Goo has lied about me, and to me about almost everything we
have disagreed on. The very "refutations" he attempts are almost
always lies, meaning they are not even real and therefore not
refutations, meaning that Goo is always wrong every single time
that he lies. As far as I can recall, there has only been one thing
Goo and I have disagreed on that he *may* be correct about.
I challenge Goo to figure out which thing he might be right about,
and predict that he won't be able to...there's one thing he may
have been right about, but he can't even figure out what it is.

Happy thought for the day: Whenever someone like Goo, or
a gooling like Dutch or Derek lie to or about you, they lose
instantly and every time. Even if other people believe their lies
they are still losers.

dh@. wrote:
> Goo has lied about me, and to me about almost everything we
> have disagreed on. The very "refutations" he attempts are almost
> always lies, meaning they are not even real and therefore not
> refutations, meaning that Goo is always wrong every single time
> that he lies. As far as I can recall, there has only been one thing
> Goo and I have disagreed on that he *may* be correct about.
> I challenge Goo to figure out which thing he might be right about,
> and predict that he won't be able to...there's one thing he may
> have been right about, but he can't even figure out what it is.
>
> Happy thought for the day: Whenever someone like Goo, or
> a gooling like Dutch or Derek lie to or about you, they lose
> instantly and every time. Even if other people believe their lies
> they are still losers.


Don't challenge the Goo. He is already challenged.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:06:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>****wit believes it is ethical to mangle others' quotes
>in order to try to "win" a point cheaply:
>
> ****wit's dishonest mangling of the quote:
> humans deliberately killing animals for food is an
> immoral thing to do.
> http://tinyurl.com/4j5px
>
> What I really wrote:
> Their ["vegans'"] biggest concern, ****wit, is
>that humans
> deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
> thing to do.
> http://tinyurl.com/6zr7r

For one thing, there's no doubt that you agree with
"them"...you are "them". For another, there's no doubt
at all that you're a liar, and that the majority of what you
write is dishonest in at least one way. For another, your
knowledge and understanding of animals is non-existent,
as it appears to be with all you "ARAs". "AR" is a world
of dishonesty and ignorance, and it's where you live.

[...]
>****wit sleazily and dishonestly tries to keep
>insisting that the people arguing with him need to show
>how the "'ar' proposal" to eliminate farm animal is
>ethically superior to providing "decent" lives for
>them. But as we see, ****wit isn't at all concerned
>with providing "decent lives" for them.

Goo deliberately supports contributing to the "AR" objective
over decent AW, and explains why:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT

dh wrote:

> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing
> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective

1. Because it's a BOGUS comparison . . .

2. Because causing animals to live is not ethically
superior to not wanting to cause animals to live.

3. Because...no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
So Goo, you may have actually addressed the challenge.
And you may feel that lying about the extremely abundant
examples of your support for "AR" is what I was referring to.
But it's not Goo. So thus far you have failed miserably...which
of course was expected, but you may have actually tried,
which is very unusual and most impressive for you. Remember
though, I said it was something that you may have been right
about. This is where your biggest problem is Goober: you have
trouble distinguishing the truth from lies. Try hard and see if
you can remember having told me something that may be
true Goo. You probably can't figure it out, but it's a great
exercise for you.