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?

wrote:
> I do not mind making the meat industry shills

No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
employed by or has any professional connection to the
meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.

You couldn't "make" anyone do anything, cocksucker.


> I propose:
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.moderated
> alt.food.vegan.moderated
>
> Any ideas?

**** off. They're unmoderated groups, and they'll stay that way.
You'll take it and you'll like it. Get it?

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.

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"

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.

> 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.

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.

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"

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.

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?

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.

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.

Derek wrote:
> 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?

There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.
>
> >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.

OK, I object to the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.
>
> >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.

Nothing to explain, you either care for animals or not.
>
> >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?

There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.
>
> >> >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.

Not the entire list, only those who are paid to call people names for
expressing views contrary to meat industry interests. They even sued
Oprah and lost

>
> >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.

Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
vocabulary than those only engage in name calling? If your answer yes,
it would make a huge difference!
>
> >> >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?

I am having to repeat myself but you are posing the same question:
There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
intruders here.

>
> >> >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.

How so?

wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
> as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
> intruders here.

The alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian group is *NOT* a
group "for" "veganism". It is a group to *discuss*
(so-called) "ethical" vegetarianism. There is no
presumption that "veganism" has been "proved" to be the
correct moral stance.

You exemplify what is wrong with nearly all "vegans":
you are a closed-minded true believer adhering to a
bizarre belief system that you can't defend
intellectually. The belief system is one in which you
have an unwarranted certainty in your virtue, and feel
that your virtue entitles you to tell others not only
how they ought to live, but how they *must* live.
There is nothing to distinguish you from the
conservative Christian right: *they* also feel they
are so unquestionably right on moral issues that they
ought to be able to dictate the laws to the rest of us.

All of your assumptions about the "meat industry" are
based on your uncritically having swallowed a lot of
leftist propaganda. You really don't know anything
about it.

You aren't really capable of debate, and you're not
worth debating. It is, however, great recreation to
beat up on you in the newsgroups. Expect much more of it.

Leif Erikson wrote:

cut...

How much do they pay you for the garbage you post for the meat industry?

congenital liar and coward lied:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> cut...
>
> How much do

Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> congenital liar and coward lied:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > cut...
> >
> > How much do
>
> Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.

This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills like you.

On 14 Jan 2006 09:29:35 -0800, wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> 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?
>
>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>as I do and this list is named for that.

But, by your own word, you're not willing to debate with
them because, "If you have compassion for them then
there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
wavelength." You would have nothing to debate with
them, yet you're proposing to find or set up a group full
of these people you don't want to debate with.

> Meat industry shills are the intruders here.

Meat shills or not - they are your critics and make up the
rest of the percentage of posters outside your chosen
percentage of posters you've no interest in debating with.
Can't you see that you're trying to find a forum where
your principles dictate that you can't participate in it?

>> >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.
>
>OK, I object to the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.

Fine. Now if you could explain your reasoning behind this
objection, as asked, a debate might take place.

>> >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.
>
>Nothing to explain, you either care for animals or not.

Further down this page, in response to that comment,
I wrote, Do you believe a person cannot be shown that
what they do is wrong, then? You ignored that response
by failing to answer. Are you going to ignore it again?

>> >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?
>
>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>as I do and this list is named for that.

Maybe, but you've declared that you have nothing to
debate with these people because they're all "on the
same wavelength". If an exchange of ideas isn't a
debate, and this isn't what you're looking for, what
made you decide to participate here?

>> >> >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.
>
>Not the entire list, only those who are paid to call people names for
>expressing views contrary to meat industry interests. They even sued
>Oprah and lost

Most anti-meat protesters would relish the chance in
taking on a paid hack, so why not 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.
>
>Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
>vocabulary than those only engage in name calling?

No, I'm a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds.

>If your answer yes,
>it would make a huge difference!

Why?

>> >> >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?
>
>I am having to repeat myself but you are posing the same question:
>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>as I do and this list is named for that.

An "exchange of ideas" is a debate, and yet you refuse to
take any part in debates, and you refuse to take part in
debates with people who share the same values as
you do, so I can only repeat my question and ask why
you decided to post here when your stated principles
dictate that you won't.

>> >> >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.
>
>How so?

Calling people names and just threatening to make them eat
dirt isn't actually making them eat that proverbial dirt. Did you
know that?

wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>congenital liar and coward lied:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>cut...
>>>
>>>How much do
>>
>>Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.
>
>
> This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills

No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
employed by or has any professional connection to the
meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.

You are a bigoted true-believer in a morally bankrupt,
misanthropic food philosophy.

Derek wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2006 09:29:35 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>>as I do and this list is named for that.
>
>
> But, by your own word, you're not willing to debate with
> them because, "If you have compassion for them then
> there is nothing to debate because we are on the same
> wavelength." You would have nothing to debate with
> them, yet you're proposing to find or set up a group full
> of these people you don't want to debate with.
>
>
>>Meat industry shills are the intruders here.
>
>
> Meat shills or not

Not. There isn't anyone in this group who has any
professional or employment connection with the meat
industry. I suspect this gutless coward knows it, too;
it just makes him feel good to write "meat industry
shills".

Those who write in opposition to "veganism" and
"vegans" also are not intruders in a.a.e.v.; perhaps
somewhat in a.f.v., but then I'm not the one who
included that group in the beginning of the thread.


> - they are your critics and make up the
> rest of the percentage of posters outside your chosen
> percentage of posters you've no interest in debating with.
> Can't you see that you're trying to find a forum where
> your principles dictate that you can't participate in it?
>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>OK, I object to the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry.
>
>
> Fine. Now if you could explain your reasoning behind this
> objection, as asked, a debate might take place.
>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Nothing to explain, you either care for animals or not.
>
>
> Further down this page, in response to that comment,
> I wrote, Do you believe a person cannot be shown that
> what they do is wrong, then? You ignored that response
> by failing to answer. Are you going to ignore it again?
>
>
>>>>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?
>>
>>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>>as I do and this list is named for that.
>
>
> Maybe, but you've declared that you have nothing to
> debate with these people because they're all "on the
> same wavelength". If an exchange of ideas isn't a
> debate, and this isn't what you're looking for, what
> made you decide to participate here?
>
>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Not the entire list, only those who are paid to call people names for
>>expressing views contrary to meat industry interests. They even sued
>>Oprah and lost
>
>
> Most anti-meat protesters would relish the chance in
> taking on a paid hack, so why not 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.
>>
>>Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
>>vocabulary than those only engage in name calling?
>
>
> No, I'm a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds.

Except for the Lea & Perrins ;-)


>>If your answer yes,
>>it would make a huge difference!
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>>>>>>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?
>>
>>I am having to repeat myself but you are posing the same question:
>>There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
>>as I do and this list is named for that.
>
>
> An "exchange of ideas" is a debate, and yet you refuse to
> take any part in debates, and you refuse to take part in
> debates with people who share the same values as
> you do, so I can only repeat my question and ask why
> you decided to post here when your stated principles
> dictate that you won't.
>
>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>How so?
>
>
> Calling people names and just threatening to make them eat
> dirt isn't actually making them eat that proverbial dirt. Did you
> know that?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:40:27 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>Derek wrote:

>> No, I'm a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds.
>
>Except for the Lea & Perrins ;-)

Put some chronocontext into that and you might
have an honest point.

> wrote
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> cut...

...due to inability to respond rationally.

> How much do they pay you for the garbage you post for the meat industry?

Do you happen know what a strawman argument is?

Derek wrote:

[this thread is getting too long so I am cutting to the part that
really interests me]
> Most anti-meat protesters would relish the chance in
> taking on a paid hack, so why not 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.
> >
> >Are you saying that you are a meat industry shill but with better
> >vocabulary than those only engage in name calling?
>
> No, I'm a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds.

Is this true? You seem to be arguing for the meat industry shills while
telling me that you are a strict vegetarian on ethical grounds. Please
explain!

>
> >If your answer yes, it would make a huge difference!
>
> Why?

Because I have no use for meat industry shills.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>congenital liar and coward lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>cut...
> >>>
> >>>How much do
> >>
> >>Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.
> >
> >
> > This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills
>
> No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
> opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
> employed by or has any professional connection to the
> meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
> a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.
>
> You are a bigoted true-believer in a morally bankrupt,
> misanthropic food philosophy.

This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > cut...
>
> ..due to inability to respond rationally.
>
> > How much do they pay you for the garbage you post for the meat industry?
>
> Do you happen know what a strawman argument is?

This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Derek wrote:
> >
> >>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?
> >
> >
> > There is the exchange of ideas and experiences with people who believe
> > as I do and this list is named for that. Meat industry shills are the
> > intruders here.
>
> The alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian group is *NOT* a
> group "for" "veganism". It is a group to *discuss*
> (so-called) "ethical" vegetarianism. There is no
> presumption that "veganism" has been "proved" to be the
> correct moral stance.
>


<snip part of ~jonnie's~ crap>


> You aren't really capable of debate, and you're not
> worth debating. It is, however, great recreation to
> beat up on you in the newsgroups. Expect much more of it.



For a meat industry shill you sure are funny Goober.

You've *NEVER* beaten anyone up anywhere (except in your own deluded
mind).

LOL!!

wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>congenital liar and coward lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>cut...
>>>>>
>>>>>How much do
>>>>
>>>>Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills
>>
>>No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
>>opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
>>employed by or has any professional connection to the
>>meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
>>a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.
>>
>>You are a bigoted true-believer in a morally bankrupt,
>>misanthropic food philosophy.
>
>
> This is why I am a total waste.

If you say so, pal.

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?

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.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>congenital liar and coward lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>cut...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How much do
> >>>>
> >>>>Another pusillanimous whiff-off from a congenital liar.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills
> >>
> >>No such participants here, liar. There isn't a single
> >>opponent of "veganism" participating here who is
> >>employed by or has any professional connection to the
> >>meat industry. We're attacking "veganism" because it's
> >>a bullshit, illogical, irrational belief system.
> >>
> >>You are a bigoted true-believer in a morally bankrupt,
> >>misanthropic food philosophy.
> >
> >
> > This is why ~jonnie~ (Leif Erikson) is a total waste.
>
> If you say so, pal.

Thanks for agreeing ~jonnie~.

Now you know what it's like to be the victim of distortion.

;o)

> wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > Leif Erikson wrote:
>> >
>> > cut...
>>
>> ..due to inability to respond rationally.
>>
>> > How much do they pay you for the garbage you post for the meat
>> > industry?
>>
>> Do you happen know what a strawman argument is?
>
> This is why it is a waste to debate meat industry shills.

It is a waste of everyone's time for you to be here at all.

"Autymn D. C." > wrote
> Why doesn't bpgclm back up anything he says?

Because he's an idiot.

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

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

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.

"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.
>
>

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.
> >
> >

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.

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

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.
> >
> >

wrote:
> 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

If you want to share ideas and experiences with like minded people
there are plenty of places on the internet to do it and a google
search will surely reveal some of them to you. Aaev is an
uncensored group where we can witness polemical discourse
between people who hold opposing beliefs. If you don't like it
you don't have to stay. Please stop whingeing.