On 12/1/2012 4:50 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:49:42 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 11/30/2012 9:18 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>>>>>> you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>>>>>> knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>>>>>> out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>>>>>>>> it suits you.
>>>
>>>>>>>> You're right about that anyway.
>>>
>>>>> There, fixed it for you again. You're welcome.
>>>
>>>>>> You've had some time now.
>>>
>>>>> Yep
>>>
>>>>>> Do you think you can finally try to explain what
>>>>>> you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
>>>>>> still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?
>>>
>>>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>>>
>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>>>
>>> I'm not making a claim; you are. You claim that "life is a
>>> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>> claim, and it's up to you, not me, to support it.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I have shown that life - existence - *cannot* be a benefit.
>> A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. The
>> entity, and thus the entity's welfare, must *already* exist in order to
>> be capable of improvement. Therefore, existence cannot be a benefit.
>
> Yep, I saw it. And the moron has continually ignored it.

He has to pretend to ignore it - he knows if he attempted to tackle it
head on, he'd be crushed.


>>> As I said before, I've seen, and you've provided, exactly NO
>>> examples of "benefitting solely from life".
>>
>> Of course not. There can't be any - by definition.
>
> I'm just curious to see if he even acknowledges my comment,
> and if he posts *something* in reply. But I suspect he'll
> ignore it and repost his usual "Nyah, nyah; you can't show
> why existence isn't a benefit!" idiocy.

He will - absolutely guaranteed.


>>> Existence
>>> provides the framework in which benefit can exist, but it
>>> confers no benefit in itself.
>>
>> I'd phrase it a bit differently, but it's not a big material difference.
>> I would say that existence *is* the framework, or the necessary
>> condition, in which benefit can occur.
>
> A subtle difference, and I think either phrasing gets the
> point across. Ummm... not to him, of course, but to anyone
> with even a hint of cognitive ability.
>
>>> If you disagree it's up to you
>>> to provide evidence of some specific benefit conferred
>>> solely by existence.
>>
>> He can't - he won't even attempt it. ****wit - that's legally his name
>> - starts with ridiculous and false premises, mixes them up with his own
>> special cracker blend of illogic, and then "argues" by mere assertion
>> and repetition.
>>
>>
>>>> . I can't
>>>> read your mind
>>>
>>> You can't even read what's written, so that's no surprise.
>>
>> It's not so much that he can't, although his reading comprehension
>> ability is severely defective. It's more that he refuses to try.
>
> Seems so...
>

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:29:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:57:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:23:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:13:44 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:59:29 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:39:35 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:52:11 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:13:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:41:22 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:49:32 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:26:24 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:42:55 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to try to help the Goober and/or "Bob" and/or yourself try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to explain what you think is preventing you from benefitting from your life. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Already been done, multiple times. And just as above, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snipped the explanation and pretended it didn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try presenting an example if you think you're aware of one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No examples exist of "benefitting solely from life", which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is the point. Try to keep up, even if you are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You proved yourself a liar then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping you could at least attempt to pretend you have some clue what
>>>>>>>>>>you want people to think is preventing you from benefitting from your life, but
>>>>>>>>>>you've proven to have no clue what you want people to think is preventing you.
>>>>>>>>>>That is YOUR fault. You can't support your own claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've abandoned the effort to educate him in this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL!!! You don't have any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. I
>>>>>>>>knew it from the start, and now you've made it clear that you also finally found
>>>>>>>>out you don't have any idea. Hilarious!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whatever you say, Sparky. Continue to wallow in ignorance;
>>>>>>>it suits you.
>
>>>>>> You're right about that anyway.
>
>>>There, fixed it for you again. You're welcome.
>
>>>> You've had some time now.
>
>>>Yep
>
>>>>Do you think you can finally try to explain what
>>>>you think is preventing your life from being an advantage to you yet? Or are you
>>>>still completely unable to even make an attempt as you have been all along?
>
>>>, but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>
>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>
>I'm not making a claim;

You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
it from being.

>you are. You claim that "life is a
>benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>claim,

The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.

>and it's up to you, not me, to support it.

It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
you're totally unable to attempt to do.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
> from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.

No.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

<snip>

>>>>, but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.

>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim

>>I'm not making a claim;

> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>it from being.
>
>>you are. You claim that "life is a
>>benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>claim,

> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.

Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit, it makes it a
prerequisite for benefits one may or may not realize. If I
accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
benefit for you as an individual. Neither would be correct;
life is neither a benefit nor a harm, it's only a
prerequisite for either.

An airline boarding pass is a prerequisite for getting to
your destination, but it doesn't take you there. (I suspect
this analogy will only confuse you, but whatthehell, I
tried...)

>>and it's up to you, not me, to support it.
>
> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>you're totally unable to attempt to do.

But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 12/4/2012 10:09 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>
>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>
>>> I'm not making a claim;
>
>> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>> any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>> it from being.
>>
>>> you are. You claim that "life is a
>>> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>> claim,
>
>> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>>from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.
>
> Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit, it makes it a
> prerequisite for benefits one may or may not realize. If I
> accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
> is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
> benefit for you as an individual. Neither would be correct;
> life is neither a benefit nor a harm, it's only a
> prerequisite for either.

Correct. Life - existence - doesn't change the welfare of an entity.


> An airline boarding pass is a prerequisite for getting to
> your destination, but it doesn't take you there. (I suspect
> this analogy will only confuse you, but whatthehell, I
> tried...)
>
>>> and it's up to you, not me, to support it.
>>
>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>
> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:21:30 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/4/2012 10:09 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>>
>>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>>
>>>> I'm not making a claim;
>>
>>> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>>> any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>>> it from being.
>>>
>>>> you are. You claim that "life is a
>>>> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>>> claim,
>>
>>> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>>>from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.
>>
>> Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit, it makes it a
>> prerequisite for benefits one may or may not realize. If I
>> accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
>> is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
>> benefit for you as an individual. Neither would be correct;
>> life is neither a benefit nor a harm, it's only a
>> prerequisite for either.
>
>Correct. Life - existence - doesn't change the welfare of an entity.

Of course not; it only makes either good or bad possible.
But want to bet on whether he continues his mindless
babbling?

>> An airline boarding pass is a prerequisite for getting to
>> your destination, but it doesn't take you there. (I suspect
>> this analogy will only confuse you, but whatthehell, I
>> tried...)
>>
>>>> and it's up to you, not me, to support it.
>>>
>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>
>> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 12/5/2012 9:08 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:21:30 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 12/4/2012 10:09 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>>>
>>>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>>>
>>>>> I'm not making a claim;
>>>
>>>> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>>>> any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>>>> it from being.
>>>>
>>>>> you are. You claim that "life is a
>>>>> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>>>> claim,
>>>
>>>> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>>> >from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.
>>>
>>> Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit, it makes it a
>>> prerequisite for benefits one may or may not realize. If I
>>> accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
>>> is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
>>> benefit for you as an individual. Neither would be correct;
>>> life is neither a benefit nor a harm, it's only a
>>> prerequisite for either.
>>
>> Correct. Life - existence - doesn't change the welfare of an entity.
>
> Of course not; it only makes either good or bad possible.
> But want to bet on whether he continues his mindless
> babbling?

Oh, it's guaranteed he'll do that. He's been doing it for 14 years, and
his time is worth zero - why would he stop now?


>>> An airline boarding pass is a prerequisite for getting to
>>> your destination, but it doesn't take you there. (I suspect
>>> this analogy will only confuse you, but whatthehell, I
>>> tried...)
>>>
>>>>> and it's up to you, not me, to support it.
>>>>
>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>
>>> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:09:40 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>>, but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>
>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>
>>>I'm not making a claim;
>
>> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>>any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>>it from being.
>>
>>>you are. You claim that "life is a
>>>benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>>claim,
>
>> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>>from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.
>
>Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit,

It sure does.

>it makes it a
>prerequisite for benefits

AGAIN making it a benefit.

>one may or may not realize. If I
>accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
>is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
>benefit for you as an individual.

Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
value of life does change for individuals.
.. . .
>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>
>But I did

Not yet. Try now. Go:

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:09:40 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> , but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>>
>>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>>
>>>> I'm not making a claim;
>>
>>> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>>> any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>>> it from being.
>>>
>>>> you are. You claim that "life is a
>>>> benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>>> claim,
>>
>>> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>> >from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.
>>
>> Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit,
>
> It sure does.

No, it most certainly does not, *Goo*. Life *isn't* a benefit, *Goo*.


>> it makes it a
>> prerequisite for benefits
>
> AGAIN making it a benefit.

No, *Goo*. A benefit is something that *improves* the welfare of an
entity, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - doesn't do
that, *Goo*.


>> one may or may not realize. If I
>> accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
>> is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
>> benefit for you as an individual.
>
> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits

No.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:09:40 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:58:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:18:57 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:07 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:20:48 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>, but you continue to wallow in ignorance. So be it.
>>
>>>>> It's your fault because you can't attempt to back up your claim
>>
>>>>I'm not making a claim;
>>
>>> You sure are. You're claiming that life is NOT a benefit, but you can't make
>>>any attempt to back it up. You can't even pretend to have any idea what prevents
>>>it from being.
>>>
>>>>you are. You claim that "life is a
>>>>benefit". You provide zero evidence in support of that
>>>>claim,
>>
>>> The fact that when you lose your life you will no longer be able to benefit
>>>from anything proves that it's a benefit that makes all others possible.
>>
>>Wrong; that doesn't make life a benefit,
>
> It sure does.

Nope; sorry.

>>it makes it a
>>prerequisite for benefits
>
> AGAIN making it a benefit.

English isn't your native language, is it? Look up
"prerequisite".

>>one may or may not realize. If I
>>accepted your definition I could as easily argue that life
>>is a harm, an "anti-benefit", so to speak, if life holds no
>>benefit for you as an individual. Neither would be correct;
>>life is neither a benefit nor a harm, it's only a
>>prerequisite for either.
>
>>An airline boarding pass is a prerequisite for getting to
>>your destination, but it doesn't take you there. (I suspect
>>this analogy will only confuse you, but whatthehell, I
>>tried...)
>
> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>value of life does change for individuals.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>
>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>
> Not yet. Try now. Go:

Already done; no need to repeat. Your inability to
understand that it's *your* claim puts me under no
obligation to educate you, especially when my previous
attempts have fallen on fallow ground.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>value of life does change for individuals.
>
>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.

>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>
>>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>
>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>
>Alre

LOL!!!! You lose.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>value of life does change for individuals.
>>
>>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>
> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.

Idiot. Of course it varies. And a life in which only pain
and suffering are experienced canNOT be a "benefit" to the
individual experiencing it. That's the part you continually
miss, that life is only a prerequisite for experiencing
either joy *or* suffering, and that suffering is hardly a
"benefit" to the sufferer.

>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>
>>>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>
>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>
>>Already done; no need to repeat. Your inability to
>>understand that it's *your* claim puts me under no
>>obligation to educate you, especially when my previous
>>attempts have fallen on fallow ground.
>
> LOL!!!! You lose.

Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
"benefit". The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
yours is valid without evidence. And the evidence *must*
show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
individual experiencing it. Good luck with that.

And BTW, it doesn't help you to snip what I wrote as you did
above, because I'll continue to put it back (as I did) for
proper context.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>value of life does change for individuals.
>>>
>>>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>
>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>
>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>
>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>
>>>Alre
>>
>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>
>Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>"benefit".

The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
shows that life is a benefit. Duh.

>The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>yours is valid without evidence.

LOL!!! No you do not. You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
so clearly appears to be.

>And the evidence *must*
>show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>individual experiencing it.

Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit
the individual life a being experiences may not be. The goos, and you, are not
able to appreciate the distinction between these two definitions of the same
word:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings

2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>>value of life does change for individuals.
>>>>
>>>>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>>
>>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>>
>>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>>
>>>>Alre
>>>
>>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>>
>>Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>>"benefit".
>
> The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
>shows that life is a benefit. Duh.

No, it doesn't. It shows that life is a prerequisite for
experience of anything, good or bad, no more.

>>The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>>you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>>yours is valid without evidence.
>
> LOL!!! No you do not.

Yes, I do. And you've failed to do so.

> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
>attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
>so clearly appears to be.
>
>>And the evidence *must*
>>show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>>individual experiencing it.
>
> Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit

You don't "point it out", you assert it, with no evidence or
even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions
aren't facts.

>the individual life a being experiences may not be. The goos, and you, are not
>able to appreciate the distinction between these two definitions of the same
>word:
>_________________________________________________ ________
>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>distinctive quality of animate beings
>
>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>up the existence of an individual
>
>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life

Neither of these indicates that life is a "benefit". In
fact, they support my position that it's a condition.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:36 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>>>your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>>>value of life does change for individuals.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>>>
>>>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>>>require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>>>you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>>>fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>Alre
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>>>
>>>Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>>>"benefit".
>>
>> The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
>>shows that life is a benefit. Duh.
>
>No, it doesn't.

It sure does Goob.

>It shows that life is a prerequisite for
>experience of anything, good or bad,

That's the beneficial part, Goo. Duh.

>no more.
>
>>>The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>>>you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>>>yours is valid without evidence.
>>
>> LOL!!! No you do not.
>
>Yes, I do.

No Goober. You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
so clearly appears to be.
.. . .
>> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
>>attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
>>so clearly appears to be.
>>
>>>And the evidence *must*
>>>show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>>>individual experiencing it.
>>
>> Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit
>>the individual life a being experiences may not be. The goos, and you, are not
>>able to appreciate the distinction between these two definitions of the same
>>word:
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
>>distinctive quality of animate beings
>>
>>2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
>>up the existence of an individual
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life

>
>You don't "point it out", you assert it, with no evidence or
>even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions
>aren't facts.

I pointed out that you can't appreciate the distinction Goo, and then by
presenting it I pointed out what the distinction is. I showed clearly that
you're lying.

>Neither of these indicates that life is a "benefit". In
>fact, they support my position that it's a condition.

LOL.

****wit David Harrison - convicted felon - lied:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:36 -0700, Goo wrote:

Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.


>
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>>>> your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>>>> value of life does change for individuals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>>>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>>>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>>>> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alre
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>>>>
>>>> Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>>>> "benefit".
>>>
>>> The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
>>> shows that life is a benefit. Duh.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> It sure does

No, it doesn't, *Goo*.


>> It shows that life is a prerequisite for
>> experience of anything, good or bad,
>
> That's the beneficial part

No, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and
"getting to experience life" doesn't do that, *Goo*.


>> no more.
>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>>>> you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>>>> yours is valid without evidence.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! No you do not.
>>
>> Yes, I do.
>
> No

Yes, *Goo*, Bob Casanova does exactly that.


>>> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
>>> attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
>>> so clearly appears to be.
>>>
>>>> And the evidence *must*
>>>> show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>>>> individual experiencing it.
>>>
>>> Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit

It isn't.


>
>>
>> You don't "point it out", you assert it,

Exactly right. It's an empty, bullshit assertion.


> with no evidence or
>> even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions
>> aren't facts.
>
> I pointed out that

You "pointed out" nothing, *Goo*. In 14 years of bullshit futility
here, you have never "pointed out" a single thing.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>****wit David Harrison - convicted felon - lied:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:36 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.

Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.

Anyway, your responses serve quite well to refute his
further idiocies; thanks.

>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>>>>> your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>>>>> value of life does change for individuals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>>>>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>>>>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>>>>> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>>> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alre
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>>>>> "benefit".
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
>>>> shows that life is a benefit. Duh.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> It sure does
>
>No, it doesn't, *Goo*.
>
>
>>> It shows that life is a prerequisite for
>>> experience of anything, good or bad,
>>
>> That's the beneficial part
>
>No, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
> A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and
>"getting to experience life" doesn't do that, *Goo*.
>
>
>>> no more.
>>>
>>>>> The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>>>>> you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>>>>> yours is valid without evidence.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! No you do not.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do.
>>
>> No
>
>Yes, *Goo*, Bob Casanova does exactly that.
>
>
>>>> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
>>>> attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
>>>> so clearly appears to be.
>>>>
>>>>> And the evidence *must*
>>>>> show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>>>>> individual experiencing it.
>>>>
>>>> Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit
>
>It isn't.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> You don't "point it out", you assert it,
>
>Exactly right. It's an empty, bullshit assertion.
>
>
>> with no evidence or
>>> even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions
>>> aren't facts.
>>
>> I pointed out that
>
>You "pointed out" nothing, *Goo*. In 14 years of bullshit futility
>here, you have never "pointed out" a single thing.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - convicted felon - lied:
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:36 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>
> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.

What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
- that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.


> Anyway, your responses serve quite well to refute his
> further idiocies; thanks.

I confess I get a perverse pleasure from beating him up.


>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>>>>>> your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>>>>>> value of life does change for individuals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>>>>>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>>>>>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>>>>>> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>>>> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alre
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>>>>>> "benefit".
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
>>>>> shows that life is a benefit. Duh.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>
>>> It sure does
>>
>> No, it doesn't, *Goo*.
>>
>>
>>>> It shows that life is a prerequisite for
>>>> experience of anything, good or bad,
>>>
>>> That's the beneficial part
>>
>> No, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>> A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and
>> "getting to experience life" doesn't do that, *Goo*.
>>
>>
>>>> no more.
>>>>
>>>>>> The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>>>>>> you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>>>>>> yours is valid without evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! No you do not.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I do.
>>>
>>> No
>>
>> Yes, *Goo*, Bob Casanova does exactly that.
>>
>>
>>>>> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
>>>>> attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
>>>>> so clearly appears to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the evidence *must*
>>>>>> show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>>>>>> individual experiencing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit
>>
>> It isn't.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't "point it out", you assert it,
>>
>> Exactly right. It's an empty, bullshit assertion.
>>
>>
>>> with no evidence or
>>>> even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions
>>>> aren't facts.
>>>
>>> I pointed out that
>>
>> You "pointed out" nothing, *Goo*. In 14 years of bullshit futility
>> here, you have never "pointed out" a single thing.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>>
>>> ****wit David Harrison - convicted felon - lied:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:36 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>>
>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>
>What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>- that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.

Aha! OK, then he's even more of an idiot than I thought, and
that takes some real effort.

>> Anyway, your responses serve quite well to refute his
>> further idiocies; thanks.
>
>I confess I get a perverse pleasure from beating him up.

No problem... ;-)

>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:59:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:55:34 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:54:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:46:07 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:04:54 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Existence and life itself would still both be benefits to you even though
>>>>>>>>>> your life experience overall would be negative. It happens both ways and the
>>>>>>>>>> value of life does change for individuals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The value does change even though you're apparently unaware of the fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's up to you to support your claim that it's not a benefit, which would
>>>>>>>>>>>> require you saying what you want people to think prevents it from being, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're totally unable to attempt to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I did (including just above), and so have others. The
>>>>>>>>>>> fact that you are apparently incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>>>>> logic (or, in fact, damn near anything) isn't my problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not yet. Try now. Go:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alre
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL!!!! You lose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope; it's up to you to show how life is *always* a
>>>>>>> "benefit".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you can no longer benefit after you lose the benefit of life
>>>>>> shows that life is a benefit. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> It sure does
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't, *Goo*.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It shows that life is a prerequisite for
>>>>> experience of anything, good or bad,
>>>>
>>>> That's the beneficial part
>>>
>>> No, *Goo*. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit.
>>> A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity, and
>>> "getting to experience life" doesn't do that, *Goo*.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> no more.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The burden of proof is on the claimant (that's
>>>>>>> you), as it always is. I make no claim; I simply deny that
>>>>>>> yours is valid without evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!!! No you do not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Yes, *Goo*, Bob Casanova does exactly that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> You claim that it's NOT a benefit, but can't make any
>>>>>> attempt to pretend you have any clue what prevents it from being the benefit it
>>>>>> so clearly appears to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the evidence *must*
>>>>>>> show that a life of pain and suffering is a "benefit" to the
>>>>>>> individual experiencing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mine must NOT since I point out that even though life itself is a benefit
>>>
>>> It isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't "point it out", you assert it,
>>>
>>> Exactly right. It's an empty, bullshit assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>>> with no evidence or
>>>>> even valid logic to support that assertion. Assertions
>>>>> aren't facts.
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out that
>>>
>>> You "pointed out" nothing, *Goo*. In 14 years of bullshit futility
>>> here, you have never "pointed out" a single thing.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - blabbered:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>>>
>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>
>> What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>> Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>> - that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>> animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>
> so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
> support one of your many stupid ideas,

I am not Bob Casanova. You know it, and we know you know it.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
>>On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Goo wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob Casanova [Goo] wrote it, Goo. Check the headers.
>>>
>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>
>>What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>- that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>
> Goober so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>support one of your many stupid ideas, and praised you, it has ALWAYS turned out
>to be you doing it yourself dishonestly pretending to be more than one person.

Check the headers, idiot.

>Did you forget about all that Goob? IF that's not what's going on this time it
>will be the first time, Goo. But by this time I'm convinced it's you being
>dishonest AGAIN, like you did MANY times in the past pretending to be all of the
>following "different" people, and mo

Why do I disbelieve you? Experience, perhaps?

<snip "Everyone's out to get me!" list>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:09:48 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - blabbered:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>>
>>> What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>> Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>> - that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>> animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>>
>> so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>> support one of your many stupid ideas,
>
>I am not Bob Casanova. You know it, and we know you know it.

If this exchange were taking place in talk.origins I'd
comment that we're all Howard Hershey. But it would fall
flat here in s.s.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 12/21/2012 9:26 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Goo wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Goo:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova [Goo] wrote it, Goo. Check the headers.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>>
>>> What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>> Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>> - that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>> animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>>
>> Goober so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>> support one of your many stupid ideas, and praised you, it has ALWAYS turned out
>> to be you doing it yourself dishonestly pretending to be more than one person.
>
> Check the headers, idiot.
>
>> Did you forget about all that Goob? IF that's not what's going on this time it
>> will be the first time, Goo. But by this time I'm convinced it's you being
>> dishonest AGAIN, like you did MANY times in the past pretending to be all of the
>> following "different" people, and mo
>
> Why do I disbelieve you? Experience, perhaps?
>
> <snip "Everyone's out to get me!" list>

Some of the names on that list are aliases I've used; some are not. I
used to change my posting pseudonym more frequently in the past.

As I said earlier, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - eventually says that
anyone who argues with him is "me". He knows they're not. He knows
that you're not me, that you live in a completely different area, that
you have a different internet service provider, etc. He just likes to
be a little kid, that's all.

On 12/21/2012 9:27 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:09:48 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - blabbered:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>>>
>>>> What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>>> Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>>> - that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>>> animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>>>
>>> so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>>> support one of your many stupid ideas,
>>
>> I am not Bob Casanova. You know it, and we know you know it.
>
> If this exchange were taking place in talk.origins I'd
> comment that we're all Howard Hershey.

How about, "I am Spartacus!"

A long time ago, in the National Lampoon, I saw a cartoon that had a
whole bunch of likenesses of the late Ernest Borgnine. I forget the
main gag in the cartoon - I just recall that in the last panel, one of
the Borgnine images was growling, "Hell, we're ALL Ernest Borgnine!"


> But it would fall flat here in s.s.
>

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:46:06 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/21/2012 9:27 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:09:48 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>>
>>> ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - blabbered:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/2012 8:24 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:32:58 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>>>>
>>>>> What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>>>> Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>>>> - that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>>>> animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>>>>
>>>> so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>>>> support one of your many stupid ideas,
>>>
>>> I am not Bob Casanova. You know it, and we know you know it.
>>
>> If this exchange were taking place in talk.origins I'd
>> comment that we're all Howard Hershey.
>
>How about, "I am Spartacus!"

Good flick, especially Jean Simmons. ;-)

>A long time ago, in the National Lampoon, I saw a cartoon that had a
>whole bunch of likenesses of the late Ernest Borgnine. I forget the
>main gag in the cartoon - I just recall that in the last panel, one of
>the Borgnine images was growling, "Hell, we're ALL Ernest Borgnine!"
>
>
>> But it would fall flat here in s.s.
>>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:

<snip>

>>>I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.

>>Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>>headers.
>
> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?

Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is, other
than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.

>>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>>dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>>dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without being
>>>able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.

>>Again, no.

> Then say what you think is preventing it from being one

I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
the reasons is your problem, not mine.

>>Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>>would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>>only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>>It's a prerequisite for either benefits or the opposite, but
>>it's neither in itself.

> Now you need to try explaining what you want people to think prevents any
>prerequisite from being a benefit.

I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
the reasons is your problem, not mine.

>>"Everyone's out of step but me!" doesn't play here any more
>>than it does on the parade field. You're wrong, and your
>>boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>>being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
>>that you're also an idiot.

> Your boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>being able to show any evidence to support your claim

I have no claim; you do. My disagreement with your claim
isn't a claim which requires evidence, only logic. Which I
suppose explains why you can't understand it.

>>>Here's
>>>the upgraded list Goo, pretty much in order of appearance though I've no doubt
>>>there are more "other people" you've dishonestly pretended to be than I have on
>>>the list:
>>>

<snip fake "list">

>>>Bob Casanova

>>And based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension they're
>>almost certainly nearly all as incorrect as the last one.

> No. They're all different people that Goo has dishonestly pretended to be

Sorry, but I won't take your word for that.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker - lied:

>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote it, *Goo*. Check the headers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, but being an idiot he failed to notice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What it actually is, is he's saying I'm posting using the name "Bob
>>>>>> Casanova." He basically claims to believe - even though he knows better
>>>>>> - that everyone who opposes his illogical cracker nonsense about
>>>>>> animals' "getting to experience life" being a "benefit" is actually me.
>>>>>
>>>>> George so far every time someone has just happened along and tried to
>>>>> support one of your many stupid ideas, and praised you, it has ALWAYS turned out
>>>>> to be you doing it yourself dishonestly pretending to be more than one person.
>>>>> Did you forget about all that Goob? IF that's not what's going on this time it
>>>>> will be the first time, Goo. But by this time I'm convinced it's you being
>>>>> dishonest AGAIN, like you did MANY times in the past pretending to be all of the
>>>>> following "different" people, and mo
>>>>
>>>> Why do I disbelieve you?
>>>
>>> You don't Goo.
>>
>> Actually, yes, I do.
>
> Does the fact that Goo did that

Did what, *Goo* - demolish your shitty "getting to experience life" fake
argument?


>> And I'm not George.
>
> LOL! I certainly can't take your word for it that

You can, and you do. You know that Bob is not me.


>>> You're pretending to be someone you're not. Someone very
>>> stupid MIGHT believe I'm lying about some of the things you DID DO, but we both
>>> know you know I'm just pointing out one of the contemptible facts about you.
>>>
>>>> <snip "Everyone's out to get me!" list>
>>>
>>> I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>>
>> Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>> headers.
>
> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?

You ****wit. There is location information in the headers, if you
didn't have your head so far up your ignorant cracker ass to find it.


>>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>> dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>> dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without being
>>> able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.
>>
>> Again, no.
>
> Then say what you think is preventing it from being one

You know what it is: existence doesn't improve the welfare of the
entity, and improving the welfare is the *definition* of benefit. Logic
and plain English definitions are what "prevent" it, *Goo*.

You are *Goo*, ****wit - not in dispute. Everyone knows it's short for
Goober, which is a term of derision aimed at stupid crackers like you.


>> Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>> would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>> only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>> It's a prerequisite
>
> Now you need to try explaining what

It has been explained. Existence - "getting to experience life" - is
not a benefit because it doesn't improve the welfare of the living
entity; it establishes it.

On 12/28/2012 8:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>
>>> Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>>> headers.
>>
>> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?
>
> Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is, other
> than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.
>
>>>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>>> dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>>> dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without being
>>>> able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.
>
>>> Again, no.
>
>> Then say what you think is preventing it from being one
>
> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
> the reasons is your problem, not mine.

Oh, he understands it, and he knows it's right, too. He knows he's
wrong on this, but because he's a worthless low-time-value cracker, he
just wants to be a ****wit. It's the only thing at which he succeeds.


>>> Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>>> would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>>> only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>>> It's a prerequisite for either benefits or the opposite, but
>>> it's neither in itself.
>
>> Now you need to try explaining what
>
> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
> the reasons is your problem, not mine.

He understands; he's just an asshole.


>
>>> "Everyone's out of step but me!" doesn't play here any more
>>> than it does on the parade field. You're wrong, and your
>>> boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>>> being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
>>> that you're also an idiot.
>
>> Your boring and repetitive insistence that
>
> I have no claim; you do. My disagreement with your claim
> isn't a claim which requires evidence, only logic.

Exactly - logic and definitions upon which the logic builds. Existence
- "getting to experience life", in ****wit's wretched cracker way of
speaking - is not a benefit because it doesn't improve an entity's
welfare, which is what "benefit" means.


> Which I
> suppose explains why you can't understand it.

He understands it; he's just being an asshole, because he has nothing
better to do with his worthless time.


>>>> Here's
>>>> the upgraded list Goo, pretty much in order of appearance though I've no doubt
>>>> there are more "other people" you've dishonestly pretended to be than I have on
>>>> the list:
>>>>
>
> <snip fake "list">
>
>>>> Bob Casanova
>
>>> And based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension they're
>>> almost certainly nearly all as incorrect as the last one.
>
>> No. They're all different people that George has dishonestly pretended to be
>
> Sorry, but I won't take your word for that.

Some are other posting pseudonyms - "nyms" in Usenet vernacular - that
I've used, but many are not.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:53:54 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/28/2012 8:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>>
>>>> Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>>>> headers.
>>>
>>> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?
>>
>> Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is, other
>> than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.
>>
>>>>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>>>> dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>>>> dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without being
>>>>> able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.
>>
>>>> Again, no.
>>
>>> Then say what you think is preventing it from being one
>>
>> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
>> the reasons is your problem, not mine.
>
>Oh, he understands it, and he knows it's right, too. He knows he's
>wrong on this, but because he's a worthless low-time-value cracker, he
>just wants to be a ****wit. It's the only thing at which he succeeds.
>
>
>>>> Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>>>> would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>>>> only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>>>> It's a prerequisite for either benefits or the opposite, but
>>>> it's neither in itself.
>>
>>> Now you need to try explaining what
>>
>> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
>> the reasons is your problem, not mine.
>
>He understands; he's just an asshole.
>
>
>>
>>>> "Everyone's out of step but me!" doesn't play here any more
>>>> than it does on the parade field. You're wrong, and your
>>>> boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>>>> being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
>>>> that you're also an idiot.
>>
>>> Your boring and repetitive insistence that
>>
>> I have no claim; you do. My disagreement with your claim
>> isn't a claim which requires evidence, only logic.
>
>Exactly - logic and definitions upon which the logic builds. Existence
>- "getting to experience life", in ****wit's wretched cracker way of
>speaking - is not a benefit because it doesn't improve an entity's
>welfare, which is what "benefit" means.
>
>
>> Which I
>> suppose explains why you can't understand it.
>
>He understands it; he's just being an asshole, because he has nothing
>better to do with his worthless time.
>
>
>>>>> Here's
>>>>> the upgraded list Goo, pretty much in order of appearance though I've no doubt
>>>>> there are more "other people" you've dishonestly pretended to be than I have on
>>>>> the list:
>>>>>
>>
>> <snip fake "list">
>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova
>>
>>>> And based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension they're
>>>> almost certainly nearly all as incorrect as the last one.
>>
>>> No. They're all different people that George has dishonestly pretended to be
>>
>> Sorry, but I won't take your word for that.
>
>Some are other posting pseudonyms - "nyms" in Usenet vernacular - that
>I've used, but many are not.

No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
but you disagrees with him.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On 12/29/2012 8:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:53:54 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>
>> On 12/28/2012 8:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>>>>> headers.
>>>>
>>>> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?
>>>
>>> Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is, other
>>> than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.
>>>
>>>>>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>>>>> dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>>>>> dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without being
>>>>>> able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.
>>>
>>>>> Again, no.
>>>
>>>> Then say what you think is preventing it from being one
>>>
>>> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
>>> the reasons is your problem, not mine.
>>
>> Oh, he understands it, and he knows it's right, too. He knows he's
>> wrong on this, but because he's a worthless low-time-value cracker, he
>> just wants to be a ****wit. It's the only thing at which he succeeds.
>>
>>
>>>>> Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>>>>> would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>>>>> only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>>>>> It's a prerequisite for either benefits or the opposite, but
>>>>> it's neither in itself.
>>>
>>>> Now you need to try explaining what
>>>
>>> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
>>> the reasons is your problem, not mine.
>>
>> He understands; he's just an asshole.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> "Everyone's out of step but me!" doesn't play here any more
>>>>> than it does on the parade field. You're wrong, and your
>>>>> boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>>>>> being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
>>>>> that you're also an idiot.
>>>
>>>> Your boring and repetitive insistence that
>>>
>>> I have no claim; you do. My disagreement with your claim
>>> isn't a claim which requires evidence, only logic.
>>
>> Exactly - logic and definitions upon which the logic builds. Existence
>> - "getting to experience life", in ****wit's wretched cracker way of
>> speaking - is not a benefit because it doesn't improve an entity's
>> welfare, which is what "benefit" means.
>>
>>
>>> Which I
>>> suppose explains why you can't understand it.
>>
>> He understands it; he's just being an asshole, because he has nothing
>> better to do with his worthless time.
>>
>>
>>>>>> Here's
>>>>>> the upgraded list Goo, pretty much in order of appearance though I've no doubt
>>>>>> there are more "other people" you've dishonestly pretended to be than I have on
>>>>>> the list:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip fake "list">
>>>
>>>>>> Bob Casanova
>>>
>>>>> And based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension they're
>>>>> almost certainly nearly all as incorrect as the last one.
>>>
>>>> No. They're all different people that George has dishonestly pretended to be
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I won't take your word for that.
>>
>> Some are other posting pseudonyms - "nyms" in Usenet vernacular - that
>> I've used, but many are not.
>
> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
> but you disagrees with him.

*NO* one agrees with him. Years ago in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
and talk.politics.animals, a number of other unquestionably anti-"ar"
posters told ****wit his grounds for opposing "ar" - that it would
prevent animals from "getting to experience life" - are not what is
fundamentally wrong with "ar" (animal rights.) Most said it once and
then ignored him. Among the "aras" (animal rights activists), most just
ignored him from the outset.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:21:14 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:

>On 12/29/2012 8:58 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:53:54 -0800, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by George Plimpton >:
>>
>>> On 12/28/2012 8:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>>>>>> headers.
>>>>>
>>>>> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is, other
>>>> than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You've been caught yet AGAIN
>>>>>>> dishonestly pretending to be "another" person, Goober. No one else would just
>>>>>>> dive in and start trying to help you insist life is not a benefit without being
>>>>>>> able to say what he thinks is preventing it from being one, JUST LIKE YOU.
>>>>
>>>>>> Again, no.
>>>>
>>>>> Then say what you think is preventing it from being one
>>>>
>>>> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
>>>> the reasons is your problem, not mine.
>>>
>>> Oh, he understands it, and he knows it's right, too. He knows he's
>>> wrong on this, but because he's a worthless low-time-value cracker, he
>>> just wants to be a ****wit. It's the only thing at which he succeeds.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Anyone capable of rational thought and logic
>>>>>> would be tempted to do the same, since your assertion is not
>>>>>> only wrong, but ridiculously so. Life is not a "benefit".
>>>>>> It's a prerequisite for either benefits or the opposite, but
>>>>>> it's neither in itself.
>>>>
>>>>> Now you need to try explaining what
>>>>
>>>> I've done so. Several times. Your inability to understand
>>>> the reasons is your problem, not mine.
>>>
>>> He understands; he's just an asshole.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "Everyone's out of step but me!" doesn't play here any more
>>>>>> than it does on the parade field. You're wrong, and your
>>>>>> boring and repetitive insistence that you're right without
>>>>>> being able to show any evidence to support your claim means
>>>>>> that you're also an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>> Your boring and repetitive insistence that
>>>>
>>>> I have no claim; you do. My disagreement with your claim
>>>> isn't a claim which requires evidence, only logic.
>>>
>>> Exactly - logic and definitions upon which the logic builds. Existence
>>> - "getting to experience life", in ****wit's wretched cracker way of
>>> speaking - is not a benefit because it doesn't improve an entity's
>>> welfare, which is what "benefit" means.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which I
>>>> suppose explains why you can't understand it.
>>>
>>> He understands it; he's just being an asshole, because he has nothing
>>> better to do with his worthless time.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Here's
>>>>>>> the upgraded list Goo, pretty much in order of appearance though I've no doubt
>>>>>>> there are more "other people" you've dishonestly pretended to be than I have on
>>>>>>> the list:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip fake "list">
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova
>>>>
>>>>>> And based on your demonstrated lack of comprehension they're
>>>>>> almost certainly nearly all as incorrect as the last one.
>>>>
>>>>> No. They're all different people that George has dishonestly pretended to be
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I won't take your word for that.
>>>
>>> Some are other posting pseudonyms - "nyms" in Usenet vernacular - that
>>> I've used, but many are not.
>>
>> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
>> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
>> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
>> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
>> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
>> but you disagrees with him.
>
>*NO* one agrees with him.

Well, no one sane and capable of rational thought, anyway.
And I've yet to see any responses which agree with him, so
maybe even the "insane and/or cognition-challenged" see
through his idiocies.

> Years ago in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
>and talk.politics.animals, a number of other unquestionably anti-"ar"
>posters told ****wit his grounds for opposing "ar" - that it would
>prevent animals from "getting to experience life" - are not what is
>fundamentally wrong with "ar" (animal rights.) Most said it once and
>then ignored him. Among the "aras" (animal rights activists), most just
>ignored him from the outset.

Probably the wisest choice, although responding "for the
benefit of the lurkers" has at least some merit.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:

>You know that Bob is not me.

LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you, this
is the FIRST time some different human has just happened to start trying to
support your stupid idea without even the slightest ability to explain what he
wants people to think does the preventing, just like you Goo. In contrast to
that, YOU have done what I'm suspecting you of doing AGAIN dozens of times in
the past that I'm aware of, and almost certainly dozens of more times that I'm
not aware of. What percentage of the different people you've pretended to be are
on my list Goob? Do I have even ten percent of the different people you've
dishonestly pretended to be Goober? There are probably less than ten percent on
the list, Goo.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>thin mask

LOL!!! They are all "different" people Goo has dishonestly pretended to be
over the years. You're right to think it's lowlife and contemptible because it
is, but Goo DID do it because that's what he is. If you're not Goo and you deny
to yourself what he did then it's because you don't want to accept what a
contemptible person the Goober is, but he still IS that way even if you fool
yourself into thinking he's not. LOL...HE fooled you into thinking he's not, but
you let yourself be fooled also. If you're not Goo you are both at fault and Goo
has successfully tricked you so he's one up on you big time. And all I'm doing
is pointing out what Goo did to you...LOL....IF you're not Goo....

>created to foster the belief in others that no one
>but you disagrees with him.

I didn't make Goo pretend to be the dozens of "different" people I've got on
the list, or the probably 4+ times MORE he has also dishonestly pretended to be
that I'm not aware of and don't have on the list. There are also quite a few I
know of that I don't have on the list, like he has dishonestly posted as me, and
as Ron Hamilton, and countless other people who do exist and he dishonestly
pretended to be in addition to all the others.

All eliminationists agree with Goo that the lives of livestock should not be
given as much or more consideration than their deaths, but all people who have
come through the forum who honestly favor decent AW over elimination have
naturally agreed with me. Two people who are misnomer opponents have said they
don't agree with me but neither could say why or how, and neither seemed to care
much if at all about welfare. One other person who I suspect of having been a
dishonest eliminationist like Goo had some oppositions, but even he admitted
that they were eliminationist arguments. All people who had anything to do with
raising animals have agreed with me, and THEY are the ones I respect and care
about the opinion of, not people who have never had any significant experience
around farms or livestock. Like a girl who was an ag student working with
fistulated cattle, and a woman who has her own farm and is much involved with an
AW organization in her area. And a rice farmer who wrote quite a bit explaining
to eliminationists how they contribute to the deaths of wildlife through their
purchasing of rice, but he also raises reduced cruelty livestock to sell to that
nich of people. Those are the type people who matter to me, not eliminationists
who want people to accept the elimination of all domestic animals and try to
promote it by insisting that nothing has ever benefitted from living, like you
and Goo.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>
>>You know that Bob is not me.
>
> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you

I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
yours you know it, even though it soothes your ego to
pretend to believe that only he disagrees with your
idiocies.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:13:13 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:48:32 -0700, Bob Casanova (Goo?)

Nope. And you know it, regardless of how much you wish I
were.

<snip dh idiocies>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:15:13 -0500, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>his insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>>thin mask
>
> LOL!!!

Stop giggling; it makes you sound even more stupid than the
idiocies you post (if that's even possible).

<snip further idiocies>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, George Plimpton defeated *Goo* easily again:
>
>> You know that Bob is not me.
>
> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of

You know I am not posting at Bob Casanova, *Goo*. You know it, and we
know you know it. Stop lying, *Goo*.

****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker - lied:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:48:32 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0500, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:26:00 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:44:39 -0500, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo*, an ignorant pig-****ing cracker - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:31:45 -0800, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> I'm adding Bob Casanova to your list Goo.
>>
>>>> Sorry, but no. As I said in a previous post, check the
>>>> headers.
>>>
>>> For what? Do you think Goo isn't capable of using more than one computer?
>>
>> Anyone is. But there's no reason to think *he* is, other
>> than your paranoia. And that's no reason at all.
>
> LOL!!! I have dozens of reasons and

*NO* reason, *Goo*. You're just doing your usual cracker asshole routine.

On 12/30/2012 10:15 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:58:02 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> No problem, a lot of people use multiple nyms for various
>> reasons, and the only group I know that forbids nymshifting
>> is talk.origins (because so many jerks use them to avoid
>> killfiles), and even t.o accepts *changing* a nym. But his
>> insistence that *all* those on his list are your nyms is a
>> thin mask created to foster the belief in others that no one
>> but you disagrees with him.
>
> LOL!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!


> They are all "different" people George has dishonestly pretended to

No, *Goo*. Many of them are nyms I've used - in fact, the majority of
them - but not all of them. Your ignorant cracker ****wittery has led
you to **** up *again*, *Goo*. Again and again and again.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

On 12/31/2012 8:54 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:12:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:40:21 -0800, Goo lied blatantly:
>>
>>> You know that Bob is not me.
>>
>> LOL!!!! That is the most blatant of lies Goober. IF "Bob" is not you
>
> I'm not, and I suspect that somewhere in that pea brain of
> yours you know it, even though it soothes your ego to
> pretend to believe that only he disagrees with your
> idiocies.

He does know it. He also knows that *all* the serious opponents of "ar"
disagreed with his cracker idiocy before they finally left. No one of
any serious reputation here ever agreed with him - no one.