 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Can we do better?
I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets
boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? I propose: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated alt.food.vegan.moderated Any ideas? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Steve wrote:
> wrote: > >> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets >> boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational >> discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could >> someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? >> >> I propose: >> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated >> alt.food.vegan.moderated >> Any ideas? >> > > > There are already a plethora of moderated email lists, web boards, and > blogs. > > Why not stick around and just use killfiles so you never see the trolls > or their threads again? Because 'bpgclm', like most "vegans", is a fascist-at-heart. He has a felt need need to impose his demands on others. > > I did that last year and it is like a different group ( alt.food.vegan ). > > Filtering out crossposts gets rid of 85% of the drek. > > After that filter out about 4-5 individuals will make the rest of it go > away. You're a fascist shitbag at heart, too. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Never be afraid to do what's right especially if the well being of a person
or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net... > Steve wrote: > >> wrote: >> >>> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets >>> boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational >>> discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could >>> someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? >>> >>> I propose: >>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated >>> alt.food.vegan.moderated Any ideas? >>> >> >> >> There are already a plethora of moderated email lists, web boards, and >> blogs. >> >> Why not stick around and just use killfiles so you never see the trolls >> or their threads again? > > Because 'bpgclm', like most "vegans", is a fascist-at-heart. He has a > felt need need to impose his demands on others. > > >> >> I did that last year and it is like a different group ( alt.food.vegan ). >> >> Filtering out crossposts gets rid of 85% of the drek. >> >> After that filter out about 4-5 individuals will make the rest of it go >> away. > > You're a fascist shitbag at heart, too. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"penny" > wrote in message news:YVuyf.2919$2x4.2240@trndny05... > Never be afraid to do what's right especially if the well being > of a person or animal is at stake. ============================== Ah, nice feel good statements that mean nothing from a hypocrite that can't live up to them. The well being of millions of animals are at stake for power generation and distribution, and communications. Yet here you are, for no more reason than your selfish entertainment, contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of millions upon millions of animals. Thanks for proving the lack of integrety of veggies everywhere... Society's punishments are small compared to the > wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. ========================= You must be in terible pain with all the looking the other way you do, killer. > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > ink.net... >> Steve wrote: >> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but >>>> it gets >>>> boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a >>>> rational >>>> discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every >>>> thread. Could >>>> someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these >>>> lists? >>>> >>>> I propose: >>>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated >>>> alt.food.vegan.moderated Any ideas? >>>> >>> >>> >>> There are already a plethora of moderated email lists, web >>> boards, and blogs. >>> >>> Why not stick around and just use killfiles so you never see >>> the trolls or their threads again? >> >> Because 'bpgclm', like most "vegans", is a fascist-at-heart. >> He has a felt need need to impose his demands on others. >> >> >>> >>> I did that last year and it is like a different group ( >>> alt.food.vegan ). >>> >>> Filtering out crossposts gets rid of 85% of the drek. >>> >>> After that filter out about 4-5 individuals will make the >>> rest of it go away. >> >> You're a fascist shitbag at heart, too. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "penny" > wrote in message > news:YVuyf.2919$2x4.2240@trndny05... > > Never be afraid to do what's right especially if the well being > > of a person or animal is at stake. > ============================== > Ah, nice feel good statements that mean nothing from a hypocrite > that can't live up to them. The well being of millions of > animals are at stake for power generation and distribution, and > communications. Yet here you are, for no more reason than your > selfish entertainment, contributing to the unnecessary death and > suffering of millions upon millions of animals. Thanks for > proving the lack of integrety of veggies everywhere... > all *that* coming from a man who wears a cow udder for a hat. > > Society's punishments are small compared to the > > wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. > ========================= > You must be in terible pain with all the looking the other way > you do, killer. > > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > >> Steve wrote: > >> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but > >>>> it gets > >>>> boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a > >>>> rational > >>>> discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every > >>>> thread. Could > >>>> someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these > >>>> lists? > >>>> > >>>> I propose: > >>>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > >>>> alt.food.vegan.moderated Any ideas? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There are already a plethora of moderated email lists, web > >>> boards, and blogs. > >>> > >>> Why not stick around and just use killfiles so you never see > >>> the trolls or their threads again? > >> > >> Because 'bpgclm', like most "vegans", is a fascist-at-heart. > >> He has a felt need need to impose his demands on others. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I did that last year and it is like a different group ( > >>> alt.food.vegan ). > >>> > >>> Filtering out crossposts gets rid of 85% of the drek. > >>> > >>> After that filter out about 4-5 individuals will make the > >>> rest of it go away. > >> > >> You're a fascist shitbag at heart, too. > > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
This is why it is a waste to argue with a meat industry shill.
rick wrote: > "penny" > wrote in message > news:YVuyf.2919$2x4.2240@trndny05... > > Never be afraid to do what's right especially if the well being > > of a person or animal is at stake. > ============================== > Ah, nice feel good statements that mean nothing from a hypocrite > that can't live up to them. The well being of millions of > animals are at stake for power generation and distribution, and > communications. Yet here you are, for no more reason than your > selfish entertainment, contributing to the unnecessary death and > suffering of millions upon millions of animals. Thanks for > proving the lack of integrety of veggies everywhere... > > > Society's punishments are small compared to the > > wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. > ========================= > You must be in terible pain with all the looking the other way > you do, killer. > > > > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > >> Steve wrote: > >> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but > >>>> it gets > >>>> boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a > >>>> rational > >>>> discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every > >>>> thread. Could > >>>> someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these > >>>> lists? > >>>> > >>>> I propose: > >>>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > >>>> alt.food.vegan.moderated Any ideas? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There are already a plethora of moderated email lists, web > >>> boards, and blogs. > >>> > >>> Why not stick around and just use killfiles so you never see > >>> the trolls or their threads again? > >> > >> Because 'bpgclm', like most "vegans", is a fascist-at-heart. > >> He has a felt need need to impose his demands on others. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I did that last year and it is like a different group ( > >>> alt.food.vegan ). > >>> > >>> Filtering out crossposts gets rid of 85% of the drek. > >>> > >>> After that filter out about 4-5 individuals will make the > >>> rest of it go away. > >> > >> You're a fascist shitbag at heart, too. > > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
penny wrote:
> Never be afraid to do what's right especially if the well being of a person > or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the > wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. Your kind of caring people I was hoping to find on this list. The meat industry shills are intruders and they should start a list; alt.cruel-to-animals.no-ethics.eat-polluted-meat |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Steve wrote:
> wrote: > > I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets > > boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational > > discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could > > someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? > > > > I propose: > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > > alt.food.vegan.moderated > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > There are already a plethora of moderated email lists, web boards, and > blogs. > > Why not stick around and just use killfiles so you never see the trolls > or their threads again? > > I did that last year and it is like a different group ( alt.food.vegan ). > > Filtering out crossposts gets rid of 85% of the drek. > > After that filter out about 4-5 individuals will make the rest of it go > away. Sounds good but I am using Google and Google does not have the filtering function. > > Steve > > Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian > http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html > > "The great American thought trap: It is not real > unless it can be seen on television or bought in a > shopping mall" |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to read. In some
ways it's better not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to Dutch, Leif or Rick I can just ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but when I see you reply to one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap ideas and experiences with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who wants to swap ideas and experiences with like minded people you do so incredibly seldom. :-) |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dave wrote:
> I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to read. In some > ways it's better > not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to Dutch, Leif or > Rick I can just > ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but when I see you That is exactly what I hoped for. > reply to > one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap ideas and > experiences > with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who wants to swap > ideas and > experiences with like minded people you do so incredibly seldom. :-) I did post some ideas and experiences of my own but I got swamped by meat industry shills who do not wish to allow a dialog along those lines. Also, I am not near as knowledgeable about animal ethics and vegetarianism as you are but I am a contributor (minor) to animal welfare organizations and have learned a lot from their publications. Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond to meat industry shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my part. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote > Dave wrote: >> I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to read. In some >> ways it's better >> not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to Dutch, Leif or >> Rick I can just >> ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but when I see you > > That is exactly what I hoped for. He's ignoring those posts because he knows that YOU have not contributed anything worth reading, no insight, no logic, no wit or humor. YOU have made yourself into the usenet equivalent of a mild rash. Not good, not useful, not interesting, only mildly annoying. >> reply to >> one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap ideas and >> experiences >> with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who wants to swap >> ideas and >> experiences with like minded people you do so incredibly seldom. :-) > > I did post some ideas and experiences of my own but I got swamped by > meat industry shills who do not wish to allow a dialog along those > lines. There are no "meat industry shills" here. > Also, I am not near as knowledgeable about animal ethics and > vegetarianism as you are but I am a contributor (minor) to animal > welfare organizations and have learned a lot from their publications. Then LEARN about animal ethics, it's not brain surgery, it takes some thought, honesty and the ability to be self-critical. I contribute to animal welfare causes also. > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond to meat industry > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my part. A minimum amount of effort, that figures... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Hi all. Goto the Glass Onion.
http://glassonions.proboards46.com. Vegan friendly. You will be glad you did. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets > boring after a while. You shovel a lot of shit but it all ends up blowing right back in your face Ronny. > It is almost impossible to get into a rational > discourse I've never seen you try, all you do is stir shit, it's what you like doing. with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could > someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? These are not lists, they are public newsgroups. Start a list, there are lots of free ones available. The you can invite just the people who tell you what you want to hear, like a good little fascist. > I propose: > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > alt.food.vegan.moderated > > Any ideas? I'm in favor of you taking a flying leap anywhere else but here. You're a useless slab of flesh. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Derek wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote: > > The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread > you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just > one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly > incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your > critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless > you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day > you went even further and wrote, > > "Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you > mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't > start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find > out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing > assholes that start dirt" > > My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that > promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those > "mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame > warning time and time again instead of actually making > them eat that dirt like you promised you would. > > >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets > >boring after a while. > > Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat > dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking > mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing > it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've > seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I > read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly, > then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're > trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem > here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better > in your question contained in the subject title of this thread, > the real question should refer to your own efforts against > your critics, because many of us do do better. > > > It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with > > the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. > > No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell, > Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many > others I've failed to mention cut through the very same > critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much > larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you > see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were > still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on > these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?", > but rather, > > "Can I do better?" > > >Could > >someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? > > > >I propose: > >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > >alt.food.vegan.moderated > > > >Any ideas? > > I remember proposing a moderated group once, but > soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics > and promote the proposition of animal rights was to > meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind > my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of > using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with > critics who are free to say what they want to say, and > then deal with them on that EQUAL basis. > > Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR > reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold > the same principle, even though the result of each > yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on > ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote; > > "Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on > moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the > disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and > rendering meat for consumption." > > But that doesn't make sense, because how can one > make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and > ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting > and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat > for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the > "disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and > rendering meat for consumption" then from where else > did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical > grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose > of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge > in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've > failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain > from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question, > and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated > to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give > your own if you can and want to. Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous aliases, I do not. The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. What is to debate about? Either you have compassion for other living creatures or you do not. If you have compassion for them then there is nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength. If you do not, as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those who do. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote: >> >> The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread >> you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just >> one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly >> incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your >> critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless >> you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day >> you went even further and wrote, >> >> "Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you >> mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't >> start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find >> out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing >> assholes that start dirt" >> >> My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that >> promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those >> "mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame >> warning time and time again instead of actually making >> them eat that dirt like you promised you would. >> >> >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets >> >boring after a while. >> >> Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat >> dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking >> mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing >> it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've >> seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I >> read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly, >> then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're >> trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem >> here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better >> in your question contained in the subject title of this thread, >> the real question should refer to your own efforts against >> your critics, because many of us do do better. >> >> > It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with >> > the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. >> >> No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell, >> Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many >> others I've failed to mention cut through the very same >> critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much >> larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you >> see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were >> still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on >> these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?", >> but rather, >> >> "Can I do better?" >> >> >Could >> >someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? >> > >> >I propose: >> >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated >> >alt.food.vegan.moderated >> > >> >Any ideas? >> >> I remember proposing a moderated group once, but >> soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics >> and promote the proposition of animal rights was to >> meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind >> my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of >> using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with >> critics who are free to say what they want to say, and >> then deal with them on that EQUAL basis. >> >> Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR >> reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold >> the same principle, even though the result of each >> yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on >> ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote; >> >> "Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on >> moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the >> disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and >> rendering meat for consumption." >> >> But that doesn't make sense, because how can one >> make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and >> ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting >> and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat >> for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the >> "disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and >> rendering meat for consumption" then from where else >> did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical >> grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose >> of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge >> in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've >> failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain >> from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question, >> and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated >> to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give >> your own if you can and want to. > >Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous >aliases, I do not. They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the courage to explain those reasons. >The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded >with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed >to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my >revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be no opposition to your views? >What is to debate about? Quite a bit really. >Either you have compassion for other living >creatures or you do not. Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they do is wrong, then? >If you have compassion for them then there is >nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength. But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your "values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed" to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the first place? >If you do not, >as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those >who do. That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start. Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make that same empty threat? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Derek wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote: > >> > >> The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread > >> you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just > >> one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly > >> incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your > >> critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless > >> you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day > >> you went even further and wrote, > >> > >> "Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you > >> mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't > >> start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find > >> out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing > >> assholes that start dirt" > >> > >> My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that > >> promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those > >> "mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame > >> warning time and time again instead of actually making > >> them eat that dirt like you promised you would. > >> > >> >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets > >> >boring after a while. > >> > >> Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat > >> dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking > >> mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing > >> it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've > >> seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I > >> read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly, > >> then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're > >> trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem > >> here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better > >> in your question contained in the subject title of this thread, > >> the real question should refer to your own efforts against > >> your critics, because many of us do do better. > >> > >> > It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with > >> > the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. > >> > >> No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell, > >> Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many > >> others I've failed to mention cut through the very same > >> critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much > >> larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you > >> see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were > >> still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on > >> these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?", > >> but rather, > >> > >> "Can I do better?" > >> > >> >Could > >> >someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? > >> > > >> >I propose: > >> >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > >> >alt.food.vegan.moderated > >> > > >> >Any ideas? > >> > >> I remember proposing a moderated group once, but > >> soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics > >> and promote the proposition of animal rights was to > >> meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind > >> my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of > >> using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with > >> critics who are free to say what they want to say, and > >> then deal with them on that EQUAL basis. > >> > >> Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR > >> reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold > >> the same principle, even though the result of each > >> yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on > >> ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote; > >> > >> "Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on > >> moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the > >> disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and > >> rendering meat for consumption." > >> > >> But that doesn't make sense, because how can one > >> make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and > >> ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting > >> and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat > >> for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the > >> "disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and > >> rendering meat for consumption" then from where else > >> did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical > >> grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose > >> of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge > >> in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've > >> failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain > >> from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question, > >> and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated > >> to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give > >> your own if you can and want to. > > > >Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous > >aliases, I do not. > > They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind > the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're > meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the > courage to explain those reasons. There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat meat. I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and that is all there is to it. I posted something close to this and was immediately attacked by meat industry shills and I have responded and will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for those who start name calling when they do not like what they read. > > >The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded > >with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed > >to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my > >revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. > > Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be > no opposition to your views? I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar experiences. > > >What is to debate about? > > Quite a bit really. Not interested to debate meat industry shills. I do it in my spare time what they are obviously doing for money. > > >Either you have compassion for other living > >creatures or you do not. > > Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they > do is wrong, then? > > >If you have compassion for them then there is > >nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength. > > But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your > "values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate > with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed" > to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the > first place? Because of the name of the list. > > >If you do not, > >as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those > >who do. > > That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start. > Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make > that same empty threat? Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
On 14 Jan 2006 08:27:07 -0800, wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:30:18 -0800, wrote: >> >Derek wrote: >> >> On 13 Jan 2006 18:08:58 -0800, wrote: >> >> >> >> The question you've asked in the subject title of this thread >> >> you've started should read, "Can *I* do better?", not "we." Just >> >> one week after your arrival here on a.a.e.v. (Dec 23), clearly >> >> incapable of defending yourself and veganism against your >> >> critics, you started issuing the warning; "Don't start dirt unless >> >> you are prepared to eat some." (Dec 30). The very next day >> >> you went even further and wrote, >> >> >> >> "Don't start dirt unless you are prepared to eat some you >> >> mother ****ing bucket of sheet eating asshole. I don't >> >> start dirt but as you stinking mother ****er will soon find >> >> out - have no problem dishing it out to mother ****ing >> >> assholes that start dirt" >> >> >> >> My point here is that I'd to see you make a start on that >> >> promise, because so far all you've done is dodge those >> >> "mother-****ing assholes" with this same and lame >> >> warning time and time again instead of actually making >> >> them eat that dirt like you promised you would. >> >> >> >> >I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets >> >> >boring after a while. >> >> >> >> Really? Where and how are you making your critics eat >> >> dirt? You've threatened to, and said, "but as you stinking >> >> mother ****er will soon find out - have no problem dishing >> >> it out to mother ****ing assholes that start dirt", but I've >> >> seen none of it so far, and you can take it from me that I >> >> read every single post on a.a.e.v. very carefully. Clearly, >> >> then, you've failed to even make a start, yet now you're >> >> trying to imply you're getting bored doing it. My problem >> >> here is that while you imply "we" should be doing better >> >> in your question contained in the subject title of this thread, >> >> the real question should refer to your own efforts against >> >> your critics, because many of us do do better. >> >> >> >> > It is almost impossible to get into a rational discourse with >> >> > the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. >> >> >> >> No, that's false. Pearl, Michael Cerkowski, Bob Farrell, >> >> Karen Winter, Glorfindel, frlpwr, Paul Rees and many >> >> others I've failed to mention cut through the very same >> >> critics you face today like butter, and they faced a much >> >> larger and tougher opposition during the late 90's than you >> >> see here now, too. If John Mercer and Ward Clark were >> >> still participating, to name but two worthy opponents on >> >> these issues, you would not be asking, "Can we do better?", >> >> but rather, >> >> >> >> "Can I do better?" >> >> >> >> >Could >> >> >someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? >> >> > >> >> >I propose: >> >> >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated >> >> >alt.food.vegan.moderated >> >> > >> >> >Any ideas? >> >> >> >> I remember proposing a moderated group once, but >> >> soon realised that the ONLY way to defeat my critics >> >> and promote the proposition of animal rights was to >> >> meet them head on and explain the reasoning behind >> >> my positions as best I could, so I rejected the idea of >> >> using a moderated group and chose to talk it out with >> >> critics who are free to say what they want to say, and >> >> then deal with them on that EQUAL basis. >> >> >> >> Open up a bit and explain the principle behind YOUR >> >> reason to abstain from meat; not all vegetarians hold >> >> the same principle, even though the result of each >> >> yields the same result: abstaining from meat, mostly on >> >> ethical grounds. In your debut post you wrote; >> >> >> >> "Only after I made my decision to stop eating meat on >> >> moral and ethical grounds did I start considering the >> >> disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and >> >> rendering meat for consumption." >> >> >> >> But that doesn't make sense, because how can one >> >> make THE "decision to stop eating meat on moral and >> >> ethical grounds" BEFORE "considering the disgusting >> >> and unhealthy methods of producing and rendering meat >> >> for consumption."? If you hadn't already considered the >> >> "disgusting and unhealthy methods of producing and >> >> rendering meat for consumption" then from where else >> >> did this "decision to stop eating meat on moral and ethical >> >> grounds" come? That question is central to the purpose >> >> of a.a.e.v., and so far, AS WELL AS this repeated dodge >> >> in the shape of a threat to make your opponents dirt, you've >> >> failed to even try to make your case for why you abstain >> >> from meat on moral and ethical grounds. It's a fair question, >> >> and if you can't quite explain why you feel morally obligated >> >> to abstain from meat, ask others for their reasons, or give >> >> your own if you can and want to. >> > >> >Perhaps you enjoy debating meat industry shills posting under numerous >> >aliases, I do not. >> >> They are your critics enquiring after your reasons behind >> the opinions you hold against them, and whether they're >> meat industry shills or not, you should at least have the >> courage to explain those reasons. > >There is not much to debate about my reasons for not wanting to eat >meat. Then why participate at all? If you're not willing to debate with your critics, and you feel it's a waste of time debating with others that share your values, then who are you going to debate with? >I love animals and I am horrified by the cruel and unsanitary >methods of raising and butchering animals. These are my reasons and >that is all there is to it. No, they are your objections, not your reasons. What's most interesting about another's objections are his reasons behind those objections. I object to some very plain and ordinary things, but it's my reasons behind those objections that most would find interesting and poignant. >I posted something close to this and was >immediately attacked You were attacked, of course, but those attacks still leave you plenty of room to explain the principles you use that lie behind your opinions on those attackers. >by meat industry shills and I have responded and >will continue to respond to them in the fashion most appropriate for >those who start name calling when they do not like what they read. Oh well. >> >The reason I do not enjoy it because they responded >> >with dirt to my very first post to this list where I logically assumed >> >to find people who share my values of compassion for animals and my >> >revulsion against the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. >> >> Did this "logical assumption" convince you there would be >> no opposition to your views? > >I hoped to find people on ralt.animals.ethics.vegetarian that share my >compassionate view of animals and was looking for exchange of similar >experiences. Why? According to you, "If you have compassion for them then there is nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength." Why did you hope to find or form a group that shares your views, only to find you're unwilling to debate anything with anyone in it? >> >What is to debate about? >> >> Quite a bit really. > >Not interested to debate meat industry shills. Then you've eliminated your entire choice of people to debate with, haven't you. >I do it in my spare time >what they are obviously doing for money. Would it make a difference to your argument if you were arguing with a professional arguer? If not, and it shouldn't, press on. >> >Either you have compassion for other living >> >creatures or you do not. >> >> Do you believe a person cannot be shown that what they >> do is wrong, then? >> >> >If you have compassion for them then there is >> >nothing to debate because we are on the same wavelength. >> >> But if you "logically assumed" to find people who share your >> "values" on this group, but also feel there's nothing to debate >> with those who aren't in that group you "logically assumed" >> to exist here, what made you decide to contribute here in the >> first place? > >Because of the name of the list. But if you don't want to discuss anything with your critics, and you think it's a waste of time to talk with those already on your level, you've eliminated everyone, so what made you decide to participate in a group that your principles have eliminated you from? >> >If you do not, >> >as the meat industry shills have demonstrated, you will attack those >> >who do. >> >> That's why I'm asking when you intend to make a start. >> Attack them with what, exactly; more threats to make >> that same empty threat? > >Obviously threats have little meaning on the Internet. A 100 lb >weakling can threaten a 300 lb football pro and the football pro can do >little about it. Same thing with dirt. I do not start dirt but make >sure that those who start it with me eat their own dirt. No, I'm afraid you're not doing anything of the sort. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? Does he want to make
these imaginary shills eat dirt because he's sick of the dirt he eats in those grains and greens? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Autymn D. C. wrote: > Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? Does he want to make > these imaginary shills eat dirt because he's sick of the dirt he eats > in those grains and greens? stupid logic like that can only mean Little ~jonnie Wannabe (ricky etter) is back. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Autymn D. C." > wrote > Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? Because he's an idiot. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." > wrote > > Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? > > Because he's an idiot. This is why it is a waste to argue with meat industry shill. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? Because he's a coward and a shitbag. > Does he want to make > these imaginary shills eat dirt because he's sick of the dirt he eats > in those grains and greens? > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote: > > Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? > > Because he's a coward and a shitbag. This is why it is a waste to argue with a shit eating meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt  > > > > Does he want to make > > these imaginary shills eat dirt because he's sick of the dirt he eats > > in those grains and greens? > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote: > > > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > >>Autymn D. C. wrote: > >> > >>>Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says? > >> > >>Because he's a coward and a shitbag. > > > > > > This is why it is a waste to argue with a shit eating meat industry > > shill > > You're a coward and a shitbag. You can't defend your > position. A coward, a shitbag and a punk. This is why it is a waste to argue with shit eating meat industry shills - just make them eat their dirt |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
wrote:
> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets > boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational > discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could > someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? > > I propose: > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > alt.food.vegan.moderated > > Any ideas? > Where do you get the idea that people who make fun of people with crazy views need to be paid to do it? If they were paid wouldn't you expect them to be better at it? If people really were shills: shill Slang. n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. v., shilled, shill·ing, shills. v.intr. To act as a shill. v.tr. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise). To lure (a person) into a swindle. [Perhaps short for shillaber.] then surely the better strategy would be to have people saying "I turned vegan for three years and I became anaemic, listless and impotent" and shit like that. The whole concept of the "meat industry shill" is the result of rampant paranoia. If "the meat industry" really did want to do a number on you then they'd do it a hell of a lot better. I have never been paid a penny for any of my activities on newsgroups, I do it all for the love of the sport. If you want to discuss things where nobody who disagrees is allowed to voice an opinion there are thousands of possibilities that make more sense than a newsgroup. If you did set up a moderated newsgroup you will probably find it very dull. If some beef baron or hamburger chain wants to put me on the pay-roll then feel free to contact me via my website. Oh yeah. I want back-pay. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
wrote:
> I do not mind making the meat industry shills eat dirt but it gets > boring after a while. It is almost impossible to get into a rational > discourse with the meat industry shills disrupting every thread. Could > someone set up a couple of moderated lists similar to these lists? > > I propose: > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated > alt.food.vegan.moderated > > Any ideas? > Where do you get the idea that people who make fun of people with crazy views need to be paid to do it? If they were paid wouldn't you expect them to be better at it? If people really were shills: shill Slang. n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. v., shilled, shill·ing, shills. v.intr. To act as a shill. v.tr. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise). To lure (a person) into a swindle. [Perhaps short for shillaber.] then surely the better strategy would be to have people saying "I turned vegan for three years and I became anaemic, listless and impotent" and shit like that. The whole concept of the "meat industry shill" is the result of rampant paranoia. If "the meat industry" really did want to do a number on you then they'd do it a hell of a lot better. I have never been paid a penny for any of my activities on newsgroups, I do it all for the love of the sport. If you want to discuss things where nobody who disagrees is allowed to voice an opinion there are thousands of possibilities that make more sense than a newsgroup. If you did set up a moderated newsgroup you will probably find it very dull. If some beef baron or hamburger chain wants to put me on the payroll then feel free to contact me via my website. Oh yeah. I want back pay. -- Martin Willett http://mwillett.org |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
