On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
.. . .
>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.

Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
any of you try to present the absurd position that you:

"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
negative value" means anything."

It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.

On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
usually known - bullshitted:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
> . . .
>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>
> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>
> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
> negative value" means anything."

No, the issue is that *you* can't say how you can tell one from the
other in fact.


> significance of that aspect of the situation.

LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound stupid when you try to
sound erudite.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:01 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>. . .
>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>
>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>
>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>negative value" means anything."
>>
>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>significance of that aspect of the situation.
>
>LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound

Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
aspects of any situations, Goo.

>>But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.

On 5/12/2016 5:31 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On 4/29/2016 9:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
>> usually known - bullshitted:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if
>>>> livestock
>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>> . . .
>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness
>>>> in the
>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because
>>>> that
>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>> disregarded.
>>>
>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm
>>> curious if
>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>
>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of
>>> negative value" means anything."
>>
>> No, the issue is that *you* can't say how you can tell one from the
>> other in fact.
>>
>>
>>> significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>
>> LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound stupid when you try to
>> sound erudite.
>
> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
> aspects of any situations

There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
bullshit about, ****wit.

It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
to experience life." Only the products matter.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 18:09:07 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 12 May 2016 20:31:31 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:01 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>. . .
>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>
>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>
>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>
>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>>
>>>LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound
>>
>> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
>>aspects of any situations, Goo.
>
>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"

For you people not to anything that supports lives of positive value for any
domestic animals Goob. And maybe as you say there is no significance to any
aspects of any situations at all to you people, Goo.

>>>>But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>
>It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
>to experience life." Only the products matter.

Of course you people feel the same way about all wildlife, Goo.

On 5/19/2016 7:03 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 6:09 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/12/2016 5:31 PM, mur@. wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2016 9:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
>>>> usually known - bullshitted:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>
>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound
>>>
>>> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
>>> aspects of any situations, Goo.
>>
>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>
>> It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
>> to experience life." Only the products matter.
>
> For you people not to anything that supports lives of positive value for any

There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
bullshit about, ****wit.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Goo desperately puled:

>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>. . .
>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>
>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>
>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>negative value" means anything."
>>
>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>
>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"

He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen Goob, and
probably rightly so. He's probably afraid they're finally aware of his
participation in groups like this and even though they aren't likely to ever
oppose him or his heros like you and Ru here Goo, he's also not going to deny
that they subtly try to help him figure out how many significant aspects people
like he, Ru and you are not able to take into consideration, Goo.

On 5/25/2016 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
> On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>> . . .
>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>
>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>
>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>
>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>> significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>> doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>> specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>> they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>
>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you bullshit about, ****wit.
>
> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen

There is no significance.

On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:44:21 -0700, trying to save their position Goo insisted:

>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:31:52 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>. . .
>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>
>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>
>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>
>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>>
>>>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"
>>
>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen Goob, and
>>probably rightly so. He's probably afraid they're finally aware of his
>>participation in groups like this and even though they aren't likely to ever
>>oppose him or his heros like you and Ru here Goo, he's also not going to deny
>>that they subtly try to help him figure out how many significant aspects people
>>like he, Ru and you are not able to take into consideration, Goo.
>
>There is no significance.

We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.l

On 6/4/2016 7:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
> On 5/25/2016 2:44 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, ****wit David Harrison - "The"
>>>> ****wit - lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if
>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery,
>>>>>> because that
>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>>>> disregarded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm
>>>>> curious if
>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>
>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>>>> "lives of
>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed
>>>>> it with
>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or
>>>>> recognising the
>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to
>>>>> pretend he
>>>>> doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>> specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand
>>>>> kids, and how
>>>>> they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>>>
>>>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
>>>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>>
>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen
>>
>> There is no significance.
>
> We've been shown by

There is no significance, ****wit. You agree.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 00:20:05 -0700, Goo wrote:
..
>On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 22:38:00 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:44:21 -0700, trying to save their position Goo insisted:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:31:52 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>>>>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>>>>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"
>>>>
>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen Goob, and
>>>>probably rightly so. He's probably afraid they're finally aware of his
>>>>participation in groups like this and even though they aren't likely to ever
>>>>oppose him or his heros like you and Ru here Goo, he's also not going to deny
>>>>that they subtly try to help him figure out how many significant aspects people
>>>>like he, Ru and you are not able to take into consideration, Goo.
>>>
>>>There is no significance.
>>
>> We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
>>desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
>>let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.l
>
>There is no significance, ****wit.

YOU people can't appreciate any Goober...people like you, Ru, Ingred and
Derek. Other people certainly can Goob. I can, and apparently Derek's kids can
too, Goo.

On 6/8/2016 1:30 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
> On 6/5/2016 12:20 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/4/2016 7:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>> On 5/25/2016 2:44 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, ****wit David Harrison - "The"
>>>>>> ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if
>>>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery,
>>>>>>>> because that
>>>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>>>>>> disregarded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm
>>>>>>> curious if
>>>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>>>>>> "lives of
>>>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed
>>>>>>> it with
>>>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or
>>>>>>> recognising the
>>>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to
>>>>>>> pretend he
>>>>>>> doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>>>> specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand
>>>>>>> kids, and how
>>>>>>> they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be
>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
>>>>>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>>>>
>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen
>>>>
>>>> There is no significance.
>>>
>>> We've been shown by
>>
>> There is no significance, ****wit. You agree.
>
> YOU people can't appreciate

Nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. It's not important in any way.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:28:37 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
..
>On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:30:25 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 00:20:05 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>.
>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 22:38:00 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:44:21 -0700, trying to save their position Goo insisted:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:31:52 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>>>>>>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>>>>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>>>>>>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen Goob, and
>>>>>>probably rightly so. He's probably afraid they're finally aware of his
>>>>>>participation in groups like this and even though they aren't likely to ever
>>>>>>oppose him or his heros like you and Ru here Goo, he's also not going to deny
>>>>>>that they subtly try to help him figure out how many significant aspects people
>>>>>>like he, Ru and you are not able to take into consideration, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no significance.
>>>>
>>>> We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
>>>>desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
>>>>let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.l
>>>
>>>There is no significance, ****wit.
>>
>> YOU people can't appreciate any Goober...people like you, Ru, Ingred and
>>Derek. Other people certainly can Goob. I can, and apparently Derek's kids can
>>too, Goo.
>
>Nothing to "appreciate"

We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.

On 6/25/2016 8:57 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
> On 6/9/2016 9:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/8/2016 1:30 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>> On 6/5/2016 12:20 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2016 7:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>> On 5/25/2016 2:44 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, ****wit David Harrison - "The"
>>>>>>>> ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if
>>>>>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most
>>>>>>>>>> happiness
>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery,
>>>>>>>>>> because that
>>>>>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>>>>>>>> disregarded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life
>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>> curious if
>>>>>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value"
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> "lives of
>>>>>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed
>>>>>>>>> it with
>>>>>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or
>>>>>>>>> recognising the
>>>>>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru
>>>>>>>>> tries to
>>>>>>>>> pretend he
>>>>>>>>> doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm
>>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>>> specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand
>>>>>>>>> kids, and how
>>>>>>>>> they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be
>>>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
>>>>>>>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no significance.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been shown by
>>>>
>>>> There is no significance, ****wit. You agree.
>>>
>>> YOU people can't appreciate
>>
>> Nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. It's not important in any way.
>
> We've been shown

that there is nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. Yes.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:13:22 -0700, Goo claimed:
..
>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:57:10 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:28:37 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>.
>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:30:25 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 00:20:05 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 22:38:00 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:44:21 -0700, trying to save their position Goo insisted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:31:52 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>>>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>>>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>>>>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>>>>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>>>>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>>>>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>>>>>>>>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>>>>>>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>>>>>>>>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen Goob, and
>>>>>>>>probably rightly so. He's probably afraid they're finally aware of his
>>>>>>>>participation in groups like this and even though they aren't likely to ever
>>>>>>>>oppose him or his heros like you and Ru here Goo, he's also not going to deny
>>>>>>>>that they subtly try to help him figure out how many significant aspects people
>>>>>>>>like he, Ru and you are not able to take into consideration, Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no significance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
>>>>>>desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
>>>>>>let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.l
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no significance, ****wit.
>>>>
>>>> YOU people can't appreciate any Goober...people like you, Ru, Ingred and
>>>>Derek. Other people certainly can Goob. I can, and apparently Derek's kids can
>>>>too, Goo.
>>>
>>>Nothing to "appreciate"
>>
>> We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
>>desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
>>let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.
>
>that there is nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. Yes.

No that's not what they try to help him understand, Goo.

On 7/26/2016 10:45 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *THE* ****wit - lied:
> On 6/26/2016 7:13 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/25/2016 8:57 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>> On 6/9/2016 9:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/2016 1:30 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>> On 6/5/2016 12:20 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2016 7:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/2016 2:44 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit -
>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, ****wit David Harrison - "The"
>>>>>>>>>> ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> world if
>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most
>>>>>>>>>>>> happiness
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because that
>>>>>>>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarded.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> curious if
>>>>>>>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value"
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> "lives of
>>>>>>>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>> it with
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or
>>>>>>>>>>> recognising the
>>>>>>>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru
>>>>>>>>>>> tries to
>>>>>>>>>>> pretend he
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand
>>>>>>>>>>> kids, and how
>>>>>>>>>>> they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be
>>>>>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no significance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've been shown by
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no significance, ****wit. You agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU people can't appreciate
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. It's not important in any way.
>>>
>>> We've been shown
>>
>> that there is nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. Yes.
>
> No that's

Yes. That is exactly what we've been shown, ****wit.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:53:37 -0700, Goo blatantly lied:

>On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:45:29 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:13:22 -0700, Goo claimed:
>>.
>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:57:10 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:28:37 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:30:25 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 00:20:05 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 22:38:00 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:44:21 -0700, trying to save their position Goo insisted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 25 May 2016 14:31:52 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Goo desperately puled:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, mur@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be disregarded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm curious if
>>>>>>>>>>>>any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never discussed it with
>>>>>>>>>>>>anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or recognising the
>>>>>>>>>>>>significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru tries to pretend he
>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm wondering
>>>>>>>>>>>>specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or grand kids, and how
>>>>>>>>>>>>they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be honest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen Goob, and
>>>>>>>>>>probably rightly so. He's probably afraid they're finally aware of his
>>>>>>>>>>participation in groups like this and even though they aren't likely to ever
>>>>>>>>>>oppose him or his heros like you and Ru here Goo, he's also not going to deny
>>>>>>>>>>that they subtly try to help him figure out how many significant aspects people
>>>>>>>>>>like he, Ru and you are not able to take into consideration, Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no significance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
>>>>>>>>desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
>>>>>>>>let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no significance, ****wit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU people can't appreciate any Goober...people like you, Ru, Ingred and
>>>>>>Derek. Other people certainly can Goob. I can, and apparently Derek's kids can
>>>>>>too, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing to "appreciate"
>>>>
>>>> We've been shown by you people that's the position eliminationists are
>>>>desperate to maintain, Goob. We've also been shown that your boy is afraid to
>>>>let us know what his own kids try to help him understand about it, Goo.
>>>
>>>that there is nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. Yes.
>>
>> No that's not what they try to help him understand, Goo.
>
>Yes.

What do you think you could gain by obviously lying about what Derek's kids
try to help him understand, Goo?

On 8/4/2016 5:20 PM, ****wit David Harrison - *THE* ****wit - lied:
> On 7/26/2016 11:53 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/26/2016 10:45 AM, ****wit David Harrison - *THE* ****wit - lied:
>>> On 6/26/2016 7:13 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2016 8:57 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>> On 6/9/2016 9:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/8/2016 1:30 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/2016 12:20 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2016 7:38 PM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2016 2:44 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2016 11:31 AM, ****wit David Harrison - "The" ****wit -
>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:12:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:03:14 -0400, ****wit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The"
>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit - lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happiness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> curious if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative value" means anything."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's an easy concept to understand and so far I've never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone in person who had the slightest problem comprehending or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognising the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> significance of that aspect of the situation. But Doctor Ru
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tries to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretend he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't "believe the distinction" "means anything", so I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically if you try to pull that trick on your kids or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids, and how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they respond to it if/when you do try. Again, please TRY to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any
>>>>>>>>>>>> "situation" you
>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit about, ****wit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He certainly is very much afraid to tell us what does happen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no significance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We've been shown by
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no significance, ****wit. You agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU people can't appreciate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. It's not important in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been shown
>>>>
>>>> that there is nothing to "appreciate", ****wit. Yes.
>>>
>>> No that's
>>
>> Yes. That is exactly what we've been shown, ****wit.
>
> What do you think you could gain by obviously lying

No, ****wit. I'm not lying. You are lying, ****wit.