Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
non-existent but not imaginary.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, wrote:

>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality

Like what?

>Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
>non-existent but not imaginary.

What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.

wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, wrote:
>
> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>
> Like what?
>
> >Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
> >non-existent but not imaginary.
>
> What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.

You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit even though you have
been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
definition of the word "benefit". Of course, it's a definition you
can't and never will be able to comprehend. Face it Jethro, you are a
low-class shit-for-brains and will spend the rest of your life working
for minimum wage and buying your clothes at a second-hand thrift shop
and eating at a soup kitchen. Winos and junkies are higher up the
social ladder than you could ever hope to be.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>>
>> Like what?
>>
>> >Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
>> >non-existent but not imaginary.
>>
>> What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.
>
> You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
> situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
> claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit even though you have
> been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
> definition of the word "benefit". Of course, it's a definition you
> can't and never will be able to comprehend. Face it Jethro, you are a
> low-class shit-for-brains and will spend the rest of your life working
> for minimum wage and buying your clothes at a second-hand thrift shop
> and eating at a soup kitchen. Winos and junkies are higher up the
> social ladder than you could ever hope to be.

Eigh- up the ****ing cavalry has arrived.
Stand to attention at the back of the class. Like Ball, you have no interest
in animals Keven - only yourself.
>

On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800, wrote:

>
wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>>
>> Like what?
>>
>> >Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
>> >non-existent but not imaginary.
>>
>> What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.
>
>You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
>situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
>claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit

It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.

>even though you have
>been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
>definition of the word "benefit".

No, I never have. No one has been able to show that the
claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
able to.

>Of course, it's a definition you
>can't and never will be able to comprehend.
__________________________________________________ _______
BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
[...]
2. Advantage
[...]
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...eb1828=benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Life is the advantage=benefit which allows zygotes to grow
into animals. You must be either another, or the same moron.
Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?

wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,
wrote:
> >>
> >> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> >>
> >> Like what?
> >>
> >> >Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
> >> >non-existent but not imaginary.
> >>
> >> What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.
> >
> >You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
> >situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
> >claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit
>
> It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.

No. The fact that life makes benefits possible does not make life
itself a benefit.
>
> >even though you have
> >been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
> >definition of the word "benefit".
>
> No, I never have.

Yes you have. You're lying. Of course it was always in English which
you don't understand.

No one has been able to show that the
> claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
> able to.

You did it yourself below. Again, i's in English so you'll never
understand it.
>
> >Of course, it's a definition you
> >can't and never will be able to comprehend.
> __________________________________________________ _______
> BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
> [...]
> 2. Advantage
> [...]
>
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...texts_web1828=
=3Dbenefit
>
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> Life is the advantage=3Dbenefit which allows zygotes to grow
> into animals.

No. To support your clai you must show that life is an advantage
compared to never existing. You can't, your whole rant is childish
bullshit.


You must be either another, or the same moron.

Quit talking to yourself.



> Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?

You clueless sister-****ing cracker. I called you "Jethro", see if
you can figure it out from that. The racist slimeball Ray already did,
so you're even more dimwitted than Ray; that's bad Jethro, real bad.
Now, show that an animal, ANY animal, is better off after it is born
than before. You've claimed it for years without supporting it, why is
that?

You've really never paid attention to anything, have you Ray?

On 1 Feb 2005 14:25:46 -0800, wrote:

>
wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2005 11:47:32 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT,
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> >> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>> >>
>> >> Like what?
>> >>
>> >> >Farm animals that haven't been conceived and born are
>> >> >non-existent but not imaginary.
>> >>
>> >> What a stupid idea. You must be a moron.
>> >
>> >You calling someone else a moron is the ultimate pot, kettle, black
>> >situation. You are, let's remember, the dumbass who has spent years
>> >claiming that life, in and of itself, is a benefit
>>
>> It's the benefit which makes all others possible, yes.
>
>No. The fact that life makes benefits possible does not make life
>itself a benefit.
>>
>> >even though you have
>> >been shown numerous times that this claim contradicts the very
>> >definition of the word "benefit".
>>
>> No, I never have.
>
>Yes you have. You're lying. Of course it was always in English which
>you don't understand.
>
>No one has been able to show that the
>> claim contradicts a respectable definition, and no one will be
>> able to.
>
>You did it yourself below. Again, i's in English so you'll never
>understand it.

LOL!

>> >Of course, it's a definition you
>> >can't and never will be able to comprehend.
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> BEN'EFIT, n. [Primarily from L. beneficium, or benefactum.]
>> [...]
>> 2. Advantage
>> [...]
>>
>http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...eb1828=benefit
>>
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Life is the advantage=benefit which allows zygotes to grow
>> into animals.
>
>No. To support your clai you must show that life is an advantage
>compared to never existing.

Wrong. I only need point out that life is the advantage which
allows zygotes to grow into animals.

>You can't, your whole rant is childish
>bullshit.
>
>
>You must be either another, or the same moron.
>
>Quit talking to yourself.
>
>
>
>> Which is it Gonad? Are you you, or are you some other moron?
>
>You clueless sister-****ing cracker. I called you "Jethro",

LOL! I mean: ooh, aren't you the special little fruit.

>see if
>you can figure it out from that. The racist slimeball Ray already did,

Yes, he said you are Brandumbass. That certainly doesn't mean
you're not the Gonad too though, 'dumbass.

>so you're even more dimwitted than Ray; that's bad Jethro, real bad.
>Now, show that an animal, ANY animal, is better off after it is born
>than before. You've claimed it for years without supporting it, why is
>that?

I've pointed out several times that if the unborn animals are not born,
they will die and so will their mothers. But you're too stupid to understand
even that much Brandumb.

****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:
>
>
>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>
>
> Like what?

You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
unconceived farm animals are "something":

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


You STUPID, STUPID redneck.

For the 8,963rd time the sister-****ing uneducated cracker refuses to
support his dimwitted beliefs. Why can't you support your claims Jethro?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You've really never paid attention to anything, have you Ray?

Certainly not to anything Bawl has to say.

But the fact that someone is calling him names is enough to satisfy his ego.
I have said many times that Jonathan Ball does not exist as a real person.
He is a 'Usenet'
bad guy. Just someone to take a pop at if we have had a bad day.

As such, he serves a purpose. But so does a public convenience!

Now tell me I'm a pillock, that's the way it goes Kevin, very sad eh?
>

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>>
>>
>> Like what?
>
>You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
>unconceived farm animals are "something":
>
> The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> are more than just "nothing" . . .
> ****wit - 12/09/1999

I'm revising it:

The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
from having life they otherwise would have had.
Revised - 02/02/05
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
David Harrison does
Message-ID: t>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT

Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life.
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT

The rational person realizes:

1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in
a 'pre-born' state.

2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> >>
> >>
> >> Like what?
> >
> >You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
> >unconceived farm animals are "something":
> >
> > The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> > are more than just "nothing" . . .
> > ****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> I'm revising it:
>
> The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> are more than just "nothing" in the sense

In the sense you believe they are SOMETHING. You believe they are
SOMETHING that can experience:

- loss: Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

- deprivation: What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
****wit - 01/08/2002

- unfairness: What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999

You believe unconceived, non-existent farm animals can have enemies:

People who encourage vegetarianism are the worst
enemy that [unconceived] animals we raise for food
have IMO.
****wit - 09/13/1999

No revisions allowed, ****wit. You are on the record, and you are not
really revising your thinking, you're just trying for a cheap revision
to the wording to something that will make you look slightly less
idiotic.

It won't work, ****wit. I'm still here to remind people of the truth
about your ****witted beliefs.

****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:03:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, responding to his OWN forgery,
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:21:26 GMT, ****wit David Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> >>
> >>
> >> Like what?
> >
> >You tell us, ****wit - YOU are the one who believes
> >unconceived farm animals are "something":
> >
> > The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> > are more than just "nothing" . . .
> > ****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> I'm revising it:

No, you're not.

>
> The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
> exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as David Harrison
> suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
> Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
> their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
> from having life they otherwise would have had.

That's nonsensical, ****wit. Your "whatever stops..." cannot logically
follow your "whether or not". If the animals DON'T exist, then you
cannot prevent "them" from "having" anything.

You, of course, believe they DO exist; that's why you keep writing
about preventing "them" from doing this and that. To you, ****WIT,
unconceived animals have a very real existence. You are an idiot for
thinking that, but there is zero doubt that you think it, and EVERY
shitty thing you've said over five and a half years of time wastage in
usenet is predicated on that belief. You'll never escape it, ****wit.

"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:53 am). "

What's up with that, chickenshit Dreck?


Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:
>
> >From: Rudy Canoza >
> >Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets=
..dogs.misc
> >Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as
****wit David Harrison does
> >Message-ID: t>
> >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
> >
> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>
>=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
> go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
> to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
> left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
> himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
> form of reality instead.
>
> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
>
> Why did you lie, Harrison?

Yes, why DID ****wit David Harrison lie?

But why would you be so concerned that this relatively innocuous
posting of yours not be archived, Dog-Beater Dreck? In any case, now
it WILL be archived.

On 2 Feb 2005 12:02:13 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
>This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:53 am). "
>
>What's up with that, chickenshit Dreck?

I post to other groups apart from this under different
names and don't allow them to be archived. I'm suffering
from a worse than usual bout of flu at the moment and
forgot to change all my settings prior to returning here.

>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> >From: Rudy Canoza >
>> >Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
>> >Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does
>> >Message-ID: t>
>> >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>> >
>> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>>
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
>> go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
>> to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
>> left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
>> himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
>> form of reality instead.
>>
>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
>>
>> Why did you lie, Harrison?
>
>Yes, why DID ****wit David Harrison lie?

Search me guv.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2005 12:02:13 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
> >This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:53
am). "
> >
> >What's up with that, chickenshit Dreck?
>
> I post to other groups apart from this under different
> names and don't allow them to be archived. I'm suffering
> from a worse than usual bout of flu at the moment and
> forgot to change all my settings prior to returning here.

Why do you post using x-no-archive at all, Uncle Dog-Beater? Why
aren't you willing to stand by what you post?

>
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: Rudy Canoza >
> >> >Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets=
..dogs.misc
> >> >Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them
as ****wit David Harrison does
> >> >Message-ID: t>
> >> >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
> >> >
> >> >Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >> >some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> >>
>
>>=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> >> When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
> >> go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
> >> to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
> >> left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
> >> himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
> >> form of reality instead.
> >>
> >> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
> >>
> >> Why did you lie, Harrison?
> >
> >Yes, why DID ****wit David Harrison lie?
>=20
> Search me guv.

Jethro the redneck buffoon wrote:
The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
from having life they otherwise would have had.
Revised - 02/02/05

That doesn't help you at all Jethro. You've revised yourself right
into implying that birth-control is a moral wrong. You will always be a
stupid redneck cracker.

On 2 Feb 2005 12:18:24 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2005 12:02:13 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote:
>>
>> >"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
>> >This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9, 11:53am). "
>> >
>> >What's up with that, chickenshit Dreck?
>>
>> I post to other groups apart from this under different
>> names and don't allow them to be archived. I'm suffering
>> from a worse than usual bout of flu at the moment and
>> forgot to change all my settings prior to returning here.
>
>Why do you post using x-no-archive at all

Because I prefer to remain anonymous in those other
groups and don't think that the ideas I put forward in
them should be archived.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-Beater wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2005 12:18:24 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-Beater wrote:
> >> On 2 Feb 2005 12:02:13 -0800, "Rudy Canoza"
>wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be
archived.
> >> >This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Feb 9,
11:53am). "
> >> >
> >> >What's up with that, chickenshit Dreck?
> >>
> >> I post to other groups apart from this under different
> >> names and don't allow them to be archived. I'm suffering
> >> from a worse than usual bout of flu at the moment and
> >> forgot to change all my settings prior to returning here.
> >
> >Why do you post using x-no-archive at all
>
> Because I prefer to remain anonymous in those other
> groups and don't think that the ideas I put forward in
> them should be archived.

NONE of your ideas is worth being posted to usenet in the first place,
Uncle Dog-Beater, but given that you *do* post them, why don't you just
use an alias and let them be archived? What are you afraid might
happen if you allow them to be archived?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:
>
>>From: Rudy Canoza >
>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
>>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does
>>Message-ID: t>
>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>>
>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
>form of reality instead.
>
> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
>
>Why did you lie, Harrison?

Since I don't believe that, the lie was in posting a
sentence saying that I do. The Gonad wanted to
present the idea that they have some kind of reality,
and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence.
If you want to get on someone's ass for lying, you should
get on his for lying about me to begin with. But he's on
your side, and you guys gotta' stick together.

****wit David Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Claire's fat crippled Uncle
Dog-Beater wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, ****wit David Harrison, dummy,
wrote:
> >
> >>From: Rudy Canoza >
> >>Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets=
..dogs.misc
> >>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as
****wit David Harrison does
> >>Message-ID: t>
> >>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
> >>
> >>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> >>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>
>>=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> >When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
> >go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
> >to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
> >left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
> >himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
> >form of reality instead.
> >
> > "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> > some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
> >
> >Why did you lie, Harrison?
>
> Since I don't believe that

You DO believe that, ****wit. Unconceived farm animals have a very
vivid reality for you, as ALLLLLLLL those quotes show, but mostly this
one:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing" . . .
****wit - 12/09/1999

"more than just nothing", ****wit, means SOMETHING: you believe
unconceived farm animals are a very real SOMETHING.

YOU are the one lying here, ****wit, and I don't see how you can
possibly hope to get away with it. You can't.


> Rudy Canoza wanted to
> present the idea that they have some kind of reality

No, ****wit. I presented, with lots of evidence, the incontestable
fact that YOU, ****wit David Harrison, stupid redneck in Atlanta, are
the one who BELIEVES that unconceived farm animals have some kind of
reality:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing" . . .
****wit - 12/09/1999

You're just cooked, ****wit. You will never get out from under this.

On 3 Feb 2005 10:37:23 -0800, Gonad wrote:

>Mr Harrison wrote:

>> Gonad wanted to
>> present the idea that they have some kind of reality
>
>No

Obviously you did, and you did it.

****wit David Harrison, chickenshit ordinaire, wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2005 10:37:23 -0800, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison wrote:
>
> >> Rudy Canoza wanted to
> >> present the idea that they have some kind of reality
> >
> >No
>
> Obviously

Obviously, ****wit, YOU believe they have some kind of reality:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing" . . .
****wit - 12/09/1999

You're ****ed, ****wit. You can't run from your own words.

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
>>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
>>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
>>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
>>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
>>form of reality instead.
>>
>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
>>
>>Why did you lie, Harrison?
>
> Since I don't believe that, the lie was in posting a
> sentence saying that I do. The Gonad wanted to
> present the idea that they have some kind of reality,
> and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence.
> If you want to get on someone's ass for lying, you should
> get on his for lying about me to begin with. But he's on
> your side, and you guys gotta' stick together.

If *they* don't have a "pre-existence" then how is the misdeed of vegans not
supporting their coming into existence experienced?

· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
from having life they otherwise would have had.
Revised - 02/02/05
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
David Harrison does
Message-ID: t>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT

Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life.
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT

The rational person realizes:

1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in
a 'pre-born' state.

2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ·

> wrote in message
...
> · The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
> exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
> suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
> Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
> their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
> from having life they otherwise would have had.
> Revised - 02/02/05
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Rudy Canoza >
> Newsgroups:
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
> Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as
> ****wit
> David Harrison does
> Message-ID: t>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>
> Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Jonathan Ball >
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
> Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT
> Message-ID: . net>
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT
>
> Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
> pre-born state, or they do not.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Jonathan Ball >
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
> Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life.
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT
>
> The rational person realizes:
>
> 1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in
> a 'pre-born' state.
>
> 2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ·

Why would you post something that reveals you to be a liar and a fool?

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:04:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> · The lives of potential future animals raised for food
>> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
>> exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
>> suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
>> Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
>> their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
>> from having life they otherwise would have had.
>> Revised - 02/02/05
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
>> Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as
>> ****wit
>> David Harrison does
>> Message-ID: t>
>> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>>
>> Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: Jonathan Ball >
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
>> Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT
>> Message-ID: . net>
>> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT
>>
>> Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
>> pre-born state, or they do not.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: Jonathan Ball >
>> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
>> Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life.
>> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT
>>
>> The rational person realizes:
>>
>> 1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in
>> a 'pre-born' state.
>>
>> 2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ·
>
>Why would you post something that reveals you to be a liar and a fool?

Like what?

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:

> =B7 The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that

..=2E.in the sense that you believe they are SOMETHING, a SOMETHING with
an experiential reality. You believe they can experience:

- loss
- deprivation
- unfairness

You're just hosed, ****wit. You have written ALLLLLLLL those things,
and they reveal you to be an idiot cracker.

On 4 Feb 2005 13:23:35 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
>
>> · The lives of potential future animals raised for food
>> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that
>
>...in the sense that you believe they are SOMETHING, a SOMETHING with
>an experiential reality.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
David Harrison does
Message-ID: t>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2005 13:23:35 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
> >
> >> =B7 The lives of potential future animals raised for food
> >> are more than just "nothing" in the sense that
> >
> >...in the sense that you believe they are SOMETHING, a SOMETHING
with
> >an experiential reality.=20

Say something, dummy.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:53:59 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>From: Rudy Canoza >
>>>Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
>>>Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit David Harrison does
>>>Message-ID: t>
>>>Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>>>
>>>Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>>>some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>When clicking on that message ID you supplied, if you
>>go to that sentence Jon wrote it finishes by referring
>>to you and your beliefs, Harrison, but you unethically
>>left that part off to lead the reader into believing Jon
>>himself believes non-existent farm animals have some
>>form of reality instead.
>>
>> "Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to you."
>>
>>Why did you lie, Harrison?
>
> Since I don't believe that,

We'll see about 'that'. Read on.

>the lie was in posting a sentence saying that I do.

The lie was in posting an incomplete quote to lead the
reader into believing Jon, rather than you, reckon non-
existent animals have some kind of reality.

>The Gonad wanted to
>present the idea that they have some kind of reality,

Rather, you edited out a vital part in his quote to give
your readers that impression. You lied to them.

>and I just didn't include the lie at the end of his sentence.

It wasn't a lie, Harrison, because your quotes show
that you DO believe non-existent animals have some
kind of reality, exactly as Jon originally wrote before
you edited his quote.

Review the following discussion between ourselves
on this issue where you plainly assert unborn animals
have substance of living matter.

[start - me to you] *my edit
>>>>>>What proof are you going to offer that will
>>>>>>prove it (life)* is a benefit?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason you can benefit is because
>>>>>you have life.
>>>>
>>>>Then that ruins your argument, because you
>>>>have given the beneficiary of life a relative
>>>>position: alive, so it cannot now be advantaged
>>>>any further by giving it life. A benefit is
>>>>something gained from a relative position,
>>>>so if life is a benefit, what was that relative
>>>>position of the beneficiary before life if not
>>>>dead or unborn?
>>>
>>> Matter composing something else...sometimes
>>>something living or sometimes not.
>>
>>You're joking! You've now given a non-existing
>>beneficiary substance of matter as well as a
>>relative position of being alive before birth.
>
> No position of being alive before birth, though
>I consider it a possibility.

It's not a possibility. Unborn animals do not
have substance of matter, and they cannot
be alive before coming into being.

>You people who keep
>insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
>contempt for you.
>
Your quotes and this new revelation where
unborn animals have substance of matter
and possibly a life before coming into being
are testament to your beliefs. No one is
insisting anything you haven't already insisted
yourself, so if you have a contempt for me
and for those who produce your quotes here
in refutation to your claim that they've lied
about your beliefs, then it is only from some
deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on
your part.

"ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6

How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly
deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT
imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have
some kind of reality to you."?

>If you want to get on someone's ass for lying, you should
>get on his for lying about me to begin with.

He obviously hasn't lied about you, Harrison. Review
our earlier discussion and describe what this "matter"
is, and why you believe it's "sometimes something
living or sometimes not"?

>But he's on your side, and you guys gotta' stick together.

Jon and I do not 'stick together'.

Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote:
>
> [snip useful reposting of old exchange]
>
> >You people who keep
> >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
> >contempt for you.
> >
> Your quotes and this new revelation where
> unborn animals have substance of matter
> and possibly a life before coming into being
> are testament to your beliefs. No one is
> insisting anything you haven't already insisted
> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me
> and for those who produce your quotes here
> in refutation to your claim that they've lied
> about your beliefs, then it is only from some
> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on
> your part.
>
> "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6
>
> How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly
> deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT
> imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have
> some kind of reality to you."?

Realistically, he can't deny it. It won't stop him from trying,
though.

>
> >If you want to get on someone's ass for lying, you should
> >get on his for lying about me to begin with.
>
> He obviously hasn't lied about you, Harrison. Review
> our earlier discussion and describe what this "matter"
> is, and why you believe it's "sometimes something
> living or sometimes not"?

That earlier exchange from December 2003 was very useful in helping to
establish that I have NOT lied about ****wit's beliefs. He's just
miserable that I have done such a thorough job of tracking down and
cataloguing the things he has written that support my claims about what
he believes.

That earlier exchange contains a little nugget I didn't fully
appreciate at the time:

****wit:
I know that he tries to get me to make mistakes
and write things that I don't really believe. Of course
the question still remains, as it has for years now:
Why does he want people to think I believe things
that I don't? Why is it important to him what people
think that I believe? Of course if he's really a
dishonest "ARA" as I believe he is, then the reason
is more clear.

First of all, I have never tried to get him to make mistakes. I've
tried mightily to get him to write clearly what he believes, but
****wit for some reason thinks it amusing to write in horribly opaque
English. ****wit has NEVER written something that was a "mistake" in
the sense of not being what he really believes; his ONLY mistakes have
been precisely IN revealing what he truly believes.

Secondly, I don't want people to think that he believes things he
doesn't really believe. I have studiously accumulated ****wit's few
clear statements, and I have woven them together and presented them in
a way that provides an ACCURATE assessment of what ****wit believes.
****wit feels the need to lie and call those things "mistakes"
precisely because they show him to hold the bizarre, irrational beliefs
I have said he does, and they present a compelling argument for
concluding that he does believe them.

Thirdly, it should be obvious why I want to present ****wit's now-clear
beliefs in the light in which I do. I think ****wit opposes "veganism"
for a stupid reason. It isn't really a reason at all, and it
fundamentally does not address what "vegans" believe. ****wit wants
"vegans" to eat meat *because* it will "provide life" for farm animals,
but "vegans" have made clear they don't WANT any farm animals to exist.
****wit is talking right past "vegans". Given that I oppose
"veganism" for an entirely different set of reasons, I consider it
important to make clear that the main body of opposition to "ar" and
"veganism" does NOT accept ****wit's bizarre beliefs.

Finally, I'm not an "ara" at all, and ****wit knows it.


>
> >But he's on your side, and you guys gotta' stick together.
>
> Jon and I do not 'stick together'.

On 4 Feb 2005 14:42:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote:
>>
>> [snip useful reposting of old exchange]
>>
>> >You people who keep
>> >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
>> >contempt for you.
>> >
>> Your quotes and this new revelation where
>> unborn animals have substance of matter
>> and possibly a life before coming into being
>> are testament to your beliefs. No one is
>> insisting anything you haven't already insisted
>> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me
>> and for those who produce your quotes here
>> in refutation to your claim that they've lied
>> about your beliefs, then it is only from some
>> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on
>> your part.
>>
>> "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6
>>
>> How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly
>> deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT
>> imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have
>> some kind of reality to you."?
>
>Realistically, he can't deny it. It won't stop him from trying,
>though.

What I find ironic is that while trying to imply YOU
promote HIS proposition, he only does it in an effort
to ridicule you. Self-loathing?

>> >If you want to get on someone's ass for lying, you should
>> >get on his for lying about me to begin with.
>>
>> He obviously hasn't lied about you, Harrison. Review
>> our earlier discussion and describe what this "matter"
>> is, and why you believe it's "sometimes something
>> living or sometimes not"?
>
>That earlier exchange from December 2003 was very useful in helping to
>establish that I have NOT lied about ****wit's beliefs. He's just
>miserable that I have done such a thorough job of tracking down and
>cataloguing the things he has written that support my claims about what
>he believes.

Understandably, you've catalogued quotes from only
your own dealings with him on this issue, even though
there are better example dealings of my own which
prove he believes non-existent beings exist, as living
matter no less, and that 'it's' been floating around for
billions of years;

[start - Harrison]
>I believe
>the matter has been around for billions of years,
>and has composed many things during that time.

And this "matter" which has been around for
billions of years is what vegans are denying
the chance to experience life, according to
you, yet below this paragraph you've written,
"But matter can't benefit, ...", so what are you
referring to which needs the vegan's committed
consideration if it can't benefit from it anyway?
[end]

And let's not forget that he also believes this "matter",
though billions of years old, is "sometimes something
living or sometimes not"?

>That earlier exchange contains a little nugget I didn't fully
>appreciate at the time:
>
> ****wit:
> I know that he tries to get me to make mistakes
> and write things that I don't really believe. Of course
> the question still remains, as it has for years now:
> Why does he want people to think I believe things
> that I don't? Why is it important to him what people
> think that I believe? Of course if he's really a
> dishonest "ARA" as I believe he is, then the reason
> is more clear.
>
>First of all, I have never tried to get him to make mistakes. I've
>tried mightily to get him to write clearly what he believes, but
>****wit for some reason thinks it amusing to write in horribly opaque
>English. ****wit has NEVER written something that was a "mistake" in
>the sense of not being what he really believes; his ONLY mistakes have
>been precisely IN revealing what he truly believes.

Nope. His ONLY mistake is in not defending his
position. He can't deny what that position is, so why
doesn't he get on with it and start defending it?

>Secondly, I don't want people to think that he believes things he
>doesn't really believe. I have studiously accumulated ****wit's few
>clear statements, and I have woven them together and presented them in
>a way that provides an ACCURATE assessment of what ****wit believes.
>****wit feels the need to lie and call those things "mistakes"
>precisely because they show him to hold the bizarre, irrational beliefs
>I have said he does, and they present a compelling argument for
>concluding that he does believe them.
>
>Thirdly, it should be obvious why I want to present ****wit's now-clear
>beliefs in the light in which I do. I think ****wit opposes "veganism"
>for a stupid reason.

No, that's not your real reason for taking a special interest
in Harrison's proposition. Harrison's logic of the larder
lies behind the thinking of most meatarians and fur-wearers,
and vegans can easily nock them for that. You're trying to
silence the meatarian's majority view.

>It isn't really a reason at all, and it
>fundamentally does not address what "vegans" believe. ****wit wants
>"vegans" to eat meat *because* it will "provide life" for farm animals,

eg.
People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
David Harrison - 09/13/1999

You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
David Harrison - 01/08/2002


>but "vegans" have made clear they don't WANT any farm animals to exist.
> ****wit is talking right past "vegans". Given that I oppose
>"veganism" for an entirely different set of reasons, I consider it
>important to make clear that the main body of opposition to "ar" and
>"veganism" does NOT accept ****wit's bizarre beliefs.
>Finally, I'm not an "ara" at all, and ****wit knows it.
>
>
>>
>> >But he's on your side, and you guys gotta' stick together.
>>
>> Jon and I do not 'stick together'.

Derek wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2005 14:42:55 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:17:24 GMT, wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip useful reposting of old exchange]
> >>
> >> >You people who keep
> >> >insisting I believe it really create a feeling of
> >> >contempt for you.
> >> >
> >> Your quotes and this new revelation where
> >> unborn animals have substance of matter
> >> and possibly a life before coming into being
> >> are testament to your beliefs. No one is
> >> insisting anything you haven't already insisted
> >> yourself, so if you have a contempt for me
> >> and for those who produce your quotes here
> >> in refutation to your claim that they've lied
> >> about your beliefs, then it is only from some
> >> deep-rooted feeling of embarrassment on
> >> your part.
> >>
> >> "ipse dixit" (me) 03 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/6d9j6
> >>
> >> How, after reviewing that discussion can you possibly
> >> deny Jon's observation that, "Non-existent - but NOT
> >> imaginary - farm animals for some bizarre reason have
> >> some kind of reality to you."?
> >
> >Realistically, he can't deny it. It won't stop him from trying,
> >though.
>
> What I find ironic is that while trying to imply YOU
> promote HIS proposition, he only does it in an effort
> to ridicule you. Self-loathing?

If not exactly that - and I can't exclude it - it's at least an
acknowledgment that he knows his beliefs at least appear to be
ridiculous to the larger public. In fact, I think this awareness of
how his obvious beliefs appear to others is why he hates me so much,
because with good reason he blames me for the public perception.

His beliefs just are what they are, but because he writes so
abominably, it wasn't all that clear until I painstakingly assembled
the handful of clear things he wrote and wove them into a coherent
whole. That's what he hates me for.

Another thing for which I'm certain he hates me is the way I clarify
that his angle of attack on "vegans" is just BOUND to miss them by
miles. For some reason, he expects "vegans" to be moved by his
observation (of the obvious) that farm animals won't "get to experience
life" if "vegans" succeed in getting the world to go strictly
vegetarian. I think it's obvious to everyone that when he repeats his
observation, he intends it to be a criticism. But "vegans" clearly are
NOT going to feel criticized over it, because they not only don't think
that preventing farm animals from "getting to experience life" is a bad
thing, they positively think it's a GOOD thing.

If you go all the way back to (about) July 1999, give or take a few
weeks, when ****wit first began posting, it is painfully evident that
****wit thought something along the lines of the following:

- "vegans" claim to like animals;
- "veganism" causes fewer farm animals to live,
perhaps all the way to zero;
- if I point this out, "vegans" will feel bad (because
they like animals) and they'll give up "veganism"

His usually slovenly writing tied a lot of them up in knots, and they
were getting frustrated with him. I saw what was happening, and
determined to make clear that the majority of opponents of "ethical
vegetarianism" didn't accept ****wit's silliness. He's hated me ever
since.

****wit doesn't quite believe in "inner earth beings", but he's close
to being that nutty.


> >> >If you want to get on someone's ass for lying, you should
> >> >get on his for lying about me to begin with.
> >>
> >> He obviously hasn't lied about you, Harrison. Review
> >> our earlier discussion and describe what this "matter"
> >> is, and why you believe it's "sometimes something
> >> living or sometimes not"?
> >
> >That earlier exchange from December 2003 was very useful in helping
to
> >establish that I have NOT lied about ****wit's beliefs. He's just
> >miserable that I have done such a thorough job of tracking down and
> >cataloguing the things he has written that support my claims about
what
> >he believes.
>
> Understandably, you've catalogued quotes from only
> your own dealings with him on this issue, even though
> there are better example dealings of my own which
> prove he believes non-existent beings exist, as living
> matter no less, and that 'it's' been floating around for
> billions of years;
>
> [start - Harrison]
> >I believe the matter has been around for billions of
> >years, and has composed many things during that time.
>
> And this "matter" which has been around for
> billions of years is what vegans are denying
> the chance to experience life, according to
> you, yet below this paragraph you've written,
> "But matter can't benefit, ...", so what are you
> referring to which needs the vegan's committed
> consideration if it can't benefit from it anyway?
> [end]
>
> And let's not forget that he also believes this "matter",
> though billions of years old, is "sometimes something
> living or sometimes not"?
>
> >That earlier exchange contains a little nugget I didn't fully
> >appreciate at the time:
> >
> > ****wit:
> > I know that he tries to get me to make mistakes
> > and write things that I don't really believe. Of course
> > the question still remains, as it has for years now:
> > Why does he want people to think I believe things
> > that I don't? Why is it important to him what people
> > think that I believe? Of course if he's really a
> > dishonest "ARA" as I believe he is, then the reason
> > is more clear.
> >
> >First of all, I have never tried to get him to make mistakes. I've
> >tried mightily to get him to write clearly what he believes, but
> >****wit for some reason thinks it amusing to write in horribly
opaque
> >English. ****wit has NEVER written something that was a "mistake"
in
> >the sense of not being what he really believes; his ONLY mistakes
have
> >been precisely IN revealing what he truly believes.
>
> Nope. His ONLY mistake is in not defending his
> position. He can't deny what that position is, so why
> doesn't he get on with it and start defending it?
>
> >Secondly, I don't want people to think that he believes things he
> >doesn't really believe. I have studiously accumulated ****wit's few
> >clear statements, and I have woven them together and presented them
in
> >a way that provides an ACCURATE assessment of what ****wit believes.
> >****wit feels the need to lie and call those things "mistakes"
> >precisely because they show him to hold the bizarre, irrational
beliefs
> >I have said he does, and they present a compelling argument for
> >concluding that he does believe them.
> >
> >Thirdly, it should be obvious why I want to present ****wit's
now-clear
> >beliefs in the light in which I do. I think ****wit opposes
"veganism"
> >for a stupid reason.
>
> No, that's not your real reason for taking a special interest
> in Harrison's proposition. Harrison's logic of the larder
> lies behind the thinking of most meatarians and fur-wearers,

It doesn't, and you know it. You're just 'avin' a larf, and we can all
see it.

EVERY serious anti-"ar" poster here over the years has disagreed with
****wit. Some have tried to be kind about it, while others have openly
mocked him. Mercer, Martin Martins, Felix, diderot, James Hepler,
Swamp, Dutch, me.

> and vegans can easily nock them for that. You're trying to
> silence the meatarian's majority view.

I'm not, and you know it. It is not a majority view among omnivores.
There is no such word as "meatarian".

>
> >It isn't really a reason at all, and it
> >fundamentally does not address what "vegans" believe. ****wit wants
> >"vegans" to eat meat *because* it will "provide life" for farm
animals,
>
> eg.
> People who encourage vegetarianism are the
> worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
> have IMO.
> David Harrison - 09/13/1999
>
> You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
> future farm animals [of] living,
> David Harrison - 01/08/2002
>
>
> >but "vegans" have made clear they don't WANT any farm animals to
exist.
> > ****wit is talking right past "vegans". Given that I oppose
> >"veganism" for an entirely different set of reasons, I consider it
> >important to make clear that the main body of opposition to "ar" and
> >"veganism" does NOT accept ****wit's bizarre beliefs.
> >Finally, I'm not an "ara" at all, and ****wit knows it.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >But he's on your side, and you guys gotta' stick together.
> >>
> >> Jon and I do not 'stick together'.

wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:04:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Why would you post something that reveals you to be a liar and a fool?
>
>
> Like what?

Like those stupid quotes you mangled to make it appear
I was saying something other than what I really said.
Like these:

****wit's dishonest mangling of the quote:
humans deliberately killing animals for food is an
immoral thing to do.

What I really wrote:
Their ["vegans'"] biggest concern, ****wit, is that
humans
deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.


****wit's dishonest mangling:
killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
convenience is the worst violation of their rights.

What I really wrote:
It is irrelevant if the animals are consumed or not;
in the view of "aras", killing the animals
needlessly and merely for human convenience is the
worst violation of their rights.

Stupid, ****wit. Stupid, cheap, and guaranteed to turn
people against you. You deserve it.

I'm going to add this to the FAQ, ****wit.

wrote:

> On 4 Feb 2005 13:23:35 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
>>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that
>>
>>...in the sense that you believe they are SOMETHING, a SOMETHING with
>>an experiential reality.
>
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Rudy Canoza >
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
> Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
> David Harrison does
> Message-ID: t>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>
> Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That's another out-of-context mangling, ****wit. One
more for the FAQ.

What I really wrote:

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to
you [****wit].

Bad, bad effort, ****wit. One more for the FAQ.
There's going to be a whole new section in it:
****wit's deliberate distortion of quotes.

Strong work, ****wit.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:04:24 GMT, Gonad cried:

wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:04:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Why would you post something that reveals you to be a liar and a fool?
>>
>>
>> Like what?
>
>Like those stupid quotes you mangled to make it appear
>I was saying something

You did say something. You just lied about who wanted to present
the idea.

>other than what I really said.
>Like these:
>
> ****wit's dishonest mangling of the quote:
> humans deliberately killing animals for food is an
> immoral thing to do.
>
> What I really wrote:
> Their ["vegans'"] biggest concern, ****wit, is that
>humans
> deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
> thing to do.

You just lied about who wanted to present the idea.

> ****wit's dishonest mangling:
> killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
> convenience is the worst violation of their rights.
>
> What I really wrote:
> It is irrelevant if the animals are consumed or not;
> in the view of "aras", killing the animals
> needlessly and merely for human convenience is the
> worst violation of their rights.

You just lied about who wanted to present the idea.

>Stupid, ****wit. Stupid, cheap, and guaranteed to turn
>people against you. You deserve it.
>
>I'm going to add this to the FAQ, ****wit.

· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will
exist if nothing prevents them, and possibly as Gonad
suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.
Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops
their lives from happening is truly preventing animals
from having life they otherwise would have had.
Revised - 02/02/05
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
David Harrison does
Message-ID: t>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT

Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: The Illogic of the Larder, just for ****WIT
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:22:20 GMT

Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n
Subject: Livestock gain nothing from life.
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:00:58 GMT

The rational person realizes:

1. He *cannot* know if the animals exist in
a 'pre-born' state.

2. Even if they do, he knows nothing of that state
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ·

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:09:47 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On 4 Feb 2005 13:23:35 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, stupid cracker, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>· The lives of potential future animals raised for food
>>>>are more than just "nothing" in the sense that
>>>
>>>...in the sense that you believe they are SOMETHING, a SOMETHING with
>>>an experiential reality.
>>
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: Rudy Canoza >
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,rec.pets.dogs.misc
>> Subject: How to view farm animals? Answer: don't view them as ****wit
>> David Harrison does
>> Message-ID: t>
>> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:39:43 GMT
>>
>> Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
>> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>That's another out-of-context mangling, ****wit. One
>more for the FAQ.
>
>What I really wrote:
>
> Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals for
> some bizarre reason have some kind of reality to
>you [****wit].

You just lied about who wanted to present the idea.