"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> ogers.com...
> >
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "katie" > wrote in message
> > > . rogers.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Common Man" <not.public@> wrote in message
> > > > news.com...
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:09:26 GMT, usual suspect
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Common Man wrote:
> > > > > ><...>
> > > > > >>> and chicken nuggets are kid food that you
> > > > > >>>can eat with your hands and get all messy with honey. they
just
> > > remind
> > > > me
> > > > > >>>of being a kid, and going on road trips and stuff. it's weird,
> but
> > > > it's
> > > > > >>>just a little bit of nice nostalgia to snack on sometimes.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But if the idea of eating meat grosses you out, then why eat
> > > something
> > > > > >> that reminds you of eating meat? That's the part I don't
> > understand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Katie seems like a sweet kid, but I don't think she's thought
this
> > > vegan
> > > > stuff
> > > > > >out very well yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > She does seem nice, but I'd have to agree that she probably hasn't
> > > > > thought this vegan stuff through very well. But then, it doesn't
> seem
> > > > > that many of them have.
> > > >
> > > > i have thought it out quite well. here's the deal. some vegan
folks
> > seem
> > > > to have this whole 'all or nothing' self loathing and deprivation
> thing
> > > > going on. like there's some perfect, attainable, 'vegan ideal' that
> > they
> > > > have to reach. especially the ones who make their lives miserable
by
> > > trying
> > > > to weed out absolutely EVERYTHING, as in, not watching movies or
> reading
> > > > books unless they've checked out the glue source on the binding. i
> > mean,
> > > > holy geez. i think choices that you make for yourself have to not
> make
> > > you
> > > > feel deprived, or you're going to totally start to loathe your
> existence
> > > or
> > > > throw the whole thing away because you've made it too hard. sure,
> > eating
> > > > analogues doesn't make sense to a lot of people.
> > > =================
> > > It shouldn't to you either, if saving animals is *really* a goal of
> yours.
> > > But then, you've proven over and over that doing 'all you can' to
> > eliminate
> > > unnecessary death and suffering of animals is of absolutely no concern
> to
> > > you.
> >
> > give it a rest man. we've all made our choices here. there's no need
for
> > you to belittle everyone and harp the same repetitive crap at them.
> ========================
> The same repetitive 'crap' is what comes from you, killer.

i believe this is the first time i have discussed vegan chicken nuggets ()
>
> not to
> > mention that you can't assume that i don't make choices 'to eliminate
> > unnecessary death and suffering of animals,' when you don't know
anything
> > about me, my lifestyle choices, or how i shop and eat.
> ====================
> Yes, I do. You are here on usenet fool. that alone proves that you
really
> care nothing about your unnecessary impact on animals. You're just
another
> in a long line of consumer oriented vegan loons that prefer thier selfish
> convenince and entertainment.
>
true, i am not willing to withdraw into the woods and not move a muscle for
fear of impacting animals. there has to be some sense of balance; you can't
expect people who care about animals to demand the complete dismantling of
society. there's just got to be a better way that the current model, to
exist in harmony, within 'modern' life.

> you're going on a
> > string of assumptions about me, and you don't even know me (or any of us
> > here, for that matter.) so just ratchet it back and chill out a little.
> =====================
> I'm as chilled as could be. ou on the other hand know you have something
to
> hide, so you have to try and keep the lys going, eh hypocrite?
>
>
if i had something to hide, i doubt i'd be talking about this stuff at all,
don't you think? seriously, i'm just being honest and pouring out my
thoughts. it's entirely possible to share our ideas with one another and
disagree without being disrespectful to one another.
> > >
> > >
> > > it doesn't fit into the
> > > > 'perfect' vegan mould. i should be happy with my brown rice and
> > > vegetables
> > > > right? but hey, we're humans, and most of us grew up eating animal
> > > > products. so obviously, with the strong emotional connections to
> food,
> > > > we're probably going to get nostalgic about animal foods sometimes.
> why
> > > not
> > > > just eat them? because i have chosen not to. and if there are
> > analogues
> > > > around that i like, what's wrong with me eating them? it's all just
> > food,
> > > > right?
> > > ====================
> > > Food that caused more animal death and suffering, and far brutal,
> inhumane
> > > deaths than if you just ate the real thing from the right source.
Now,
> > how
> > > is that even coming close to the 'vegan' ideal, killer?
> > >
> > there is absolutely no more evidence available for your position that a
> > vegan diet causes 'more animal death and suffering' than there is for
the
> > position that a vegan diet causes less.
> =======================
> Yes, there is. Vegans always snip out that part of my posts, or just
ignore
> them completely. I guess that includes you too, eh killer?

i have to disagree with you there.
>
>
> there is no extensive research on
> > this stuff. you compare an 'ideal' omnivorous diet to a 'typical' vegan
> > one, while vegans compare an 'ideal' vegan diet to a 'typical'
omnivorous
> > one. no one is going to 'prove' that they are right in this, so why not
> use
> > this forum as it was intended - to talk about vegan food, rather than
the
> > 'ethics' behind it?
> ==========================
> Because fool, I'm in an ethics newsgroup. Don't you know where you are,
> killer?
>
ooh, pardon me. i didn't notice that the post had jumped to include the
other board.
>
> and the name calling is hardly necessary. calling
> > everyone 'killer' is completely unkind.
> ==================
> No, it is not. It is the truth you ignorant fool.

again with the name calling. it's possible to disagree and still be nice to
your fellow humans, you know.
>
>
>
> if you truly want to be humane to
> > animals, why not start with your fellow human mammals, and try being
nice?
> =======================
> I am, to those that aren't ignorant hypocritical dolts, like you.

discriminatory niceness is a good start...but you could get really radical
and just be nice to everyone.
>
>
> > it doesn't mean that you don't get to disagree with people's personal
food
> > choices (not that what i choose to eat should be any of your concern),
it
> > just means that you can be civil about it.
> ======================
> You can't find anywhere that I am concerned about what you, or anyone else
> eats. It's when you foolishly and ignorantly make claims about your diet
> that you cannot back up that I remark on, killer. Ignorance and stupidity
> do not need ivility, they need education. Too bad you're too brainwashed
> and foolish to understand that, killer.

claims about my personal views on chicken nuggets? because that's what i
was talking about.
>
>
> Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
>
it's more of a tomato-sauce, really. although i have since learned that
cabbage rolls don't sit well so early in the day.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >You're right -- it's funny that those who shun meat so
> > > > > >vociferously and go out of their ways to make scenes about it
would
> > > also
> > > > get
> > > > > >"nostalgic" (since she put it that way) about it and seek out
stuff
> > > that
> > > > tastes
> > > > > >just like the real dead animals they abhor.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the part I don't understand. If I thought a certain act
was
> > > > > repulsive, then I wouldn't want to take part in anything that
comes
> > > > > even close to that act or reminds of that act.
> > > >
> > > > well...here's the thing. chicken nuggets don't seem anything like
> > > chicken,
> > > > don't you think? in fact, i have a cousin who will eat chicken
> nuggets
> > > > because they look so different from actual 'birdish' chicken, but
> won't
> > go
> > > > near any other chicken. which is extra weird since she's not
anything
> > > close
> > > > to a vegetarian. meh. anyhow, point is, i've always been grossed
out
> > by
> > > > chicken wings and stuff like that that has a bone that you have to
> gnaw
> > > at.
> > > > even when i was a kid, it repulsed me. and i grew up in a
> hunting/hick
> > > farm
> > > > type family. i mean, i grew up picking lead shot out of my dinner.
> > we'd
> > > > each have a little pile of shot on the side of our dinner plates.
> > > ewwwwwww.
> > > > anyhow, point is, not only do veggie chicken nuggets not taste like
> real
> > > > chicken, they also don't have the same texture, or even remotely
> > resemble
> > > > real chicken. if anything comes too close to the real thing, it
> really
> > > does
> > > > gross me out. in general, i don't tend to eat analogues much at
all.
> > > > although i do have a soft spot for veggie dogs - again, something
that
> > in
> > > no
> > > > way resembles...what....a pile of assorted animal assholes are they?
> > ()
> > > > it's hard to explain, i know. it's the emotion connected to the old
> > food
> > > > item that you can access without actually consuming a product that
> comes
> > > > close enough to the original 'meat' item to gross you out.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

katie wrote:

<snip>

> > The reason the debate is moving onto ethics is because this is
> > cross-posted to the alt.animals.ethics.veg group as well.
>
> seems to always happen with this stuff, whether it moves there or not. 'i
> have a recipe for carrots.' 'you eat carrots, you're a killer!' ()

Yes, unfortunately, the virulent name-calling makes some posts
virtually unreadable.

Incidentally, my current recipes for carrots are virtually
non-existent. I just wash 'em, cut 'em and eat 'em. Sometimes when my
parents are cooking the boil the carrots rather than just sticking
them into a salad. Not very exciting! Also, I like the taste of proper
carrots, not the long thin carrots which come pre-sliced - and they're
cheaper.

> > What kinds of these 'meat substitute' foods do you eat?
> > How much do they taste like the real thing, and surely, you can't forget
> that it's
> > not *real* when you're eating it?
>
> don't eat many, really. i try new ones every now and again, but the only
> ones i eat regularly are veggie dogs and veggie burgers. i've tried vegan
> schnitzel, weird viennese sausage thingers, chicken nuggets and patties,
> ground round, bologna, pepperonis, turkey luncheon meat, and meatballs.
> (oh, and some seriously hideous fake seafood that inadvertently came with my
> vietnamese soup once. all exactly the same except shaped like different
> foods ie shrimp, scallops...seriously nasty) there are many more but those
> are the only ones i've tried, i think. i find that i didn't like most of
> the things on that list. veggie dogs are a great hotdog sub, and my
> mcdonalds loving best friend, who was reluctant to try them, totally loved
> them. said that they didn't have the 'greasy animal feet' flavour that
> regular hotdogs had. interesting thing to hear from a meat lover.

I know several people who like the smell and atmosphere of a BBQ or
just plain sausages. When I asked my friend she said she just likes
outdoor cooking and the smell of meat being cooked - hmmm, not so
helpful I thought, she basically couldn't explain it so well which
makes me like your theory even more. Although, I'm not sure about the
nostalgia bit - doesn't that fade after a while? My memories of
childhood don't involve food at all, but I definitely ate as a kid

> veggie
> burgers are good because they make it easier to eat out with family, but if
> i'm at home, i don't usually buy them. i prefer to fry up a slab of tofu in
> mushroom sauce, garlic, onion, and chili powder, and use that as a burger
> patty.

Do you mean vegetable burgers, or vegetarian 'meat' burgers? I have
eaten the former before, with beans and other sprouty things inside
but they're just chewy and tasteless unless you add lots of sauce. I
think I just don't much like processed foods like these anymore, also
they taste really salty and you can't get rid of salt the same way you
can add it to food.

> i have really come to love the taste of tofu, and it sits much
> better than heavily processed analogues. the schnitzel and sausage things i
> tried once, and they both tasted 'interesting' and made me feel sick. most
> of this stuff doesn't sit well with me. too processed, i think. a giant
> chunk of wheat gluten sitting in your belly (the chicken stuff anyway).
> ick. i've tried ground round in tacos and sloppy joes, but it reminded me
> too much of meat and really grossed me out. i love to make my sloppy joes
> just with crumbled tofu, tastier and healthier. pepperonis were interesting
> to try, but i feel no need to consume them. same with bologna. meatballs
> made me feel sick and weren't too good. i would buy the turkey luncheon
> meat occasionally, because i have stumbled upon a gut-busting,
> greasily-delicious cooking accident with them. 12 grain bread fried up w/
> earth balance like a grilled cheese, with 'american' tofutti slices,
> turkey-ish stuff, and a layer of sliced olives...frigging delicious for
> those 'must have grease' days.

This is way more adventurous than the food we cook. It's generally veg
(peas, different sorts of beans, potatoes, sweetcorn etc.) all mixed
in with chopped tomatoes and peppers etc. It tastes really nice, with
naan or tortillas. Pasta and rice with this are also favourites. Can't
beat good old fruit though, it's the nicest sweetest food. But I'm
just weird!

> anyhow, most of thist stuff doesn't taste
> much at all like the 'real' thing, but has something about it (slight
> flavour, texture, shape) that is close enough to the original to 'work'
> somehow...sometimes. can't forget it's real, but sometimes (especially with
> fake beef), i worry that it's real and i just can't tell. but it's been so
> long since i ate beef, i just can't remember it accurately, and i'm sure if
> i did get fed some masquerading as veg beef, i'd be able to tell.
>
> > I'm just curious - I've never tried
> > products such as Quorn, perhaps it's because I haven't actually eaten
> > meat before so I don't want to 'revisit' the taste.
>
> i don't think you're missing anything. except maybe a tummy ache ()

This is another part to it - if you're cooking with veggie friends and
have some fresh veg etc. veggie food is delicious. Who knows, I might
like the taste of meat better, but I'm more than happy eating vegan
foods and so have no desire to do so.

> > I do have some
> > friends who like the smell of sausages but are vegetarians, so your
> > idea sounds like a good one, I'd have to ask them more on this,
> > though.
> >
> > And although I don't agree with everything that you say, it's clear
> > that you've got too much sense to be replying to posters who don't
> > respect your choices and your efforts to maintain a more beneficial
> > lifestyle.
>
> awww, thank you () i'm glad there are nice people around here!

I know my views are quite different and even directly opposed to
others' on here, but at least we should be nice to each other. This is
what motivates me, anyhow.

> > Nick.

"katie" > wrote in message
ers.com...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "katie" > wrote in message
> > ogers.com...
> > >
> > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "katie" > wrote in message
> > > > . rogers.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Common Man" <not.public@> wrote in message
> > > > > news.com...
> > > > > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:09:26 GMT, usual suspect
> >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Common Man wrote:
> > > > > > ><...>
> > > > > > >>> and chicken nuggets are kid food that you
> > > > > > >>>can eat with your hands and get all messy with honey. they
> just
> > > > remind
> > > > > me
> > > > > > >>>of being a kid, and going on road trips and stuff. it's
weird,
> > but
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > >>>just a little bit of nice nostalgia to snack on sometimes.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But if the idea of eating meat grosses you out, then why eat
> > > > something
> > > > > > >> that reminds you of eating meat? That's the part I don't
> > > understand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Katie seems like a sweet kid, but I don't think she's thought
> this
> > > > vegan
> > > > > stuff
> > > > > > >out very well yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > She does seem nice, but I'd have to agree that she probably
hasn't
> > > > > > thought this vegan stuff through very well. But then, it
doesn't
> > seem
> > > > > > that many of them have.
> > > > >
> > > > > i have thought it out quite well. here's the deal. some vegan
> folks
> > > seem
> > > > > to have this whole 'all or nothing' self loathing and deprivation
> > thing
> > > > > going on. like there's some perfect, attainable, 'vegan ideal'
that
> > > they
> > > > > have to reach. especially the ones who make their lives miserable
> by
> > > > trying
> > > > > to weed out absolutely EVERYTHING, as in, not watching movies or
> > reading
> > > > > books unless they've checked out the glue source on the binding.
i
> > > mean,
> > > > > holy geez. i think choices that you make for yourself have to not
> > make
> > > > you
> > > > > feel deprived, or you're going to totally start to loathe your
> > existence
> > > > or
> > > > > throw the whole thing away because you've made it too hard. sure,
> > > eating
> > > > > analogues doesn't make sense to a lot of people.
> > > > =================
> > > > It shouldn't to you either, if saving animals is *really* a goal of
> > yours.
> > > > But then, you've proven over and over that doing 'all you can' to
> > > eliminate
> > > > unnecessary death and suffering of animals is of absolutely no
concern
> > to
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > give it a rest man. we've all made our choices here. there's no need
> for
> > > you to belittle everyone and harp the same repetitive crap at them.
> > ========================
> > The same repetitive 'crap' is what comes from you, killer.
>
> i believe this is the first time i have discussed vegan chicken nuggets
()
> >
> > not to
> > > mention that you can't assume that i don't make choices 'to eliminate
> > > unnecessary death and suffering of animals,' when you don't know
> anything
> > > about me, my lifestyle choices, or how i shop and eat.
> > ====================
> > Yes, I do. You are here on usenet fool. that alone proves that you
> really
> > care nothing about your unnecessary impact on animals. You're just
> another
> > in a long line of consumer oriented vegan loons that prefer thier
selfish
> > convenince and entertainment.
> >
> true, i am not willing to withdraw into the woods and not move a muscle
for
> fear of impacting animals.
==================
I didn't say you had to, now did I? The fact remains that you make no
choices in the food you eat except to follow the simple rule for your simple
mind, 'eat no meat'.


there has to be some sense of balance; you can't
> expect people who care about animals to demand the complete dismantling of
> society. there's just got to be a better way that the current model, to
> exist in harmony, within 'modern' life.
====================
Then your claims of caring are just that, claims. There is no action to
back up those claims. Again, all you do is follow your simple rule.


>
> > you're going on a
> > > string of assumptions about me, and you don't even know me (or any of
us
> > > here, for that matter.) so just ratchet it back and chill out a
little.
> > =====================
> > I'm as chilled as could be. ou on the other hand know you have
something
> to
> > hide, so you have to try and keep the lys going, eh hypocrite?
> >
> >
> if i had something to hide, i doubt i'd be talking about this stuff at
all,
> don't you think? seriously, i'm just being honest and pouring out my
> thoughts. it's entirely possible to share our ideas with one another and
> disagree without being disrespectful to one another.
===================
Where have I been disrespectful? Telling the truth is now disrespect? What
a hoot!


> > > >
> > > >
> > > > it doesn't fit into the
> > > > > 'perfect' vegan mould. i should be happy with my brown rice and
> > > > vegetables
> > > > > right? but hey, we're humans, and most of us grew up eating
animal
> > > > > products. so obviously, with the strong emotional connections to
> > food,
> > > > > we're probably going to get nostalgic about animal foods
sometimes.
> > why
> > > > not
> > > > > just eat them? because i have chosen not to. and if there are
> > > analogues
> > > > > around that i like, what's wrong with me eating them? it's all
just
> > > food,
> > > > > right?
> > > > ====================
> > > > Food that caused more animal death and suffering, and far brutal,
> > inhumane
> > > > deaths than if you just ate the real thing from the right source.
> Now,
> > > how
> > > > is that even coming close to the 'vegan' ideal, killer?
> > > >
> > > there is absolutely no more evidence available for your position that
a
> > > vegan diet causes 'more animal death and suffering' than there is for
> the
> > > position that a vegan diet causes less.
> > =======================
> > Yes, there is. Vegans always snip out that part of my posts, or just
> ignore
> > them completely. I guess that includes you too, eh killer?
>
> i have to disagree with you there.
> >
> >
> > there is no extensive research on
> > > this stuff. you compare an 'ideal' omnivorous diet to a 'typical'
vegan
> > > one, while vegans compare an 'ideal' vegan diet to a 'typical'
> omnivorous
> > > one. no one is going to 'prove' that they are right in this, so why
not
> > use
> > > this forum as it was intended - to talk about vegan food, rather than
> the
> > > 'ethics' behind it?
> > ==========================
> > Because fool, I'm in an ethics newsgroup. Don't you know where you are,
> > killer?
> >
> ooh, pardon me. i didn't notice that the post had jumped to include the
> other board.
=======================
Try better next time then killer.


> >
> > and the name calling is hardly necessary. calling
> > > everyone 'killer' is completely unkind.
> > ==================
> > No, it is not. It is the truth you ignorant fool.
>
> again with the name calling. it's possible to disagree and still be nice
to
> your fellow humans, you know.
=====================
Truth is not nice or un-nice, it's just what it is, killer.


> >
> >
> >
> > if you truly want to be humane to
> > > animals, why not start with your fellow human mammals, and try being
> nice?
> > =======================
> > I am, to those that aren't ignorant hypocritical dolts, like you.
>
> discriminatory niceness is a good start...but you could get really radical
> and just be nice to everyone.
=======================
I am to those that don't ly and spew nonsense.


> >
> >
> > > it doesn't mean that you don't get to disagree with people's personal
> food
> > > choices (not that what i choose to eat should be any of your concern),
> it
> > > just means that you can be civil about it.
> > ======================
> > You can't find anywhere that I am concerned about what you, or anyone
else
> > eats. It's when you foolishly and ignorantly make claims about your
diet
> > that you cannot back up that I remark on, killer. Ignorance and
stupidity
> > do not need ivility, they need education. Too bad you're too
brainwashed
> > and foolish to understand that, killer.
>
> claims about my personal views on chicken nuggets? because that's what i
> was talking about.
======================
Lying again? Go back through the thread and you'll see you've talkied about
far more than nuggets, killer.


> >
> >
> > Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
> >
> it's more of a tomato-sauce, really. although i have since learned that
> cabbage rolls don't sit well so early in the day.
==================
Nope. It's drenched in the blood of the animals that die to provide your
food. that you continue to ignore that, and pretend it doesn't happen is
just more proof of your hypocrisy, killer.


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



snip...

"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> ers.com...

> > if i had something to hide, i doubt i'd be talking about this
stuff at
> all,
> > don't you think? seriously, i'm just being honest and pouring out
my
> > thoughts. it's entirely possible to share our ideas with one
another and
> > disagree without being disrespectful to one another.
> ===================
> Where have I been disrespectful? Telling the truth is now
disrespect? What
> a hoot!

Even if you were "telling the truth", what's that have to do with
respect? Answer: NOTHING. They are two different things. The fact is
that what you are claiming to be the truth is nothing more than your
own opinions that you insist on DISRESPECTFULLY imposing on people
here. You're like a shark who mindlessly attacks bait when he smells
blood in the water. You don't appear to be able to think for
yourself - you only parrot other people's words and throw in a few
simple insults of your own. To answer where you have been
disrespectful, here are a few quotes taken from just this post.

"Try better next time then killer."

"Truth is not nice or un-nice, it's just what it is, killer."

"Lying again? Go back through the thread and you'll see you've
talkied about far more than nuggets, killer."

"Nope. It's drenched in the blood of the animals that die to provide
your food. that you continue to ignore that, and pretend it doesn't
happen is just more proof of your hypocrisy, killer."

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

And then Katie suggests, "discriminatory niceness is a good
start...but you could get really radical and just be nice to
everyone.". You reply, "I am to those that don't ly and spew
nonsense." You balk when someone suggests that you are being
disrespectful and then you admit you're only nice to people who think
like you do (as much as you can think anyway). That you constantly
misspell "lie" just makes you look all the dumber. Maybe it's the
hormones in all that steak you eat....

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "katie" > wrote in message
> > ers.com...
>
> > > if i had something to hide, i doubt i'd be talking about this
> stuff at
> > all,
> > > don't you think? seriously, i'm just being honest and pouring out
> my
> > > thoughts. it's entirely possible to share our ideas with one
> another and
> > > disagree without being disrespectful to one another.
> > ===================
> > Where have I been disrespectful? Telling the truth is now
> disrespect? What
> > a hoot!
>
> Even if you were "telling the truth", what's that have to do with
> respect? Answer: NOTHING. They are two different things.
=======================
No, telling the truth is not disrepectful.



The fact is
> that what you are claiming to be the truth is nothing more than your
> own opinions that you insist on DISRESPECTFULLY imposing on people
> here.
========================
No, I am not. telling the truth is not disrespecyful.


You're like a shark who mindlessly attacks bait when he smells
> blood in the water. You don't appear to be able to think for
> yourself
==================
What a hoot! this from the briandead loon that proposes that veganism
automatically causes no/less/fewer animals to suffer and die. You really
are too stupid for this sputzy.



- you only parrot other people's words and throw in a few
> simple insults of your own. To answer where you have been
> disrespectful, here are a few quotes taken from just this post.
=======================
Show where I am parroting others words you ignorant fool. the posts i make
have been mine for a long time.



>
> "Try better next time then killer."
================
Nothing disrepectful there. You, her and I are all killers, stupid.


>
> "Truth is not nice or un-nice, it's just what it is, killer."
==================
Again, nothing disrepectful there, just the truth, fool.


>
> "Lying again? Go back through the thread and you'll see you've
> talkied about far more than nuggets, killer."
==================
Niothing there disrespectful, except her lyibng claim to have only been
discussing nuggets. I considering lying to be very disrespectful. But then,
being a mouth piece for vegans I guess that since all you have are lys it
doesn't seem so basd to you, eh killer?


>
> "Nope. It's drenched in the blood of the animals that die to provide
> your food. that you continue to ignore that, and pretend it doesn't
> happen is just more proof of your hypocrisy, killer."
==================
Again, just the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. What part of that
statement is untrue, killer?


>
> "Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite."
=================
Again, nothing disrepectful, just truth.


>
> And then Katie suggests, "discriminatory niceness is a good
> start.
====================
Lairs get what they desrve sputzy, truth. Youdon't like that because it
interferes with the vegan religion.


...but you could get really radical and just be nice to
> everyone.". You reply, "I am to those that don't ly and spew
> nonsense." You balk when someone suggests that you are being
> disrespectful and then you admit you're only nice to people who think
> like you do (as much as you can think anyway).
=====================
No fool. I have had perfectly resonable discussion with those I don't agree
with. It's the brainwashed vegan loons and their mouth pieces, like you,
that continue the lys and delusions of the religion that get an extra dose
of the truth.



That you constantly
> misspell "lie" just makes you look all the dumber. Maybe it's the
> hormones in all that steak you eat....
=====================
maybe if you weren't so stupid and unable to use your computer, you'd know
that my spelling of 'lys' is a speacial tribute to one of a.a.e.v most
prominent loony-toons, pearl. She used to use that as her screen name.
Very appropriate given the crap she posts all the time, eh?

Now that you've been reduced to an on-line spell checker, you whole argument
is lost, killer.


>
>

wrote:
> Of course that's just a lie to support your supposed vegan brothers
> Gonad. If they eat egg whites, they are supporting battery farming,
> so you snipped that part.

Plonk.

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard wrote:

>****wit David Harrison choked:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:03:31 GMT, Dieter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:29:51 GMT, Common Man <not.public@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>If they ate broiler chickens, then at least they would be contributing to birds
>>>>>>raised in open houses instead of confined to tiny cages.
>>>
>>>By not eating any chickens at all, ****wit, they are
>>>not "contributing" to ANY form of poultry husbandry.
>>
>>
>> Of course that's just a lie to support your supposed vegan brothers
>
>No, it isn't a lie, ****wit. The assumption is they
>don't eat poultry or any poultry products, including
>eggs. By not eating any, ****wit, they are not
>"contributing" to ANY form of poultry husbandry. You
>stupid, illiterate ****.
>
>> If they eat egg whites
>
>If they're "vegan", they don't eat egg whites.
>
>You stupid, illiterate ****.

ALL of the chicken substitutes that I've seen contain egg
whites Gonad. You stupid moron. You know so little about it,
you don't have any idea how little you know.

>>>The choice for THEM is not between "birds raised in
>>>open houses" and "birds confined to tiny cages",
>>
>>
>> They chose to contribute to battery farming
>
>No, ****wit.

Yes Gonad.

>You are, as always, wrong.
>
>>
>>
>>>and you KNOW it, ****wit. Why do you keep insisting on
>>>presenting your ****witted bogus choice as "the"
>>>choice", ****wit? You KNOW I'm always going to shoot
>>>it down, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> You can't shoot it down
>
>I already HAVE shot it down, ****wit, and driven a
>bulldozer over it.

You have, can, and will do nothing about it Gonad, except lie.

>> If a person
>> contributes to decent lives for farm animals, like grass raised beef
>> or broiler chickens, then that's what they do.
>
>You mean, they "contribute" to existence per se for
>farm animals, ****wit. That's ALL you're interested
>in, and we ALL know it. "Decent lives" is just a
>smokescreen for you; EXISTENCE, per se, is ALL you mean.

No. It's all that YOUR stupid argument allows. By your own insistance,
humans don't benefit more than farm animals, and no farm animals benefit
any more than any others, therefore according to YOUR stupid argument
is makes no difference how the animals are raised. You are opposed to
them having any life regardless of its quality, because all you care about
is the fact that they will be killed by humans. For that reason you want to
prevent people from considering ANY alternative to veg*nism.

>>>>>From what I've seen thus far, they don't let such facts get in the way
>>>>>of their beliefs.
>>>
>>>Neither does ****wit David Harrison.
>
>You not only don't let facts get in the way of your
>beliefs, ****wit, you don't even recognize meaningful
>facts at all.

Such as?

>>>>>> Of course if they ate grass raised beef, they could feed hundreds of people
>>>>>>from the life and death of the one animal. Each person who eats the fake
>>>>>>chicken is probably contributing to as many--and in some cases more--deaths
>>>>>>than hundreds of them would eating grass raised beef. But we know veg*ns
>>>>>>don't care even a tiny bit about things like that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be funny if it weren't so significant and pathetic.
>>>
>>>What's funny, ****wit, is that YOU are such a massive
>>>hypocrite, and think it isn't known. YOU don't eat
>>>grass-fed beef, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what I eat
>
>It does matter, ****wit.

How does it matter, and to whom or what does it matter?

>You are a hypocrite: a vile,
>lying, Willie Denson-blowing hypocrite.
>
>> The facts remain the same
>
>There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
>per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.

Why do you limit it to farm animals Gonad? Oh, that's right,
because you want to see them eliminated.

>It simply
>CANNOT be.

No Gonad, you stupid moron. Existence per se cannot be
a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities". That's
meaningless in regards to living things.

> wrote
> Jonathan Ball wrote:

> >There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
> >per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.
>
> Why do you limit it to farm animals Gonad?

He's not limiting it to farm animals, they just happen to be the main topic
of this discussion. No animal benefits "from being born".

> Oh, that's right,
> because you want to see them eliminated.

No, that's wrong, surely you must know it.

>
> >It simply
> >CANNOT be.
>
> No Gonad, you stupid moron. Existence per se cannot be
> a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities". That's
> meaningless in regards to living things.

Unborn (unconceived) animals are imaginary entities.

****wit David Harrison choked:

> Dieter wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:03:31 GMT, Dieter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:29:51 GMT, Common Man <not.public@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>If they ate broiler chickens, then at least they would be contributing to birds
>>>>>>>raised in open houses instead of confined to tiny cages.
>>>>
>>>>By not eating any chickens at all, ****wit, they are
>>>>not "contributing" to ANY form of poultry husbandry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course that's just a lie to support your supposed vegan brothers
>>
>>No, it isn't a lie, ****wit. The assumption is they
>>don't eat poultry or any poultry products, including
>>eggs. By not eating any, ****wit, they are not
>>"contributing" to ANY form of poultry husbandry. You
>>stupid, illiterate ****.
>>
>>
>>>If they eat egg whites
>>
>>If they're "vegan", they don't eat egg whites.
>>
>>You stupid, illiterate ****.
>
>
> ALL of the chicken substitutes that I've seen contain egg
> whites

No. You haven't seen any, you ****witted cocksucking liar.


>>>>The choice for THEM is not between "birds raised in
>>>>open houses" and "birds confined to tiny cages",
>>>
>>>
>>> They chose to contribute to battery farming
>>
>>No, ****wit.
>
>
> Yes

No, ****wit.

>
>
>>You are, as always, wrong.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>and you KNOW it, ****wit. Why do you keep insisting on
>>>>presenting your ****witted bogus choice as "the"
>>>>choice", ****wit? You KNOW I'm always going to shoot
>>>>it down, ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't shoot it down
>>
>>I already HAVE shot it down, ****wit, and driven a
>>bulldozer over it.
>
>
> You have, can, and will do nothing about it

I've shot it down, ****wit.


>>>If a person
>>>contributes to decent lives for farm animals, like grass raised beef
>>>or broiler chickens, then that's what they do.
>>
>>You mean, they "contribute" to existence per se for
>>farm animals, ****wit. That's ALL you're interested
>>in, and we ALL know it. "Decent lives" is just a
>>smokescreen for you; EXISTENCE, per se, is ALL you mean.
>
>
> No.

Yes, ****wit. Existence per se is ALL you mean. You
don't give a shit about "decent lives".


>>>>>>From what I've seen thus far, they don't let such facts get in the way
>>>>>
>>>>>>of their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>Neither does ****wit David Harrison.
>>
>>You not only don't let facts get in the way of your
>>beliefs, ****wit, you don't even recognize meaningful
>>facts at all.
>>


>>>>>>>chicken is probably contributing to as many--and in some cases more--deaths
>>>>>>>than hundreds of them would eating grass raised beef. But we know veg*ns
>>>>>>>don't care even a tiny bit about things like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apparently not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be funny if it weren't so significant and pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>What's funny, ****wit, is that YOU are such a massive
>>>>hypocrite, and think it isn't known. YOU don't eat
>>>>grass-fed beef, ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what I eat
>>
>>It does matter, ****wit.
>
>
> How does it matter, and to whom or what does it matter?

It matters in destroying your credibility by showing
that you are a hypocrite, ****wit. You claim people
ought to "promote decent lives" [baaarrrfff] for farm
animals by their choice of foods, but YOU DON'T DO IT
yourself. ****WIT.


>
>>You are a hypocrite: a vile,
>>lying, Willie Denson-blowing hypocrite.

Why do you have sex with Willie Denson, ****wit? Is
that the price for using his phone number?


>>
>>>The facts remain the same
>>
>>There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
>>per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.
>
>
> Why do you limit it to farm animals

I don't, ****wit, and of course, you know that.
Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living
thing, for very well documented and tightly logical
reasons that have been explained THOUSANDS of times
here, and that you, of course, cannot refute.

>
>>It simply
>>CANNOT be.
>
>
> Existence per se cannot be
> a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities".

You just successfully refuted your only argument,
****wit. You just admitted that NO animals "benefit"
from farming, ****wit.

Now leave.

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>>There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
>>>per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.
>>
>> Why do you limit it to farm animals Gonad?
>
>
> He's not limiting it to farm animals, they just happen to be the main topic
> of this discussion. No animal benefits "from being born".
>
>
>>Oh, that's right,
>>because you want to see them eliminated.
>
>
> No, that's wrong, surely you must know it.
>
>
>>>It simply
>>>CANNOT be.
>>
>> No Gonad, you stupid moron. Existence per se cannot be
>>a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities". That's
>>meaningless in regards to living things.
>
>
> Unborn (unconceived) animals are imaginary entities.

****wit does NOT consider them "imaginary". He's
lying. Here's the proof:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

They aren't imaginary to ****wit David Harrison
), they are very real.

As usual, ****wit David Harrison is trying to replay
stupid word games he has already lost.

"Dieter" > wrote
> ****wit David Harrison choked:
[..]
> >>>>What's funny, ****wit, is that YOU are such a massive
> >>>>hypocrite, and think it isn't known. YOU don't eat
> >>>>grass-fed beef, ****wit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't matter what I eat
> >>
> >>It does matter, ****wit.
> >
> >
> > How does it matter, and to whom or what does it matter?
>
> It matters in destroying your credibility by showing
> that you are a hypocrite, ****wit. You claim people
> ought to "promote decent lives" [baaarrrfff] for farm
> animals by their choice of foods, but YOU DON'T DO IT
> yourself. ****WIT.


Another way ****wit is eerily similiar to an ARA...

ARAs claim to respect the rights of animals, but DON'T DO IT.

****wit claims to be promoting "decent lives" for animals, but DOESN'T DO
IT.

Dutch wrote:

> "Dieter" > wrote
>
>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>
> [..]
>
>>>>>>What's funny, ****wit, is that YOU are such a massive
>>>>>>hypocrite, and think it isn't known. YOU don't eat
>>>>>>grass-fed beef, ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter what I eat
>>>>
>>>>It does matter, ****wit.
>>>
>>>
>>> How does it matter, and to whom or what does it matter?
>>
>>It matters in destroying your credibility by showing
>>that you are a hypocrite, ****wit. You claim people
>>ought to "promote decent lives" [baaarrrfff] for farm
>>animals by their choice of foods, but YOU DON'T DO IT
>>yourself. ****WIT.
>
>
>
> Another way ****wit is eerily similiar to an ARA...
>
> ARAs claim to respect the rights of animals, but DON'T DO IT.
>
> ****wit claims to be promoting "decent lives" for animals, but DOESN'T DO
> IT.

I hadn't thought of that, but it fits perfectly.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:43:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> >There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
>> >per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.
>>
>> Why do you limit it to farm animals Gonad?
>
>He's not limiting it to farm animals, they just happen to be the main topic
>of this discussion. No animal benefits "from being born".
>
>> Oh, that's right,
>> because you want to see them eliminated.
>
>No, that's wrong, surely you must know it.
>
>>
>> >It simply
>> >CANNOT be.
>>
>> No Gonad, you stupid moron. Existence per se cannot be
>> a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities". That's
>> meaningless in regards to living things.
>
>Unborn (unconceived) animals are imaginary entities.

A concept that's meaningless in regards to living things...except
to you "ARAs" who are trying to use the concept in support of your
hopes to eliminate farm animals.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:15:23 GMT, Dieter > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison choked:
>
>> Dieter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:03:31 GMT, Dieter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison choked:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:29:51 GMT, Common Man <not.public@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If they ate broiler chickens, then at least they would be contributing to birds
>>>>>>>>raised in open houses instead of confined to tiny cages.
>>>>>
>>>>>By not eating any chickens at all, ****wit, they are
>>>>>not "contributing" to ANY form of poultry husbandry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course that's just a lie to support your supposed vegan brothers
>>>
>>>No, it isn't a lie, ****wit. The assumption is they
>>>don't eat poultry or any poultry products, including
>>>eggs. By not eating any, ****wit, they are not
>>>"contributing" to ANY form of poultry husbandry. You
>>>stupid, illiterate ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If they eat egg whites
>>>
>>>If they're "vegan", they don't eat egg whites.
>>>
>>>You stupid, illiterate ****.
>>
>>
>> ALL of the chicken substitutes that I've seen contain egg
>> whites
>
>No. You haven't seen any, you ****witted cocksucking liar.

LOL!!! Life sure it hard for you "ARAs" Gonad. You have to
deny so much of reality in order for your tiny little world even to
exist between your own ears. Here are SOME of your beloved
meat substitutes which contain egg whites, Gonad, you clueless
moron:

Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
and Prosage Patties

Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties

Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties

Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets

>>>>>The choice for THEM is not between "birds raised in
>>>>>open houses" and "birds confined to tiny cages",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They chose to contribute to battery farming
>>>
>>>No, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> Yes
>
>No, ****wit.
>
>>
>>
>>>You are, as always, wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and you KNOW it, ****wit. Why do you keep insisting on
>>>>>presenting your ****witted bogus choice as "the"
>>>>>choice", ****wit? You KNOW I'm always going to shoot
>>>>>it down, ****wit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can't shoot it down
>>>
>>>I already HAVE shot it down, ****wit, and driven a
>>>bulldozer over it.
>>
>>
>> You have, can, and will do nothing about it
>
>I've shot it down, ****wit.
>
>
>>>>If a person
>>>>contributes to decent lives for farm animals, like grass raised beef
>>>>or broiler chickens, then that's what they do.
>>>
>>>You mean, they "contribute" to existence per se for
>>>farm animals, ****wit. That's ALL you're interested
>>>in, and we ALL know it. "Decent lives" is just a
>>>smokescreen for you; EXISTENCE, per se, is ALL you mean.
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes, ****wit. Existence per se is ALL you mean. You
>don't give a shit about "decent lives".
>
>
>>>>>>>From what I've seen thus far, they don't let such facts get in the way
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>of their beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Neither does ****wit David Harrison.
>>>
>>>You not only don't let facts get in the way of your
>>>beliefs, ****wit, you don't even recognize meaningful
>>>facts at all.
>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>>chicken is probably contributing to as many--and in some cases more--deaths
>>>>>>>>than hundreds of them would eating grass raised beef. But we know veg*ns
>>>>>>>>don't care even a tiny bit about things like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apparently not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be funny if it weren't so significant and pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>What's funny, ****wit, is that YOU are such a massive
>>>>>hypocrite, and think it isn't known. YOU don't eat
>>>>>grass-fed beef, ****wit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter what I eat
>>>
>>>It does matter, ****wit.
>>
>>
>> How does it matter, and to whom or what does it matter?
>
>It matters in destroying your credibility by showing
>that you are a hypocrite, ****wit. You claim people
>ought to "promote decent lives" [baaarrrfff] for farm
>animals by their choice of foods, but YOU DON'T DO IT
>yourself. ****WIT.

I do Gonad. Broiler chickens, turkeys and grain fed beef
have decent lives.

>>>You are a hypocrite: a vile,
>>>lying, Willie Denson-blowing hypocrite.
>
>Why do you have sex with Willie Denson, ****wit? Is
>that the price for using his phone number?
>
>
>>>
>>>>The facts remain the same
>>>
>>>There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
>>>per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.
>>
>>
>> Why do you limit it to farm animals
>
>I don't, ****wit, and of course, you know that.
>Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living
>thing, for very well documented and tightly logical
>reasons that have been explained THOUSANDS of times
>here, and that you, of course, cannot refute.
>
>>
>>>It simply
>>>CANNOT be.
>>
>>
>> Existence per se cannot be
>> a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities".
>
>You just successfully refuted your only argument,
>****wit. You just admitted that NO animals "benefit"
>from farming, ****wit.

You are an absolute moron Gonad. In order to have
refuted my only argument, I'd have to have shown how
your imaginary non-existent "entities" have any damn
thing to do with living animals. Neither of us have ever
done that Gonad. You moron.

>Now leave.

> wrote
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:43:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> >> >There is only ONE pertinent fact, ****wit: existence
> >> >per se is not a "benefit" to farm animals.
> >>
> >> Why do you limit it to farm animals Gonad?
> >
> >He's not limiting it to farm animals, they just happen to be the main
topic
> >of this discussion. No animal benefits "from being born".
> >
> >> Oh, that's right,
> >> because you want to see them eliminated.
> >
> >No, that's wrong, surely you must know it.
> >
> >>
> >> >It simply
> >> >CANNOT be.
> >>
> >> No Gonad, you stupid moron. Existence per se cannot be
> >> a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities". That's
> >> meaningless in regards to living things.
> >
> >Unborn (unconceived) animals are imaginary entities.
>
> A concept that's meaningless in regards to living things

A living thing cannot be born, therefore if being born is a benefit as you
claim, then it must be a benefit to an imaginary entity.

> ...except
> to you "ARAs" who are trying to use the concept in support of your
> hopes to eliminate farm animals.

It's your concept that being born is a benefit ****wit, not ours.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:43:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>

>>>> you stupid moron. Existence per se cannot be
>>>>a benefit to your imaginary non-existent "entities". That's
>>>>meaningless in regards to living things.
>>>
>>>Unborn (unconceived) animals are imaginary entities.
>>
>> A concept that's meaningless in regards to living things
>
>
> A living thing cannot be born, therefore if being born is a benefit as you
> claim, then it must be a benefit to an imaginary entity.

Heh heh heh...if you were dealing with a rational
person, that would end the debate. It's worth noting,
of course, that ****wit does NOT view the
"unconceived/unborn farm animals" as "imaginary"
entities; he regards them as ENTIRELY REAL entities:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

I don't know why ****wit bothers with such stupid lies
- I have a quote to PROVE he is lying for almost every
lie he tells!

>
>
>>...except to you "ARAs" who are trying to use the concept in support
>>of your hopes to eliminate farm animals.
>
>
> It's your concept that being born is a benefit ****wit, not ours.

We don't have "hopes to eliminate farm animals"; we're
not "aras". ****wit knows it, of course.