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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 05:23 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA

Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,


Yes, they do.


Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.


An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..

You can't have it both ways Derek, you claim I'm lying when I deny I'm an
ARA, and I'm lying when I say I recognize rights in animals. The more you
spin the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

How's Aristotle doing these days btw?






  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 06:04 AM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA

Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,

Yes, they do.


Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.


An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..


Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
means you're lying again, Ditch.

You can't have it both ways


That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.

restore
"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.
end restore
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 09:43 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA

Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,

Yes, they do.

Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.


An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..


Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
means you're lying again, Ditch.


Many people who consume animal products hold the belief that animals have
rights. Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
veal cutlets.

You can't have it both ways


That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.


I don't abuse any animals Derek.

restore
"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.


Those statements are all consistent with a belief that animals possess
rights, yet who is not an ARA.

I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.

The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.

end restore



  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 01:39 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
.... when I say I recognize rights in animals.

Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are
weird.



Michael Gordge

  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 02:10 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:43:35 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:23:37 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA

Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,

Yes, they do.

Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.

An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..


Yes, exactly: your position makes no sense, so I
can only conclude that such a contradictory pose
means you're lying again, Ditch.


Many people who consume animal products hold the belief that animals have
rights.


Then she's as misguided and as hypocritical as
you are, for no one can have rights-holders
farmed and slaughtered for their own gains
without deluding themselves. How very typical
of you to try justifying your own sad hypocrisy
by referring to another's.

Martha Stewart just signed on as a spokesperson for PeTA, she cooks
veal cutlets.


Ray Slater and Zakhar supported vivisection
and still tried to convince others that they
promoted animal rights, too, but they were
soon made to see the error of their ways
and left here in utter disgrace. Martha
Stewart is obviously of the same thin cloth if
what you claim about her has any truth to it.
She's a drooling wolf in sheep's clothing and
a hypocrite, just like you.

You can't have it both ways


That's right, so tell me why you abuse the very animals
you claim hold rights against this abuse, hypocrite.


I don't abuse any animals Derek.


You have them farmed and slaughtered for you,
and that is abuse. You know it, too, and Google
shows that you do;

"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz

restore
"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

In fact there's a whole clutch of statements from you
over the years advocating rights for animals in Google
archives;

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

When are you going to stop lying, Ditch? To claim
you're not an ARA in light of all your quotes stating
the exact opposite is an obvious lie. And to claim
you're an ARA in light of all your quotes refuting
the proposition is also a lie. Either way, you're a
liar, Ditch.

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes
matters worse for you, liar Ditch.


Those statements are all consistent with a belief that animals possess
rights


Then why have you made statements claiming the
belief and proponents of that belief are absurd
all these years, hypocrite? Below are just two
statements from you attacking the proposition
out of literally hundreds during the time you've
been trolling here;

"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

You either lying now or you were lying then,
but that's nothing new where you're concerned.

, yet who is not an ARA.


An [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate is someone who
advocates rights for animals, and being that you've
been posting here on alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
for over five years on a daily basis, feigning an
ignorance over the acronym to escape being seen
as a lying hypocrite is absurd.

I signed the South African petition for "sentience" also, twice.

The fact that I confuse and enrage you is very satisfying.


What makes you believe that you enrage me in any
way, and what does your obvious efforts to enrage
your opponents say about your general participation
as a meat-eater on vegetarian news groups, Ditch?


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 02:14 PM
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


[email protected] wrote:

On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"larrylook" wrote
How do you know I don't care?

You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
opposition to
humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--an=

imal
products.

I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my gran=

dmother
when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and wou=

ld find
the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin woul=

d be
repugnant.

So saving animal lives is not your main priority,

You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism =

does
nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If =

you
think
it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make someth=

ing up.

Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals=

who
are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go throug=

h that
process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't cl=

aim to,
neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.

it's aesthetics, so what
else is new?

It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save f=

ood
animals by being vegan or by eating meat.

Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
prevent future animals from being born,

Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing some=

thing
to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.

or as they see it, they *save* the
animals from being born into an abbreviated life

=B7 Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
that the animals are going to be killed.


None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).


I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.


The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
support other forms of life. If you wish to take moral credit
for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.

BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!

Your failure to take these facts into consideration
is the real distortion of reality.


I most certainly take them into consideration.


So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
human help?

I've pointed out
more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
crop filds.


That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
considering the wrong eqaution. If some of the land used to graze
cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
result in more wildlife in total. YMMD.

I have also more than once asked: why should we only
contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?


I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
loan to its farmer.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote

You "ARAs" decide

You know I'm not an ARA

How could I even suspect that you might not be?
All evidence I've got is that you are.

You know I'm not an ARA

Yet only a couple of days ago you once again claimed
that animals do hold rights against us,

Yes, they do.


Then you advocate rights for animals, which proves
that Harrison and I are correct about you: you're
an ARA, liar Ditch.


An ARA who believes that eating meat is moral.. hmm..

You can't have it both ways Derek, you claim I'm lying when I deny I'm an
ARA, and I'm lying when I say I recognize rights in animals. The more you
spin the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

How's Aristotle doing these days btw?


I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
provided didn't he?

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 03:08 PM
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for you, liar Ditch.

And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 03:29 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:

I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
provided didn't he?


If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
terms accurately and clearly. If you still have a problem
understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 03:33 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 07:08:32 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for you, liar Ditch.


And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek.


It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the
issue, not a counter-argument, stupid.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 03:39 PM
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue

1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
minds because of the Law of Derek

, not a counter-argument, stupid.


That, at least, is true.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 04:03 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 07:39:37 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue


1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their
minds because of the Law of Derek


The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the
problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth
while at the same time criticising those who do
promote animal rights genuinely.

Over the years, since venturing onto animal-related
groups pretending to promote the proposition of
animal rights, he's changed his stance on this
proposition so many times that it's difficult to know
when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes
below come with a date and a link, and I've
arranged them in chronological order so you can
see his changes in position yourself.

He first came here claiming to be a believer in
the proposition of animal rights.

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

But within just a few months he started writing
things like;

"They have no rights because the very idea of
a world of animals with rights is a laugh."
Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc

and

"Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I
find it irrational …."
Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4

But then he switched back again, accepting the
proposition of animal rights, and claiming to have
signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian
government.

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and, even more recently;

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and, only a couple of days ago

"sentient" wrote
No, I believe that animals should have rights.
Currently they have none in the eyes of the law....

[Dutch]
That is incorrect. I measure my right to be free
from physical assault by looking if laws and
sanctions exist against anyone who would assault
me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect
domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude
that they hold rights against humans who would
abuse them.
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

And he's still insisting today that he doesn't support
the proposition.

, not a counter-argument, stupid.


That, at least, is true.


Yor damn right it is.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 04:18 PM
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!

So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
set of arguments about animal-rights et al.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 04:57 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Sep 2005 08:18:55 -0700, "Sleepyhead" wrote:

Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess!

So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is
confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his
audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for
changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing
with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed
set of arguments about animal-rights et al.


Exactly, Simon. That's my only gripe. If he at last rests
on one side of the debate instead of changing it when
asked to explain his current position, I wouldn't mind
at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit,
and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer
promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very
frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about
that proposition and would like to argue it honestly.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-09-2005, 05:02 PM
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about that proposition and would like to argue it honestly.

Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to
philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and
goes off to bother someone else.

Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a
carnivore or an herbivore?



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? lack of conscience General Cooking 0 22-09-2015 11:15 PM
More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! Ted[_2_] General Cooking 0 06-09-2007 03:48 AM
OT Hypocrites; Doug Perkins General Cooking 13 20-06-2005 03:48 PM
Hypocrites; [email protected] General Cooking 0 20-06-2005 01:33 AM
Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead jeff stier General Cooking 17 05-06-2004 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017