"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...

> "flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~" wrote in message
...
[..]
> > >>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
> > >
> > > When I choose to, I will.
> >
> > You're incapable of addressing issues.
>
> More lies from the texan pansy boy.

Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
>
> > >>Yet when
> > >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> > >
> > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> >
> > Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
>
> Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
>
I have looked, and you've not made one substantive
post. You do sometimes bring articles you've cribbed
from various online newspapers, but you've NEVER
stayed around to support that material EVER.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> "texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message ...
> > Suckhard wrote:
> > <...>
> > > It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> >
> > You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we both
> > substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet when
> > I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
> > posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> > attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> > try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> > change, asshole?
>
> Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.

Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
15 minutes looking over every single post you've
made over the last month and found nothing
substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
and show me a post where you've defended your
position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
resorts to puerile quips instead.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > "texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
...
> > > Suckhard wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > > It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> > >
> > > You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we
both
> > > substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet
when
> > > I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
> > > posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> > > attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> > > try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> > > change, asshole?
> >
> > Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
>
> Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> 15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> made over the last month and found nothing
> substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> and show me a post where you've defended your
> position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> resorts to puerile quips instead.

Just so you're not disappointed.

**** off blue foot.


>
>

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > > >>Yet when
> > > >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> > > >
> > > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> > >
> > > Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
> >
> > Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
> >
> I have looked, and you've not made one substantive
> post. You do sometimes bring articles you've cribbed
> from various online newspapers, but you've NEVER
> stayed around to support that material EVER.

That's ******** blue foot.

And no I'm not going to kick shit about with you either, ****.

>
>

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~"
wrote in message
> ...
> [..]
> > > >>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
> > > >
> > > > When I choose to, I will.
> > >
> > > You're incapable of addressing issues.
> >
> > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
>
> Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
> and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
> of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.

Just rot in hell. I don't give a shit what you ~~jonnie~~ or flexmex think,
do or say.

I'm just here for fun, and the occasional interesting message. NONE of them
come from your or them.


>
>

Impotence wrote:

> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>>Suckhard wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
>>>>
>>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we
>
> both
>
>>>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet
>
> when
>
>>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
>>>>posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
>>>>attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
>>>>try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
>>>>change, asshole?
>>>
>>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
>>
>>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
>>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
>>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
>>made over the last month and found nothing
>>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
>>and show me a post where you've defended your
>>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
>>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
>>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
>>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
>>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
>>resorts to puerile quips instead.
>
>
> Just so you're not disappointed.
>
> **** off blue foot.

Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
the door.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>>Suckhard wrote:
> >>>><...>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> >>>>
> >>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we
> >
> > both
> >
> >>>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet
> >
> > when
> >
> >>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
> >>>>posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
> >>>>attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
> >>>>try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> >>>>change, asshole?
> >>>
> >>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
> >>
> >>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> >>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> >>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> >>made over the last month and found nothing
> >>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> >>and show me a post where you've defended your
> >>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> >>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> >>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> >>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> >>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> >>resorts to puerile quips instead.
> >
> >
> > Just so you're not disappointed.
> >
> > **** off blue foot.
>
> Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
> the door.

Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can see
straight through that one.

TOSSER.
>

Impotence wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Impotence wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
>>>
.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
>>>
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Suckhard wrote:
>>>>>><...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we
>>>
>>>both
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet
>>>
>>>when
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
>>>>>>posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth and
>>>>>>attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't you
>>>>>>try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
>>>>>>change, asshole?
>>>>>
>>>>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
>>>>
>>>>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
>>>>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
>>>>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
>>>>made over the last month and found nothing
>>>>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
>>>>and show me a post where you've defended your
>>>>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
>>>>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
>>>>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
>>>>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
>>>>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
>>>>resorts to puerile quips instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just so you're not disappointed.
>>>
>>>**** off blue foot.
>>
>>Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
>>the door.
>
>
> Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can see
> straight through that one.

Oh, I don't have to enroll him, GregGeorge; he's
volunteered.

20 seconds, GregGeorge; that's all.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>Impotence wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
> >>>
> .. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
> >>>
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>Suckhard wrote:
> >>>>>><...>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking, harassing, etc., though we
> >>>
> >>>both
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>substantively address posts and issues raised in these groups. Yet
> >>>
> >>>when
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never! What are your
> >>>>>>posts? Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics of birth
and
> >>>>>>attempts to agitate. That's harassment. That's stalking. Why don't
you
> >>>>>>try addressing issues -- rather than physical characteristics -- for
a
> >>>>>>change, asshole?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> >>>>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> >>>>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> >>>>made over the last month and found nothing
> >>>>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> >>>>and show me a post where you've defended your
> >>>>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> >>>>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> >>>>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> >>>>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> >>>>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> >>>>resorts to puerile quips instead.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Just so you're not disappointed.
> >>>
> >>>**** off blue foot.
> >>
> >>Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
> >>the door.
> >
> >
> > Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can see
> > straight through that one.
>
> Oh, I don't have to enroll him, GregGeorge; he's
> volunteered.
>
> 20 seconds, GregGeorge; that's all.

CNUT 5s
>

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> > Impotence wrote:
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > >>"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > >>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message ...
> > >>>>Suckhard wrote:
> > >>>><...>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking,
> > >>>>harassing, etc., though we both substantively
> > >>>>address posts and issues raised in these groups.
> > >>>>Yet when I read your posts, they're never
> > >>>>substantive. Never! What are your posts?
> > >>>>Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics
> > >>>>of birth and attempts to agitate. That's harassment.
> > >>>>That's stalking. Why don't you try addressing issues
> > >>>>-- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> > >>>>change, asshole?
> > >>>
> > >>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
> > >>
> > >>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> > >>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> > >>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> > >>made over the last month and found nothing
> > >>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> > >>and show me a post where you've defended your
> > >>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> > >>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> > >>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> > >>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> > >>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> > >>resorts to puerile quips instead.
> > >
> > > Just so you're not disappointed.
> > >
> > > **** off blue foot.

Try making me. Pick any day that suits you and
make me, Zaza.

> > Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
> > the door.
>
> Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can see
> straight through that one.

Your participation (or lack of it) is of concern
to everyone now you've boasted you always
address the issues here, because the fact is that
you don't address any issues EVER. You excused
your lack of a proper response to Jon's post by
claiming you've been too busy, and to check
Google for confirmation of that fact, but Google
shows you've not been busy at all, so what else
are you going to try instead?

> TOSSER.

Well done. Now explain to Jon where he's wrong
in claiming ARA's promote a myth concerning the
production efficiency of foodstuffs. Say something
on "our" behalf and save "the side" from his lies, Zaza.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > > "flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~" wrote in message
...
> > [..]
> > > > >>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I choose to, I will.
> > > >
> > > > You're incapable of addressing issues.
> > >
> > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> >
> > Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
> > and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
> > of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.
>
> Just rot in hell.

Come on, Zaza; show us your mettle and defend "the side"
from his attacks.

Impotence wrote:

> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Impotence" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>>>"flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~"
>
> wrote in message
>
...
>>[..]
>>
>>>>>>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I choose to, I will.
>>>>
>>>>You're incapable of addressing issues.
>>>
>>>More lies from the texan pansy boy.
>>
>>Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
>>and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
>>of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.
>
>
> Just rot in hell.

No substance in that, GregGeorge.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > > >>Yet when
> > > > >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> > > > >
> > > > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> > > >
> > > > Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
> > >
> > > Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
> > >
> > I have looked, and you've not made one substantive
> > post. You do sometimes bring articles you've cribbed
> > from various online newspapers, but you've NEVER
> > stayed around to support that material EVER.
>
> That's ******** blue foot.

Then prove me wrong and provide a link to your
last substantive post. By that I don't mean cut &
paste job from an online newspaper followed by
a run for the door. I mean a discussion with you
defending animal rights or the abolition of animal
research to a conclusion.

> And no I'm not going to kick shit about with you either, ****.

I could of told you that, Zaza.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > > Impotence wrote:
> > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > >>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > >>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
...
> > > >>>>Suckhard wrote:
> > > >>>><...>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking,
> > > >>>>harassing, etc., though we both substantively
> > > >>>>address posts and issues raised in these groups.
> > > >>>>Yet when I read your posts, they're never
> > > >>>>substantive. Never! What are your posts?
> > > >>>>Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics
> > > >>>>of birth and attempts to agitate. That's harassment.
> > > >>>>That's stalking. Why don't you try addressing issues
> > > >>>>-- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> > > >>>>change, asshole?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
> > > >>
> > > >>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> > > >>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> > > >>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> > > >>made over the last month and found nothing
> > > >>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> > > >>and show me a post where you've defended your
> > > >>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> > > >>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> > > >>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> > > >>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> > > >>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> > > >>resorts to puerile quips instead.
> > > >
> > > > Just so you're not disappointed.
> > > >
> > > > **** off blue foot.
>
> Try making me. Pick any day that suits you and
> make me, Zaza.

**** OFF.

That's a trait of ~~jonnie's~~ and losers in general.

Can't you see that saying things like that just illustrate just how WEAK you
really are?


>
> > > Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
> > > the door.
> >
> > Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can see
> > straight through that one.
>
> Your participation (or lack of it) is of concern
> to everyone now you've boasted you always
> address the issues here, because the fact is that
> you don't address any issues EVER. You excused
> your lack of a proper response to Jon's post by
> claiming you've been too busy, and to check
> Google for confirmation of that fact, but Google
> shows you've not been busy at all, so what else
> are you going to try instead?
>
> > TOSSER.
>
> Well done. Now explain to Jon where he's wrong
> in claiming ARA's promote a myth concerning the
> production efficiency of foodstuffs. Say something
> on "our" behalf and save "the side" from his lies, Zaza.
>

When I want to discuss something I will.

Until then, **** off.

>

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~"
wrote in message
> ...
> > > [..]
> > > > > >>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I choose to, I will.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're incapable of addressing issues.
> > > >
> > > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> > >
> > > Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
> > > and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
> > > of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.
> >
> > Just rot in hell.
>
> Come on, Zaza; show us your mettle and defend "the side"
> from his attacks.

"his attacks" Who the **** do you think he is?

You're as far up his arse as is flexmex.

**** off.
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Impotence wrote:
>
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Impotence" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>"flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~"
> >
> > wrote in message
> >
> ...
> >>[..]
> >>
> >>>>>>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>When I choose to, I will.
> >>>>
> >>>>You're incapable of addressing issues.
> >>>
> >>>More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> >>
> >>Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
> >>and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
> >>of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.
> >
> >
> > Just rot in hell.
>
> No substance in that, GregGeorge.

There is no hell, except hell on earth for many animals.

Perhaps a little experience may do you some good.

>

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > >
> > > > > >>Yet when
> > > > > >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
> > > >
> > > > Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
> > > >
> > > I have looked, and you've not made one substantive
> > > post. You do sometimes bring articles you've cribbed
> > > from various online newspapers, but you've NEVER
> > > stayed around to support that material EVER.
> >
> > That's ******** blue foot.
>
> Then prove me wrong and provide a link to your
> last substantive post. By that I don't mean cut &
> paste job from an online newspaper followed by
> a run for the door. I mean a discussion with you
> defending animal rights or the abolition of animal
> research to a conclusion.
>
> > And no I'm not going to kick shit about with you either, ****.
>
> I could of told you that, Zaza.

Well **** off then, ****.

>
>

Impotence wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Impotence wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Impotence" > wrote in message
>>>
.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"flexmex - he'd bend over backwards for ~~jonnie~~"
>>>
>>>wrote in message
>>>
>>>
...
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Deal with issues from now on, asshole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When I choose to, I will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're incapable of addressing issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>More lies from the texan pansy boy.
>>>>
>>>>Then prove he has lied, Zakhar. Show your mettle
>>>>and address the points in Jon's post head on instead
>>>>of just calling him a "nasty baldy dwarf" like a child.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just rot in hell.
>>
>>No substance in that, GregGeorge.
>
>
> There is no hell, except hell on earth for many animals.

Non sequitur, GregGeorge, and hence, still free of
substance.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message nk.net...
> > > > Impotence wrote:
> > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > >>"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > > > >>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message ...
> > > > >>>>Suckhard wrote:
> > > > >>>><...>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking,
> > > > >>>>harassing, etc., though we both substantively
> > > > >>>>address posts and issues raised in these groups.
> > > > >>>>Yet when I read your posts, they're never
> > > > >>>>substantive. Never! What are your posts?
> > > > >>>>Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics
> > > > >>>>of birth and attempts to agitate. That's harassment.
> > > > >>>>That's stalking. Why don't you try addressing issues
> > > > >>>>-- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> > > > >>>>change, asshole?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> > > > >>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> > > > >>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> > > > >>made over the last month and found nothing
> > > > >>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> > > > >>and show me a post where you've defended your
> > > > >>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> > > > >>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> > > > >>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> > > > >>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> > > > >>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> > > > >>resorts to puerile quips instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just so you're not disappointed.
> > > > >
> > > > > **** off blue foot.
> >
> > Try making me. Pick any day that suits you and
> > make me, Zaza.
>
> **** OFF.

Nope. I'm still here.

> > > > Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
> > > > the door.
> > >
> > > Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can see
> > > straight through that one.
> >
> > Your participation (or lack of it) is of concern
> > to everyone now you've boasted you always
> > address the issues here, because the fact is that
> > you don't address any issues EVER. You excused
> > your lack of a proper response to Jon's post by
> > claiming you've been too busy, and to check
> > Google for confirmation of that fact, but Google
> > shows you've not been busy at all, so what else
> > are you going to try instead?
> >
> > > TOSSER.
> >
> > Well done. Now explain to Jon where he's wrong
> > in claiming ARA's promote a myth concerning the
> > production efficiency of foodstuffs. Say something
> > on "our" behalf and save "the side" from his lies, Zaza.
>
> When I want to discuss something I will.

This is the whole point, Zaza; when will you decide
to put your positions on animal rights forward and
defend them in the usual way expected as an ardent
follower and defender of the movement? You haven't
been tested at all yet because you keep running for the
door when you should be standing your ground and
fighting for what's right. What are you afraid of?

> Until then, **** off.

Nope.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > > > > Impotence wrote:
> > > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > >>"Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > >>>"texmex the texan pansy" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > >>>>Suckhard wrote:
> > > > > >>>><...>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>It's "THANKS" you illiterate ****ing dwarf.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>You accuse both Jon and me of stalking,
> > > > > >>>>harassing, etc., though we both substantively
> > > > > >>>>address posts and issues raised in these groups.
> > > > > >>>>Yet when I read your posts, they're never
> > > > > >>>>substantive. Never! What are your posts?
> > > > > >>>>Nothing but remarks cruelly noting characteristics
> > > > > >>>>of birth and attempts to agitate. That's harassment.
> > > > > >>>>That's stalking. Why don't you try addressing issues
> > > > > >>>>-- rather than physical characteristics -- for a
> > > > > >>>>change, asshole?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Your cut and paste shows very little imagination.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Your continued failure to address it and Jon's
> > > > > >>post proves he is right, "Zakhar". I've spent
> > > > > >>15 minutes looking over every single post you've
> > > > > >>made over the last month and found nothing
> > > > > >>substantive in any of them. Take a look yourself
> > > > > >>and show me a post where you've defended your
> > > > > >>position (whatever that may be) or attempted to
> > > > > >>defeat your opposition's. All you do is make little
> > > > > >>quips and then run for it. Take a look at last month's
> > > > > >>record of your posts; they're a joke written by a boy
> > > > > >>who doesn't know what he's talking about and so
> > > > > >>resorts to puerile quips instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just so you're not disappointed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **** off blue foot.
> > >
> > > Try making me. Pick any day that suits you and
> > > make me, Zaza.
> >
> > **** OFF.
>
> Nope. I'm still here.
>
> > > > > Ang again, GregGeorge avoids substance and dashes for
> > > > > the door.
> > > >
> > > > Trying to enrol the help of blue foot won't help ~~jonnie~~ I can
see
> > > > straight through that one.
> > >
> > > Your participation (or lack of it) is of concern
> > > to everyone now you've boasted you always
> > > address the issues here, because the fact is that
> > > you don't address any issues EVER. You excused
> > > your lack of a proper response to Jon's post by
> > > claiming you've been too busy, and to check
> > > Google for confirmation of that fact, but Google
> > > shows you've not been busy at all, so what else
> > > are you going to try instead?
> > >
> > > > TOSSER.
> > >
> > > Well done. Now explain to Jon where he's wrong
> > > in claiming ARA's promote a myth concerning the
> > > production efficiency of foodstuffs. Say something
> > > on "our" behalf and save "the side" from his lies, Zaza.
> >
> > When I want to discuss something I will.
>
> This is the whole point, Zaza; when will you decide
> to put your positions on animal rights forward and
> defend them in the usual way expected as an ardent
> follower and defender of the movement? You haven't
> been tested at all yet because you keep running for the
> door when you should be standing your ground and
> fighting for what's right. What are you afraid of?
>
> > Until then, **** off.
>
> Nope.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>irritating gap
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

**** off dole scrounger.

"Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > >>Yet when
> > > > > > >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
> > > > >
> > > > > Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
> > > > >
> > > > I have looked, and you've not made one substantive
> > > > post. You do sometimes bring articles you've cribbed
> > > > from various online newspapers, but you've NEVER
> > > > stayed around to support that material EVER.
> > >
> > > That's ******** blue foot.
> >
> > Then prove me wrong and provide a link to your
> > last substantive post. By that I don't mean cut &
> > paste job from an online newspaper followed by
> > a run for the door. I mean a discussion with you
> > defending animal rights or the abolition of animal
> > research to a conclusion.

Well, Zaza? Provide me that link I asked for and
prove me wrong.

> > > And no I'm not going to kick shit about with you either, ****.
> >
> > I could of told you that, Zaza.
>
> Well **** off then, ****.

Nope. I'm not going anywhere until ready to go.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > "Zakhar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>Yet when
> > > > > > > >>I read your posts, they're never substantive. Never!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More lies from the texan pansy boy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ad hominem evasion. When was your last substantive post?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look on Google, I'm too busy at the moment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I have looked, and you've not made one substantive
> > > > > post. You do sometimes bring articles you've cribbed
> > > > > from various online newspapers, but you've NEVER
> > > > > stayed around to support that material EVER.
> > > >
> > > > That's ******** blue foot.
> > >
> > > Then prove me wrong and provide a link to your
> > > last substantive post. By that I don't mean cut &
> > > paste job from an online newspaper followed by
> > > a run for the door. I mean a discussion with you
> > > defending animal rights or the abolition of animal
> > > research to a conclusion.
>
> Well, Zaza? Provide me that link I asked for and
> prove me wrong.

I'm not going to do anything for you. You ARE shit.

You're not worthy, you're lower than those bird burning scum.

>
> > > > And no I'm not going to kick shit about with you either, ****.
> > >
> > > I could of told you that, Zaza.
> >
> > Well **** off then, ****.
>
> Nope. I'm not going anywhere until ready to go.

Stay then, I don't give a ****ing damn.

>
>

Suckhard wrote:
<...>
> Just so you're not disappointed.

You're incorrigibly STUPID, GregGeorge. Aside from one paragraph about
eBay, your posts for the last ninety days have been of no consequence to
these groups and of no redeeming value to humanity.

<snip>

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club with which to
> beat on meat eaters

Blah blah blah...same old tired, worn out rhetoric. When I'm not
laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong. Why are you
so bothered by other people's objections to eating animals? Kindly
spare me your standard, idiotic arguments as they don't hold any water
with me. None of your lame attempts at rationalizing your 'position' on
this has had any effect on me other than confirming my belief that
you're just an angry, bitter person.

<< much garbage snipped >>

> I hope this helps.

Indeed it does! It helps clarify just how grossly ignorant you are on
the whole issue of why people become veggie in the first place.

--

"Vietnam-era veterans for John Kerry"
and other political items:
www.SmartAssProducts.com

Happy Thoughts wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club with which to
>> beat on meat eaters
>
>
> Blah blah blah...same old tired, worn out rhetoric.

You wouldn't be responding if you really thought that.
You don't, of course.

> When I'm not laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts,

You're never doing that.

> I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

Nor that.

> You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
> think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.

Such as...?

> Why are you so bothered by other people's objections to eating animals?

They're poorly thought out, if they're thought out at
all; and there's a massive, stinking amount of
sanctimony and hypocrisy in them. THAT'S what bothers
me so much. Wouldn't that bother you?

> Kindly
> spare me your standard, idiotic arguments as they don't hold any water
> with me. None of your lame attempts at rationalizing your 'position' on
> this has had any effect on me other than confirming my belief that
> you're just an angry, bitter person.

You don't believe that, either. You are just another
defensive, fearful "vegan" who knows you can't defend
your beliefs.

"Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club with which to
> > beat on meat eaters
>
> Blah blah blah...same old tired, worn out rhetoric.
==========================
And you've got what? Oh yeah, nothing it looks like...


When I'm not
> laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
> in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
> think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.
==========================
Explain why is is wrong to kill them for your food and lifestyle, but not
eat them? Anr those animals really better off, killer?


Why are you
> so bothered by other people's objections to eating animals? Kindly
> spare me your standard, idiotic arguments as they don't hold any water
> with me.
=======================
LOL Actually, it's the vegan ositipn that doesn't hold any water, killer.


None of your lame attempts at rationalizing your 'position' on
> this has had any effect on me other than confirming my belief that
> you're just an angry, bitter person.
==========================
And none of your ignoranace and stupidity rationalizing a vegan position
either, killer.

>
> << much garbage snipped >>
>
> > I hope this helps.
>
> Indeed it does! It helps clarify just how grossly ignorant you are on
> the whole issue of why people become veggie in the first place.
=====================
No, it's obvious that the ones here on usenet are not veggie for any reason
that pertains to animals...
Unl;ess of course you position is to see how many more you can kill but not
eat.


>
> --
>
> "Vietnam-era veterans for John Kerry"
> and other political items:
> www.SmartAssProducts.com

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:05:59 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

> When I'm not
>> laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
>> in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
>> think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.
>==========================
>Explain why is is wrong to kill them for your food and lifestyle, but not
>eat them? Anr those animals really better off, killer?

you know, this really does not put vegetarians in a good light either.

what's next, killing people who eat meat?

I am somehow reminded of all those vegetarian Indians jumping
for joy in the streets because they got a nuclear bomb.


how_sattvic

rick etter wrote:
>>When I'm not
>>laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
>>in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
>>think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.
>
> ==========================
> Explain why is is wrong to kill them for your food and lifestyle, but not
> eat them? Anr those animals really better off, killer?

Excuse me, idiot? How do I know you're an idiot? Because you're
calling *me* a killer, and you're also contradicting yourself! You've
asked for an explanation as to why it's wrong to kill animals for FOOD
and my lifestyle but not EAT them. HUH? Care to try again, only this
time make an attempt at sounding halfway intelligent? BTW, I do not
wear, buy, use, or in any other way include animal-based products in MY
lifestyle. So what the hell are you referring to?

<< lots of ignorant, ridiculous bullshit snipped >>

--

"Vegetarians save lives every day"
and other veggie items:
www.SmartAssProducts.com

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Happy Thoughts wrote:
>> Blah blah blah...same old tired, worn out rhetoric.

> You wouldn't be responding if you really thought that. You don't, of
> course.

Oh, but yes I do. It's absolutely nothing new to me--same old illogical
crap I've heard for 16 years.

> They're poorly thought out, if they're thought out at all; and there's a
> massive, stinking amount of sanctimony and hypocrisy in them. THAT'S
> what bothers me so much. Wouldn't that bother you?

If you've read/heard other people's comments that struck you as being
poorly thought out, fine. I won't argue that point. All I can say is
that *I* made the decision to live as cruelty-free a lifestyle as I
possibly can because it makes *ME* feel better. I really am not
interested in why other people have made the choices they've made, at
least not in terms of arguing with someone who uses those reasons as the
basis of their argument. *I* don't want to be responsible for the
suffering and slaughter of animals, hence I've chosen a cruelty-free,
vegetarian lifestyle. Period.

>> Kindly spare me your standard, idiotic arguments as they don't hold
>> any water with me. None of your lame attempts at rationalizing your
>> 'position' on this has had any effect on me other than confirming my
>> belief that you're just an angry, bitter person.

> You don't believe that, either. You are just another defensive, fearful
> "vegan" who knows you can't defend your beliefs.

I don't believe what? That you're an angry, bitter person? Your posts
indicate that you are! Fearful of what? The only thing I could be
fearful of, in this context, is that I'd be forced to return to eating
meat...and I assure you, that's not going to happen.

Regards.

--

"Vietnam-era veterans for John Kerry"
and other political items:
www.SmartAssProducts.com

Happy Thoughts wrote:

> rick etter wrote:
>
>>> When I'm not
>>> laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
>>> in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
>>> think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.
>>
>>
>> ==========================
>> Explain why is is wrong to kill them for your food and lifestyle, but not
>> eat them? Anr those animals really better off, killer?
>
>
> Excuse me, idiot? How do I know you're an idiot? Because you're
> calling *me* a killer, and you're also contradicting yourself! You've
> asked for an explanation as to why it's wrong to kill animals for FOOD
> and my lifestyle but not EAT them. HUH?

What's the big mystery, doofus? You drive heavy
equipment with blade on it through some field of
vegetables, you're going to chop to bits any number of
birds, mammals, reptiles, etc. The little animal bits
are left to rot in the fields, but they're just as dead
as if you had chowed down on them.

Rick's wording is a little opaque. By "kill them for
your food", he means to say kill them in the course of
producing your food. But kill them you do, even if
you're not the hands-on killer.

> Care to try again,

No, his effort with my small amendment is more than
enough, killer. The production of your food causes
animals to die. WHAT'RE YA GONNA DO ABOUT IT, KILLER?
Are you going to deny it, sit on your hands, cry,
jerk yourself off? What are you going to do, killer,
now that you're out in the open?

> only this
> time make an attempt at sounding halfway intelligent? BTW, I do not
> wear, buy, use, or in any other way include animal-based products in MY
> lifestyle.

Bullshit. You do, even if you don't know where all the
animal bits are. But you DO cause animals to die,
killer, even if some of the things you consume don't
contain any animal bits at all.

> So what the hell are you referring to?

Think about it for a few decades, killer; I'm sure you
can figure it out.

"Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> rick etter wrote:
> >>When I'm not
> >>laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
> >>in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
> >>think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.
> >
> > ==========================
> > Explain why is is wrong to kill them for your food and lifestyle, but
not
> > eat them? Anr those animals really better off, killer?
>
> Excuse me, idiot? How do I know you're an idiot? Because you're
> calling *me* a killer, and you're also contradicting yourself! You've
> asked for an explanation as to why it's wrong to kill animals for FOOD
> and my lifestyle but not EAT them. HUH? Care to try again, only this
> time make an attempt at sounding halfway intelligent? BTW, I do not
> wear, buy, use, or in any other way include animal-based products in MY
> lifestyle. So what the hell are you referring to?

He's referring to the millions of animals killed in the production of the
food vegetarians consume daily. You are repeating the standard vegan fallacy
of Denying the Antecedent.

Animal products cause harm to animals,
I don't consume animal products, therefore
I don't cause harm to animals.

Happy Thoughts wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Happy Thoughts wrote:
>>
>>> Blah blah blah...same old tired, worn out rhetoric.
>
>
>> You wouldn't be responding if you really thought that. You don't, of
>> course.
>
>
> Oh, but yes I do.

Oh, no, you don't. You are lying, just as you lie to
yourself and others about leading a "cruelty-free"
lifestyle.

> It's absolutely nothing new to me--same old illogical
> crap I've heard for 16 years.

You're lying again, killer. You have never read one
thing about efficiency of food production.

>
>> They're poorly thought out, if they're thought out at all; and there's
>> a massive, stinking amount of sanctimony and hypocrisy in them.
>> THAT'S what bothers me so much. Wouldn't that bother you?
>
>
> If you've read/heard other people's comments that struck you as being
> poorly thought out, fine. I won't argue that point. All I can say is
> that *I* made the decision to live as cruelty-free a lifestyle as I
> possibly can

You're not. You're not even coming close.

How much rice do you eat?

> because it makes *ME* feel better.

Your feeling better is based entirely on deliberate
self delusion.

> I really am not
> interested in why other people have made the choices they've made, at
> least not in terms of arguing with someone who uses those reasons as the
> basis of their argument. *I* don't want to be responsible for the
> suffering and slaughter of animals,

Oh, but you are VERY MUCH responsible for it, killer.

Check this out:
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm

Why do you shred baby deer?

> hence I've chosen a cruelty-free, vegetarian lifestyle. Period.

Your "lifestyle" is anything BUT "cruelty free". Period.

>
>>> Kindly spare me your standard, idiotic arguments as they don't hold
>>> any water with me. None of your lame attempts at rationalizing your
>>> 'position' on this has had any effect on me other than confirming my
>>> belief that you're just an angry, bitter person.
>
>
>> You don't believe that, either. You are just another defensive,
>> fearful "vegan" who knows you can't defend your beliefs.
>
>
> I don't believe what? That you're an angry, bitter person? Your posts
> indicate that you are!

No, they don't.

> Fearful of what? The only thing I could be
> fearful of, in this context, is that I'd be forced to return to eating
> meat...and I assure you, that's not going to happen.

No. Fearful of being shown, conclusive and
irrefutably, that your "lifestyle" is not the
"cruelty-free" feel-goodism that you stupidly believe
it to be.

You cause animals to die, needlessly, for the
production of the elements of your "lifestyle". Deal
with it. I suggest you deal with it by STOPPING this
sanctimonious, hypocritical bullshit about
"cruelty-free lifestyle". It's unadulterated bullshit.

"Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> rick etter wrote:
> >>When I'm not
> >>laughing at the incredible stupidity of your posts, I'm shaking my head
> >>in disbelief. You've drawn some very odd conclusions about people who
> >>think that killing animals for human consumption is wrong.
> >
> > ==========================
> > Explain why is is wrong to kill them for your food and lifestyle, but
not
> > eat them? Anr those animals really better off, killer?
>
> Excuse me, idiot?
=====================
Syas the ignorant dolt. Nixt time you should think a little before your
display your ignorance for all the world to see.


How do I know you're an idiot? Because you're
> calling *me* a killer, and you're also contradicting yourself!
====================
No, I'm not. And, yes, you are.


You've
> asked for an explanation as to why it's wrong to kill animals for FOOD
> and my lifestyle but not EAT them. HUH?
===========================
I guess you want to maintain that no animals die for your lifestyle, eh
killer? What a fool.


Care to try again, only this
> time make an attempt at sounding halfway intelligent? BTW, I do not
> wear, buy, use, or in any other way include animal-based products in MY
> lifestyle. So what the hell are you referring to?
========================
I'm referring the the mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and ampbibians that die
for your lifestyle by the untold millions and millions. If you are too
stupid and ignorant to know that, then I guess you are beyond help.
Is that the ignorance you want to confess to?


>
> << lots of ignorant, ridiculous bullshit snipped >>
==================
Nope, it was all perfectly reasonable and true. that you are too stupid to
understand the bloody footprints you track around all over the place is
quite apparent.

Now, answer the question, fool. Why is it ok to kill millions and millions
and millions of animals for your diet and lifestyle and not eat them?


>
> --
>
> "Vegetarians save lives every day"
> and other veggie items:
> www.SmartAssProducts.com

"Happy Thoughts" > wrote

> If you've read/heard other people's comments that struck you as being
> poorly thought out, fine. I won't argue that point. All I can say is
> that *I* made the decision to live as cruelty-free a lifestyle as I
> possibly can because it makes *ME* feel better.

That is obviously not true, the frivolous use of hydro power results in
direct and unnecessary harm to many animals, yet here you are, playing away
on your PC. So the fact is, your lifestyle is adapted to the extent that you
have decided is not too inconvenient for you, NOT "as much as you possibly
can".

> I really am not
> interested in why other people have made the choices they've made, at
> least not in terms of arguing with someone who uses those reasons as the
> basis of their argument. *I* don't want to be responsible for the
> suffering and slaughter of animals, hence I've chosen a cruelty-free,
> vegetarian lifestyle. Period.

You *are* responsible for the suffering of many animals, you just don't like
to see the evidence, period.

"Happy Thoughts" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Happy Thoughts wrote:
> >> Blah blah blah...same old tired, worn out rhetoric.
>
> > You wouldn't be responding if you really thought that. You don't, of
> > course.
>
> Oh, but yes I do. It's absolutely nothing new to me--same old illogical
> crap I've heard for 16 years.
>
> > They're poorly thought out, if they're thought out at all; and there's a
> > massive, stinking amount of sanctimony and hypocrisy in them. THAT'S
> > what bothers me so much. Wouldn't that bother you?
>
> If you've read/heard other people's comments that struck you as being
> poorly thought out, fine. I won't argue that point. All I can say is
> that *I* made the decision to live as cruelty-free a lifestyle as I
> possibly can because it makes *ME* feel better.
===========================
Your lying. You prove your lys each time you post to usenet killer. There
is no survival need to post here, you do that for entertainment. That
entertainment contributes to the death and suffering of animals. Therefore,
you lied. You do *not* do everything possible to live cruelty-free.


I really am not
> interested in why other people have made the choices they've made, at
> least not in terms of arguing with someone who uses those reasons as the
> basis of their argument. *I* don't want to be responsible for the
> suffering and slaughter of animals, hence I've chosen a cruelty-free,
> vegetarian lifestyle. Period.
========================
ROTFLMAO You really are this stupid, aren't you? You really do believe
that your diet causes no animal deathsm don't you? what a hoot!!!
Your diet kills. Period!



>
> >> Kindly spare me your standard, idiotic arguments as they don't hold
> >> any water with me. None of your lame attempts at rationalizing your
> >> 'position' on this has had any effect on me other than confirming my
> >> belief that you're just an angry, bitter person.
>
> > You don't believe that, either. You are just another defensive, fearful
> > "vegan" who knows you can't defend your beliefs.
>
> I don't believe what? That you're an angry, bitter person? Your posts
> indicate that you are! Fearful of what? The only thing I could be
> fearful of, in this context, is that I'd be forced to return to eating
> meat...and I assure you, that's not going to happen.
==================
Of course not, You prefer to kill them and leave them to rot. Why is that
more humane or moral, killer?


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite....



>
> Regards.
>
> --
>
> "Vietnam-era veterans for John Kerry"
> and other political items:
> www.SmartAssProducts.com

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...

>
> Rick's wording is a little opaque.

Classic understatement.

LOL