On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:00:18 -0700, Goo cluelessly puled:

>On 11/14/2012 11:39 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>> He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>>> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>>
>> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game roosters
>> are. That alone is more than you can appreciate.
>
>A distinction without a difference. By your shitty cracker illogic,
>even if
>the fowl may once have been bred as game, they aren't now - none of you
>cracker ****stain fighting cock breeders breeds them in order to hunt
>them and eat them.

LOL! That's not the definition of game that their name refers to you stupid
clueless Goober. You have proven that what I pointed out is more than you can
appreciate, Goo.

On 5/13/2013 6:06 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 5/10/2013 7:00 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 11:39 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>
>>>> He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>>>> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>>>
>>> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game
>>> roosters
>>> are. That alone is more than you can appreciate.
>>
>> A distinction without a difference. By your shitty cracker illogic,
>> both of them "benefit" by "getting to experience life." Second, even if
>> the fowl may once have been bred as game, they aren't now - none of you
>> cracker ****stain fighting cock breeders breeds them in order to hunt
>> them and eat them.
>>
>> No, your stupid cracker illogic dictates that you *absolutely* support
>> breeding fighting dogs. And of course, you do.
>
> LOL! That's not the definition of game that

The fighting cocks you breed for combat are not game. That's settled,
*Goo* - not in dispute.

On 5/13/2013 6:06 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On 5/10/2013 7:00 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 11:39 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:33:09 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>
>>>> He's never been able to coherently explain why his
>>>> argument for cock fighting doesn't also defend dog fighting.
>>>
>>> For one thing the dogs aren't game by their nature but the game
>>> roosters
>>> are. That alone is more than you can appreciate.
>>
>> A distinction without a difference. By your shitty cracker illogic,
>> both of them "benefit" by "getting to experience life." Second, even if
>> the fowl may once have been bred as game, they aren't now - none of you
>> cracker ****stain fighting cock breeders breeds them in order to hunt
>> them and eat them.
>>
>> No, your stupid cracker illogic dictates that you *absolutely* support
>> breeding fighting dogs. And of course, you do.
>
> LOL! That's not the definition of game that

The fighting cocks you breed for combat are not game. That's settled,
*Goo* - not in dispute.