"pearl" > wrote crap

Rule of thumb: when one receives advice from known delusionals, do the
opposite!

pearl wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>
> <..>
>
>>>long-past portions of the
>>>
>>>
>>>>message that become broken, not recent responses.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hoo BOY- are you DENSE.
>>
>>Oh, YOU have room to talk, huh, skank? LOOK at that atrocity
>>above, caused by YOUR ****ing horseshit e-mail/news client.
>
>
> And so are

Where do you figure you have any standing to criticize
anyone, you gullible shit-believing slut? What about:

prostitution
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> >
<..>
> > long-past portions of the
> >
> >>message that become broken, not recent responses.
> >
> >
> > Hoo BOY- are you DENSE.
>
> Oh,

And so are you, liar ball.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"Jonathan Ball" >

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:31:38 -0500, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> >
>> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> thlink.net...
>> >
>> >
>> >>>We see this issue differently. The difference between your
>> >>>rape example and preventing animal suffering and deaths is
>> >>>that rape is individually preventable while animal suffering
>> >>>and deaths are not.
>> >>
>> >>One's INVOLVEMENT in animal suffering is indeed
>> >>individually preventable, albeit at considerable effort
>> >>and cost.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, lord! LOOK at this below. Maybe set the line wrap
>> limit to 85.
>
>I know, I know. I wrote the last post at 130 chars/line. Let's see how
>70 chars/line looks.
>
>> As
>> you acknowledge, all of that involvement is avoidable;
>> you could very carefully grow your own food, forage for
>> some of it, and avoid killing any animals.
>
>Actually, I do grow some of my own food. I forage for wild plants and
>mushrooms as well.
>
>> > I don't see why you need a 'stopping rule'.
>>
>> You need a coherent explanation of why you're stopping
>> your reduction at some non-zero level, and why that
>> level is morally justified.
>
>I don't think in terms of numbers of animal casualties because, as we
>agree, I can't.

You can to some degree, but there are people who don't want you
to do it. For example: to produce 1000 gallons of rice milk a certain
amount of rice needs to be produced. That means land needs to be
plowed, harrowed, planted, treated with whatever *icides, and harvested.
Also at some point the land needs to be flooded and later drained--each
of those causing death for some animals. The rice needs to be stored
after it's produced, and animals are killed in the storage areas. Even
though we don't know how many animals die in producing rice, we can
easily understand that some/many do.
A grass raised cow can also produce 1000 gallons of milk. In her case,
the life and death of one cow produces as much milk as the things which
cause the death of a greater number of animals to produce an equal
amount of rice milk. That was just one example.....

>I also don't have any coherent explanation for where
>my boundaries are drawn.
__________________________________________________ _______
More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields, prairies
and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of birds such as
meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland sandpipers and bobolinks
experienced the steepest decline of any group of birds in North
America. Some of the decline in the Midwest can be traced to farmers
who converted grasslands to corn and soybean fields. But the recent
widespread adoption of rotational grazing in America's Dairyland is
giving Wisconsin grassland birds a second chance. With rotational
grazing, pastures are divided into paddocks and graziers let cows graze
one paddock at a time for two days or less before moving them to a
fresh paddock. A team of agronomists and wildlife biologists with the
UW-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has
evaluated techniques that can favor grassland birds on these pastures.
The researchers have identified bird-friendly practices that graziers
can implement at little or no expense. The scientists found, for
example, that moving cows from paddock to paddock frequently, leaving
more grass after grazing a paddock or protecting a couple of paddocks
during the birds' nesting season all increase the nesting success of
grassland birds on these pastures.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/200...THDY2.UWI.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>I have only my sense of what is better or
>worse, and that's what I go by. Sorry, I know it's not much.
>
>> [snip]

****WIT David Harrison shat:

> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:31:38 -0500, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>
>>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>

>>>>I don't see why you need a 'stopping rule'.
>>>
>>>You need a coherent explanation of why you're stopping
>>>your reduction at some non-zero level, and why that
>>>level is morally justified.
>>
>>I don't think in terms of numbers of animal casualties because, as we
>>agree, I can't.
>
>
> You can to some degree

No, he can't, ****WIT. Your crap in no way suggests a
methodology whereby someone could come up with a
reasonable number.

Get out of here, ****WIT. Go peddle your ****witted
"Logic of the Larder" bullshit to some of your fellow
rednecks.

the whore wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" >
>
> Faking

Faking nothing, you ****drip whore.

Where do you figure you have any standing to criticize
anyone, you gullible shit-believing slut? What about:

prostitution
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Oh, and YOU have room to talk, huh, skank? LOOK at
> that atrocity above, caused by YOUR ****ing horseshit
> e-mail/news client.
>
> Where do you figure you have any standing to criticize
> anyone, you gullible shit-believing slut? What about:
>
> prostitution
> "veganism"
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth"
> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucer
> Zapper
> Foot massage (as cure-all)
> Astrology
> Numerology
> Alien abduction
> Holocaust denial
> Leprechauns
> Channeling
> Polar fountains
> Sun gazing
> Chemtrails
> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
> Crop circles
> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
> participation in skinhead subculture
> the validity of online IQ tests
> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
> Jeff Rense for "news"

What a ****ing a loser you are Ball. Is this all you live for is an excuse/justification to rear that ugly head
of yours keep up your ass?

All any shmuck has to do is put a female name on their header (try it guys) and then flick your pathetic ear and
you sing "slut and skank" like the towel boy in super max prison. You are one woman hating dickless slime ball!
Get a ****ing life parasitic piece of shit!

"Jonathan Ball" >

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:

> You've made a remarkable admission, though.
> Previously, you said you *did* have a coherent
> explanation for why you stop at whatever level you do.

I was defending my assertion that I was contributing less to animal
suffering and death to some degree through my diet and through other
actions. Although some of my boundaries are loosely based on some
ethical standard, it's not a fixed standard and thus not coherent.

> I am only severely condemning people who have, based on
> my accurate observation and my development of a
> well-reasoned case:
>
> - adopted an absolutist moral stance, which is
> - predicated on an implied condemnation of other, less
> "enlightened" people who don't adopt the stance;
> - who are caught in a flagrant contradiction of their
> supposed ethical position;
> - who, finally, cling to the original position, despite
> not being able to refute my case.
>
> I believe that describes "vegans" well. You perhaps
> don't believe it does.

Not all vegans. Most of them are ignorant about the collateral death
issue.

> IF you agreed that that
> description fit someone, wouldn't you agree that such a
> person would be a toweringly sanctimonious hypocrite?

Yes, that would fit the above description.

> Those two are not morally comparable. Revulsion at
> "dead animal flesh" is purely esthetic, while the harm
> animals suffer is an ethical concern.

That's correct...

> > I think that most vegans don't know about collateral deaths unless
> > they've stumbled onto this newsgroup.
>
> That's not what the hardcore ideological "vegan"
> polemicists who argue with me say. They maintain that
> "vegans" are sufficiently smart to have realized that
> even without anyone telling them. They're wrong, of
> course, as the experience with dozens of "vegan" newbie
> posters shows.

Well, if they claim to be smart enough to know about collateral deaths
then it would be a good challenge for them to rationalize the ethical
dilemma. All of the vegan propaganda that I've seen focuses
exclusively on compassion for domestic animals without even a hint of
the collateral wild lives lost.

>> I eat organic whenever possible because I
>> know that pesticides kill animals and because of
>> other environmental reasons. But sometimes I do eat
>> non-organic food. So there has always been that
>> somewhat unresolved dilemma hanging out there.
>> Being here and reading you brings it more to the
>> forefront of my mind.
>
> You're welcome. As I already said, I don't really want
> to condemn anyone. I want people to think straight and
> correctly, but especially so if what they've been
> thinking for a while has contained a built-in and
> wholly unwarranted moral condemnation of me and others
> like me. All I'm trying to do is refute a poorly
> reasoned moral conclusion, and show why it is bogus.

It's a good issue for people to understand. It's amazing how a popular
movement (vegans) can have such momentum to lead so many people to
believe in a cause for wrong or incomplete reasons. Sounds a lot like
politics! :^)

> Any condemnation comes ONLY after someone demonstrates
> bad faith: that is, acknowledges the flaw in the
> reasoning, but clings to the false conclusion (with the
> built-in condemnation) anyway. That kind of bad faith
> is the very definition of sanctimonious hypocrisy, and
> I condemn it, in very strong terms.

No joke...

> I am here to tell you that in four and a half years of
> arguing with "aras"/"vegans" in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a.,
> you are only the second person who has shown any
> movement at all. The other not only abandoned
> "veganism" as any part of his belief system, but
> actually resumed some limited meat consumption,
> something he hadn't done for close to 20 years (for a
> while, he had abandoned "veganism" but had remained
> vegetarian, simply out of habit.)

Well, I'm better informed. I still believe that my actions can have a
positive effect on the reduction of animal suffering and deaths, even
if it's not quantifiable. Maybe I'll buy more of some things and less
of other things (meat products will still not be an option) to that
end. Certainly I'll forage for more things. And I'll read and think
more about the consequences of my actions....

>> You're doing way better than most people. Do you do cardio
>> exercises too?
>
> Some. I've been trying to increase it in recently. I
> also do what someone once referred to as "supersets",
> in which 3 or 4 related lifting exercises are done one
> right after another. There's somewhat of a cardio
> effect to it, although not as much as a more protracted
> cardio workout. They'll definitely get you winded, though.

Yeah, I do circuits too sometimes. Try including exercises for the
larger muscle groups and for multiple muscle groups in your "superset"
circuits, like squats and deadlifts. That'll help to wind you! But
cardio remains the most important part of my workouts. I used to run
but I never really liked it. Then I discovered the eliptical
crosstrainer machine and I love it. I'm actually thinking about buying
one for home (suggestions welcome). Alas, home doesn't have the same
scenic benefits as the gym though...

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>
>>You've made a remarkable admission, though.
>>Previously, you said you *did* have a coherent
>>explanation for why you stop at whatever level you do.
>
>
> I was defending my assertion that I was contributing less to animal
> suffering and death to some degree through my diet and through other
> actions. Although some of my boundaries are loosely based on some
> ethical standard, it's not a fixed standard and thus not coherent.
>
>
>>I am only severely condemning people who have, based on
>>my accurate observation and my development of a
>>well-reasoned case:
>>
>>- adopted an absolutist moral stance, which is
>>- predicated on an implied condemnation of other, less
>> "enlightened" people who don't adopt the stance;
>>- who are caught in a flagrant contradiction of their
>> supposed ethical position;
>>- who, finally, cling to the original position, despite
>> not being able to refute my case.
>>
>>I believe that describes "vegans" well. You perhaps
>>don't believe it does.
>
>
> Not all vegans. Most of them are ignorant about the collateral death
> issue.

Perhaps, but

a) none admit to it; all claim they knew of it already;
others claim it on their behalf
b) NONE back off the false moral conclusion

The chain of attitudes and beliefs I describe above
fits virtually *all* the "vegans" who have ever engaged
in the debate, here.

>
>
>>IF you agreed that that
>>description fit someone, wouldn't you agree that such a
>>person would be a toweringly sanctimonious hypocrite?
>
>
> Yes, that would fit the above description.

WELL, then!

>
>
>>Those two are not morally comparable. Revulsion at
>>"dead animal flesh" is purely esthetic, while the harm
>>animals suffer is an ethical concern.
>
>
> That's correct...
>
>
>>>I think that most vegans don't know about collateral deaths unless
>>>they've stumbled onto this newsgroup.
>>
>>That's not what the hardcore ideological "vegan"
>>polemicists who argue with me say. They maintain that
>>"vegans" are sufficiently smart to have realized that
>>even without anyone telling them. They're wrong, of
>>course, as the experience with dozens of "vegan" newbie
>>posters shows.
>
>
> Well, if they claim to be smart enough to know about collateral deaths
> then it would be a good challenge for them to rationalize the ethical
> dilemma.

They try; they fail. They merely insist that they are
"minimizing"/"reducing"/"doing what they can". They
don't try, in any way, to square their real-world,
animal-killing behavior with their alleged belief that
it is wrong, simply, to kill animals casually and
needlessly.

> All of the vegan propaganda that I've seen focuses
> exclusively on compassion for domestic animals without even a hint of
> the collateral wild lives lost.

Of course! There's a little bit of verbiage in it
about no hunting, no wearing of fur, etc., but most of
it focuses on meat animals, with a good chunk of it
directed at animals used in medical research and testing.

>
>
>>>I eat organic whenever possible because I
>>>know that pesticides kill animals and because of
>>>other environmental reasons. But sometimes I do eat
>>>non-organic food. So there has always been that
>>>somewhat unresolved dilemma hanging out there.
>>>Being here and reading you brings it more to the
>>>forefront of my mind.
>>
>>You're welcome. As I already said, I don't really want
>>to condemn anyone. I want people to think straight and
>>correctly, but especially so if what they've been
>>thinking for a while has contained a built-in and
>>wholly unwarranted moral condemnation of me and others
>>like me. All I'm trying to do is refute a poorly
>>reasoned moral conclusion, and show why it is bogus.
>
>
> It's a good issue for people to understand. It's amazing how a popular
> movement (vegans) can have such momentum to lead so many people to
> believe in a cause for wrong or incomplete reasons. Sounds a lot like
> politics! :^)

I don't think it's that popular, if by popular you mean
widely accepted. It is popular in the sense of not
being a professional/academic movement. Bertrand
Russell wrote a collection called "Unpopular Opinions"
or something like that, and by "unpopular" he merely
meant uncommon.

>
>
>>Any condemnation comes ONLY after someone demonstrates
>>bad faith: that is, acknowledges the flaw in the
>>reasoning, but clings to the false conclusion (with the
>>built-in condemnation) anyway. That kind of bad faith
>>is the very definition of sanctimonious hypocrisy, and
>>I condemn it, in very strong terms.
>
>
> No joke...
>
>
>>I am here to tell you that in four and a half years of
>>arguing with "aras"/"vegans" in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a.,
>>you are only the second person who has shown any
>>movement at all. The other not only abandoned
>>"veganism" as any part of his belief system, but
>>actually resumed some limited meat consumption,
>>something he hadn't done for close to 20 years (for a
>>while, he had abandoned "veganism" but had remained
>>vegetarian, simply out of habit.)
>
>
> Well, I'm better informed. I still believe that my actions can have a
> positive effect on the reduction of animal suffering and deaths, even
> if it's not quantifiable. Maybe I'll buy more of some things and less
> of other things (meat products will still not be an option) to that
> end. Certainly I'll forage for more things. And I'll read and think
> more about the consequences of my actions....
>
>
>>>You're doing way better than most people. Do you do cardio
>>>exercises too?
>>
>>Some. I've been trying to increase it in recently. I
>>also do what someone once referred to as "supersets",
>>in which 3 or 4 related lifting exercises are done one
>>right after another. There's somewhat of a cardio
>>effect to it, although not as much as a more protracted
>>cardio workout. They'll definitely get you winded, though.
>
>
> Yeah, I do circuits too sometimes. Try including exercises for the
> larger muscle groups and for multiple muscle groups in your "superset"
> circuits, like squats and deadlifts. That'll help to wind you! But
> cardio remains the most important part of my workouts. I used to run
> but I never really liked it. Then I discovered the eliptical
> crosstrainer machine and I love it. I'm actually thinking about buying
> one for home (suggestions welcome). Alas, home doesn't have the same
> scenic benefits as the gym though...
>
>
>
>
>

pearl wrote:
> Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.

When will you stop doing all of that?

usual suspect wrote:

> pearl wrote:
>
>> Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
>
>
> When will you stop doing all of that?

Probably about the same time she learns how to put up a
coherent web page. When we're playing ice hockey in
hell, in other words.

"Jonathan Ball" >

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

*

pearl wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" >
>
> Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Gosh, I am really shocked* that this important subject of food and food
production for the hungry is being so heavily damaged by this horrible
man.

I reviewed your page and I wonder why people like this man are so
hateful.* As a ******* I always try to stay as far away from women
haters as I can. I think people like this should be in jail.

cheers, Terri

"Terri Colman" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" >
> >
> > Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
> >
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> Gosh, I am really shocked that this important subject of food and food
> production for the hungry is being so heavily damaged by this horrible
> man.

His behaviour reflects badly on flesh-eaters, not vegetarians.

> I reviewed your page and I wonder why people like this man are so
> hateful. As a ******* I always try to stay as far away from women
> haters as I can. I think people like this should be in jail.

If he behaved in public the way he does here, he probably would.

> cheers, Terri

cheers, Terri.