 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan's fake email from William T. Sessions (USDA)
You really ought to read this post in full before
responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious explaining to do. On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >Derek wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>> >>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>> >>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>> >>>>No it has not been dropped, >>> >>>Yes, it has. >>> >>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >> >> You have no evidence to support that claim other >> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. >> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA >> and your email from William Sessions, the associate >> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the >> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in >> charge of writing the standard for the "meat >> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing >> claim standards are still under review by USDA." > >No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, > > Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised > grass-fed marketing claim is under development by > USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by > USDA will be published with a public comment period. > I hope this information is helpful. Please let me > know if further information is needed. Thanks, > > William T. Sessions > Associate Deputy Administrator > Livestock and Seed Program Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then altered it in this post to fit your argument, giving the impression that the proposed claims standard had been dropped. Read on and see where you've changed the original informational part in Sessions' email from; "The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use." to "A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by USDA will be published with a public comment period." Both emails start with "Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message." and end with "I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program" But the informational part in your second false email has now changed. Read your first email again (below). From: "Sessions, William" > To: <jonball@[...]> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards have not been published in a final form for use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if further information is needed. Thanks, William T. Sessions Associate Deputy Administrator Livestock and Seed Program http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo They're different. You wrote both those emails and pretended the original one was from, "William T Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the meat marketing claims" How can you be so stupid, Jon? Just who do you think you're trying to fool? >You are completely stuffed, Dreck. You are, and you know it. > It's been sweet music, eh? Beautiful. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
~jonnie~ caught forging e-mail.......
PRICELESS!! LOL! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote: > On 11 Sep 2005 09:20:32 -0700, wrote: > > >~jonnie~ caught forging e-mail....... > > > >PRICELESS!! > > > >LOL! > > The evidence from USDA crushed him, so he pretended > that he'd received a private email from the author of that > evidence, "the associate deputy administrator (how's that > for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA > that is in charge of writing the standard for the meat > marketing claims" in the hope that that evidence would be > easily discarded as out of date or dropped by the author > according to how Jon wanted. It's impossible to believe a > single word Jon writes here. He lies, forges emails from > officials at USDA, and will do anything to keep the lie > behind grass fed beef alive. Good work! ~jonnie~ is fuming and foaming at the mouth and amending his "People I Hate" list. He's moving your name to the top for showing him to be a LIAR in front of the whole world. LOL!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
> You really ought to read this post in full It's shit this time, too. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>You really ought to read this post in full before >responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious >explaining to do. > >On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>Derek wrote: >>> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>>> >>>>>No it has not been dropped, >>>> >>>>Yes, it has. >>>> >>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >>> >>> You have no evidence to support that claim other >>> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. >>> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA >>> and your email from William Sessions, the associate >>> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the >>> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in >>> charge of writing the standard for the "meat >>> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing >>> claim standards are still under review by USDA." >> >>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, >> >> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised >> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by >> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by >> USDA will be published with a public comment period. >> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me >> know if further information is needed. Thanks, >> >> William T. Sessions >> Associate Deputy Administrator >> Livestock and Seed Program > >Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to >have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then >altered it in this post to fit your argument, What a contemptible scum thing to do. Check out this quote from Goo himself, written within the last couple of days: "****wit believes it is ethical to mangle others' quotes in order to try to "win" a point cheaply" >giving the >impression that the proposed claims standard had been >dropped. Read on and see where you've changed the >original informational part in Sessions' email from; > > "The marketing claim standards are still under > review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards > have not been published in a final form for use." > >to > > "A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under > development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing > claim proposed by USDA will be published with > a public comment period." > >Both emails start with > > "Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message." > >and end with > > "I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know > if further information is needed. > Thanks, > > William T. Sessions > Associate Deputy Administrator > Livestock and Seed Program" > >But the informational part in your second false email >has now changed. Read your first email again (below). > >From: "Sessions, William" > >To: <jonball@[...]> > >Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim >standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, >the standards have not been published in a final form for >use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know >if further information is needed. Thanks, > >William T. Sessions >Associate Deputy Administrator >Livestock and Seed Program >http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo > >They're different. You wrote both those emails and >pretended the original one was from, > > "William T Sessions, the associate deputy administrator > (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program > at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the > meat marketing claims" > >How can you be so stupid, Jon? Yeah, but then again, is there any chance he could improve even if he tried too? Not that he ever will of course, but I wonder if he even could... >Just who do you think >you're trying to fool? > >>You are completely stuffed, Dreck. > >You are, and you know it. > >> It's been sweet music, eh? > >Beautiful. You two are a pair of liars anyway. You are as he is. You are Goochild. Really the only reason to read either of your posts about anything is to see what you're lying about at the time. Right? Right! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
****wit David Harrison, convicted felon of animal
abuse, lied: > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: > > >>You really ought to read this post in full before >>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious >>explaining to do. >> >>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>Derek wrote: >>> >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>[start - me] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>>>>proposal and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>[you] >>>>>>>>>>...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>>>> >>>>>>No it has not been dropped, >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it has. >>>>> >>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >>>> >>>> >>>>You have no evidence to support that claim other >>>>than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. >>>>I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA >>>>and your email from William Sessions, the associate >>>>deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the >>>>Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in >>>>charge of writing the standard for the "meat >>>>marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing >>>>claim standards are still under review by USDA." >>> >>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, >>> >>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised >>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by >>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by >>> USDA will be published with a public comment period. >>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me >>> know if further information is needed. Thanks, >>> >>> William T. Sessions >>> Associate Deputy Administrator >>> Livestock and Seed Program >> >>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to >>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then >>altered it in this post to fit your argument, > > > What a contemptible scum thing to do. I didn't do it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:03:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: > >>You really ought to read this post in full before >>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious >>explaining to do. >> >>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>>>> >>>>>>No it has not been dropped, >>>>> >>>>>Yes, it has. >>>>> >>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >>>> >>>> You have no evidence to support that claim other >>>> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. >>>> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA >>>> and your email from William Sessions, the associate >>>> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the >>>> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in >>>> charge of writing the standard for the "meat >>>> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing >>>> claim standards are still under review by USDA." >>> >>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, >>> >>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised >>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by >>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by >>> USDA will be published with a public comment period. >>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me >>> know if further information is needed. Thanks, >>> >>> William T. Sessions >>> Associate Deputy Administrator >>> Livestock and Seed Program >> >>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to >>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then >>altered it in this post to fit your argument, > > What a contemptible scum thing to do. **** off, you contemptible, animal abusing piece of scum. Sadistic and twisted animal abusers who breed animals to fight in pits don't get to make any opinions on the posts I write, one way or the other. Are we clear on that, Harrison? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon of animal > abuse, lied: > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: > > > > > >>You really ought to read this post in full before > >>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious > >>explaining to do. > >> > >>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> > >>>Derek wrote: > >>> > >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>[start - me] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard > >>>>>>>>>>>proposal and > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>[you] > >>>>>>>>>>...have now dropped it. > >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/754e8 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No, they haven't, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No it has not been dropped, > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes, it has. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>You have no evidence to support that claim other > >>>>than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. > >>>>I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA > >>>>and your email from William Sessions, the associate > >>>>deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the > >>>>Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in > >>>>charge of writing the standard for the "meat > >>>>marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing > >>>>claim standards are still under review by USDA." > >>> > >>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, > >>> > >>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised > >>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by > >>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by > >>> USDA will be published with a public comment period. > >>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me > >>> know if further information is needed. Thanks, > >>> > >>> William T. Sessions > >>> Associate Deputy Administrator > >>> Livestock and Seed Program > >> > >>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to > >>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then > >>altered it in this post to fit your argument, > > > > > > What a contemptible scum thing to do. > > I didn't do it. Now Goober is reduced to borrowing a line from Bart Simpson. Do you realize how pathetic you are coming across Gooby? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek lied:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 Goo lied:
>dh pointed out: > >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to >>>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then >>>altered it in this post to fit your argument, >> >> >> What a contemptible scum thing to do. > >I didn't do it. > LOL! Everyone knows that's just ANOTHER lie Goober. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:26:36 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:03:52 -0400, dh@. wrote: >>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: >> >>>You really ought to read this post in full before >>>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious >>>explaining to do. >>> >>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>Derek wrote: >>>>> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [start - me] >>>>>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard >>>>>>>>>>> > proposal and >>>>>>>>>>> [you] >>>>>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it. >>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No, they haven't, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No it has not been dropped, >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, it has. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped >>>>> >>>>> You have no evidence to support that claim other >>>>> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks. >>>>> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA >>>>> and your email from William Sessions, the associate >>>>> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the >>>>> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in >>>>> charge of writing the standard for the "meat >>>>> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing >>>>> claim standards are still under review by USDA." >>>> >>>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail, >>>> >>>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised >>>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by >>>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by >>>> USDA will be published with a public comment period. >>>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me >>>> know if further information is needed. Thanks, >>>> >>>> William T. Sessions >>>> Associate Deputy Administrator >>>> Livestock and Seed Program >>> >>>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to >>>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then >>>altered it in this post to fit your argument, >> >> What a contemptible scum thing to do. > >**** off, you contemptible, animal abusing piece of >scum. Sadistic and twisted animal abusers who breed >animals to fight in pits don't get to make any opinions >on the posts I write, one way or the other. Are we >clear on that, Harrison? You are more of a contemptible scum than I am for more than one reason. Let's list some of them. 1. you do not give a damn about the lives of animals at all. 2. you are very frequently a liar. 3. you lie about the animals who's lives you don't give a damn about, because you are completely inconsiderate of them. 4. you enjoy believing that things are worse than they are for the animals you lie about, indicating that you really hate them. 5. you want to prevent the lives of future animals, NOT provide them with better lives, longer lives, rights, or anything at all, again indicating that you really hate them. 6. you won't even acknowledge the animal deaths which you contribute to, which are the majority of animal deaths that everyone else contributes to. 7. when people point out how others can contribute to fewer animal deaths by eating animal products than they can by eating only vegetable based products, you lie in you efforts to prevent them from considering it, indicating that you hate wildlife as you also hate domestic animals. 8. what you hate about me is my honesty. 9. you lie about me because you hate my honesty. All of the above things are true about you 2goo, and of course show what a disgusting and contemptible, animal hating, dishonest, inconsiderate shit you truly are. You are just like Goo, who is your hero. I am far more honest and respectable than you could ever be even if you tried, and we both know very well that you will never try to be honest or respectable. I have proven to care far more than you ever could about animals and their lives, and we both know very well that you will never try to care about animals and most especially will not and CAN NOT care at all about their lives. Be assured that you disgust me Goochild, and I consider you to be ethically inferior to me, and even ethically inferior to people who admit to not caring about the animals because they are honest about it while you lie about it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 Goo lied: > > >>dh pointed out: >> >> >>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: > > >>>>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to >>>>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then >>>>altered it in this post to fit your argument, >>> >>> >>> What a contemptible scum thing to do. >> >>I didn't do it. >> > > LOL! Everyone knows I didn't do it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > dh@. wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 Goo lied: > > > > > >>dh pointed out: > >> > >> > >>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek > wrote: > > > > > >>>>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to > >>>>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then > >>>>altered it in this post to fit your argument, > >>> > >>> > >>> What a contemptible scum thing to do. > >> > >>I didn't do it. > >> > > > > LOL! Everyone knows > > I didn't do it. Whatever ya say,..."Bart". LOL!! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| William Sessions's first e-mail | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
