Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 03:54 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

Goo ****wit David Harrison - convicted fighting dog breeder & seller -
lied:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, wrote:

"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

"animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
poisoned."
Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl

Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
impression of your true position responded with,

"Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r

He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
the proposition of animal rights

Try to provide reason to believe that.

The proof is in the links.

There is no proof

The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
you.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself

"want people to think you disagree with yourself"- where do you *GET*
this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?

LOL! No


"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
*ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.


"HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree with yourself


Pure ****witted *ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned
sheep-pumping goober. Writing "HOW!" was an especially good example of
your cracker ****wittery, ****wit.

The proof is in the links, Goo. They're all fake - every one of them -
and you fell for it. You're stupid and gullible, ****wit.

  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:11:00 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:40:45 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:18:00 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:53:24 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:42:53 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:06:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, wrote:

"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

"animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
poisoned."
Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl

Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
impression of your true position responded with,

"Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r

He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
the proposition of animal rights

Try to provide reason to believe that.

The proof is in the links.

There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:

The p

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself then just try
explaining how you want them to think you do Goo. Go:

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where

LOL! No you stupid Goober, "HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree
with yourself?

"want people to think you disagree with yourself"


That's right Goob, if you want them to think you do. We know that you agree
with eliminationists/yourself about every bit of it Goo, but if you want people
to think that you do not then YOU need to explain how you think you disagree.
LOL...it's hilarious that you can't even make an attempt to explain what you so
obviously desperately want people to believe, Goo.


It sure is


It's good that you can laugh at your selfoutstupidifications, Goob.
  #243 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:24:19 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:50:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:24:59 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:57:56 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:44:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:07:04 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:56 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:

Wilson Woods:
They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.

So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,

You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
. . .
you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them."

Actual statement:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.

Goober we know you DO believe that:

the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
all.

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Goo

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Goo

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo

"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
experience life". They don't because there is no
alternative. They don't because they don't care
that they "get to experience life". They don't
because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Goo

""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo

"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo

"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Goo

No.

So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?

Of course not, ****wit - they don't.

Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
. . .
If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."

Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit

Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo

"Ge

Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them.

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS
causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized
by the animal in existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes moral
sense not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results
from killing them." - Goo

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.


Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them.


"according to yourself"


YOU MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the
only way to prevent the harm that results from killing them, Goo.
  #244 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-04-2012, 10:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:54:02 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:53:56 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:18:00 -0700, Goo cluelessly maundered:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:53:24 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:42:53 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:06:26 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:50:35 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:02:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:19:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

On 4/3/2012 11:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, wrote:

"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan [Goo] Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

"animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
poisoned."
Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl

Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
impression of your true position responded with,

"Excellent. The Gonad [Goo] himself explains that he's an "ARA",
AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r

He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
the proposition of animal rights

Try to provide reason to believe that.

The proof is in the links.

There is no proof Goo, but if you want people to think you disagree with
yourself then just try explaining how you want them to think you do. Go:

The p

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself then just try
explaining how you want them to think you do Goo. Go:

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where

LOL! No you stupid Goober, "HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree
with yourself?

"want people to think you disagree with yourself"


"HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree with yourself, you stupid
clueless Goober?


Pu


You obviously agree with eliminationists/yourself about every bit of it
Goober, and you have made that very clear by your inability to explain any ways
in which you want people to think you disagree with them/yourself.
  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 12:28 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

****wit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:


"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

"animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
poisoned."
Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl

Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
impression of your true position responded with,

"Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r

He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
the proposition of animal rights

Try to provide reason to believe that.

The proof is in the links.

There is no proof

The proof they are not my positions is in the links, Goo. You lose.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - where do you *GET*
this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?

LOL! No you stupid

"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
*ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.

That's right


It sure is, Goober, you ****ing sheep-pumping cracker ****wit. "want people
to think you disagree with yourself" - no educated person would ever write
shit like that.


It's good that you can laugh at


You. Everyone does.


  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 12:28 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

Goo ****wit David Harrison - convicted fighting dog breeder & seller - lied:


Wilson Woods:
They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.

So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,

You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
. . .
you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them."

Actual statement:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
prevent the harm that results from killing them.

Goober we know you DO believe that:

the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at
all.

"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
with never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
"decent lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
never existing." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO animals benefit from farming" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
experience life". They don't because there is no
alternative. They don't because they don't care
that they "get to experience life". They don't
because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
that entity." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

No.

So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?

Of course not, ****wit - they don't.

Then you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all.", Goo
. . .
If not, you still agree that "the nutritionally unnecessary choice
deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all."

Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit

Then you still agree that

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

Then according to yourself


"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.


Then according to yourself


"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.

"according to yourself" - you stupid ****ing illiterate cracker: it
should be "according to you."

You're stupid, Goo - stupid beyond belief. A loser.
  #247 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 12:28 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

Goo ****wit David Harrison - convicted fighting dog breeder & seller - lied:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:30:52 +0100, wrote:

"I'm a closet "ARA"."
Jonathan Ball 28 Jul 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3qgv9

"animals have a "right" to be born, and that animal
"rights" activists are doing something immoral *to
"unborn" farm animals* by advocating their elimination."
Jonathan Ball 16 Dec 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4uzbm

"animals "getting to experience life", NO MATTER
what the quality of that life is, is a good thing,
Jonathan Ball 20 Mar 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4caz9

"animals have rights."
Jonathan Ball 22 Jan 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6qpws

"animals hold a right against us not to be intentionally
poisoned."
Jonathan Ball 18 Nov 2003 http://tinyurl.com/7x5kl

Harrison, knowing they were only part quotes to give the opposite
impression of your true position responded with,

"Excellent. The Gonad himself explains that he's an "ARA",
AND that he insists the animals have a right to be born.
Great work Derek! You have very clearly shown the Gonad's
true beliefs, as well as plainly exposed him as the liar he is."
David Harrison (****wit) Feb 6 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bwbqm9r

He knew they were part quotes to undermine your true position against
the proposition of animal rights

Try to provide reason to believe that.

The proof is in the links.

There is no proof

The proof is in the links, Goo. If we go to one of them, we immediately
see that I never said anything like the fake quotes Derek put up to fool
you.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself

"want people to think you disagree with yourself"- where do you *GET*
this ****ing shitty style, Goo? Seriously, where? Do you have any
idea how stupid your writing makes you appear?

LOL! No


"want people to think you disagree with yourself" - pure ****witted
*ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned sheep-pumping goober.


"HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree with yourself


Pure ****witted *ILLITERATE* cracker-speak, you stupid goddamned
sheep-pumping goober. Writing "HOW!" was an especially good example of
your cracker ****wittery, ****wit.

The proof is in the links, Goo. They're all fake - every one of them -
and you fell for it. You're stupid and gullible, ****wit.
  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 04:49 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:28:41 -0700, Goo wrote:

Writing "HOW!"


You obviously agree with eliminationists/yourself about every bit of it
Goober, and you have made that very clear by your inability to explain any ways
in which you want people to think you disagree with them/yourself.
  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE Goo - lied:


Writing "HOW!" was an especially good example of your cracker ****wittery, ****wit.

The proof is in the links, Goo. They're all fake - every one of them - and you fell for it. You're stupid and gullible, ****wit.


You obviously agree with eliminationists


No such thing as "eliminationists", ****wit - that's just another
bullshit made-up cracker word.

I do not agree with "aras" that there should be no livestock animals or
pets, Goo. You know this. You are lying, and you know you are lying,
when you say I "agree" with "aras" that livestock animals should not be
bred.

When you write:

"HOW!" do you want people to think you disagree with yourself

you reveal that you're a stupid, inconsequential Goober, Goo.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The 'vegan' shuffle" George Plimpton Vegan 0 08-05-2013 06:58 AM
The dreaded supermarket shuffle Nancy Young General Cooking 25 23-08-2007 02:44 AM
Pan shuffle/toss technique!?! Andy General Cooking 9 31-10-2006 01:52 AM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017