization
> that supports them.
>
> -Rubystars


I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!

MrFalafel wrote:
>>And when the ALF or ELF kill somebody, I hope that you feel some remorse for
>>donating to an organization
>>that supports them.
>
> I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
> money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!

Is that supposed to be funny? Oops, I forgot to laugh. You do seem like
enough of a tool to donate money on such specious grounds, though.

Yung Duk Dong wrote:

> MrFalafel wrote:
>
>>> And when the ALF or ELF kill somebody, I hope that you feel some
>>> remorse for
>>> donating to an organization
>>> that supports them.
>>
>>
>> I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
>> money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!
>
>
> Is that supposed to be funny? Oops, I forgot to laugh. You do seem like
> enough of a tool to donate money on such specious grounds, though.

Neither he nor the nitwit who originally suggested
donations to PeTA as a response to "trolls" has made or
will make any such donations. It was merely trolling
on their part; it was also a lie.

Dirk McDougal wrote:

> Yung Duk Dong wrote:
>
>> MrFalafel wrote:
>>
>>>> And when the ALF or ELF kill somebody, I hope that you feel some
>>>> remorse for
>>>> donating to an organization
>>>> that supports them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
>>> money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that supposed to be funny? Oops, I forgot to laugh. You do seem
>> like enough of a tool to donate money on such specious grounds, though.
>
>
> Neither he nor the nitwit who originally suggested donations to PeTA as
> a response to "trolls" has made or will make any such donations. It was
> merely trolling on their part; it was also a lie.

I know. It's kinda desperate that they think they can scare off others
with outright deceit in the silliest form of bribery I've ever seen. I
wonder if such incoherent thinking is from organic mental illness or
just malnourishment. Maybe both?

Yung Duk Dong wrote:
> Dirk McDougal wrote:
>
>> Yung Duk Dong wrote:
>>
>>> MrFalafel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And when the ALF or ELF kill somebody, I hope that you feel some
>>>>> remorse for
>>>>> donating to an organization
>>>>> that supports them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
>>>> money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that supposed to be funny? Oops, I forgot to laugh. You do seem
>>> like enough of a tool to donate money on such specious grounds, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither he nor the nitwit who originally suggested donations to PeTA
>> as a response to "trolls" has made or will make any such donations.
>> It was merely trolling on their part; it was also a lie.
>
>
> I know. It's kinda desperate that they think they can scare off others
> with outright deceit in the silliest form of bribery I've ever seen. I
> wonder if such incoherent thinking is from organic mental illness or
> just malnourishment. Maybe both?

I have a well developed theory about
self-marginalization and auto-alienation. "veganism"
is a conscious embrace of a pseudo-ethics that the
embracer KNOWS will marginalize him. Deliberately
adopting a marginalizing philosophy is symptomatic of
mental illness. Being marginalized, and suffering from
the alienation that marginalization produces, is viewed
by rational people as a bad, damaging thing. No
mentally and emotionally sound person would *willingly*
marginalize himself, but that's precisely what "vegans"
knowingly do.

"MrFalafel" > wrote in message
<snip>
> I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
> money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!

Wouldn't it be more productive to donate to a legit animal rescue group,
like breed rescues, no kill shelters,
or wildlife rehabilitators?

PETA is the kind of group that would try to start rifts between mothers and
their children, with that little comic
"Mommy kills animals." and throws blood on people. Why would any sane person
donate to them?

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message .com>...
> "MrFalafel" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > I sure hope the trolls don't post so much so I won't have to give
> > money to PETA. It's all on them, you know. They've been warned!
>
> Wouldn't it be more productive to donate to a legit animal rescue group,
> like breed rescues, no kill shelters,
> or wildlife rehabilitators?
>
> PETA is the kind of group that would try to start rifts between mothers and
> their children, with that little comic
> "Mommy kills animals." and throws blood on people. Why would any sane person
> donate to them?
>
> -Rubystars

The trolls here are terrified of the spread of vegetarianism and AR,
which PETA promotes. This idea would mean that their trolling would
translate into the funding of a group promoting something they are
against. The idea is to get the trolls to carry on their endless flame
wars and trolling in a more appropriate newsgroup and not this one.