On 3 Apr 2006 Goo amusingly wrote:

>I haven't made any absurd claims

LOL! That is an excellent *example* of one of your absurd
claims, Goober. They may not seem absurd to you Goo, but that's
because you don't have a clue. To some of us, your ignorance
and absurd claims are pathetically amusing. Not only are the
claims themselves absurd Goob, but you can't even agree with
yourself about which absurdity(s) to believe. For example, you
say that ranchers have no idea if the animals they raise will be
used entirely for pet food:

"They have no idea if a steer they raise is going to be used entirely
for human consumption, entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

which is a stupid idea by itself. But even more stupidly and
absurdly, at other times you insist that animals ARE being
specifically raise for pet food so the ranchers/farmers would
have to know and care, contrary to what you stupidly and
ingnorantly insisted above.

"The truth is . . . that some livestock are specifically intended for
pet food." - Goo

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be
pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food." - Goo

"The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and dogs in the U.S.,
the food to feed them simply cannot be "leftovers" from the animals
bred to feed humans. " - Goo
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: et>

Ron asked Goo:

>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?

Yes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
LOL!!! Always a good one! Thanks again for the fun and amusement
brought about by your ignorance and absurdity, Goo.

dh@. wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2006 Goo amusingly wrote:
>
> >I haven't made any absurd claims
>
> LOL! That is an excellent *example* of one of your absurd
> claims, Goober. They may not seem absurd to you Goo, but that's
> because you don't have a clue. To some of us, your ignorance
> and absurd claims are pathetically amusing. Not only are the
> claims themselves absurd Goob, but you can't even agree with
> yourself about which absurdity(s) to believe. For example, you
> say that ranchers have no idea if the animals they raise will be
> used entirely for pet food:
>
> "They have no idea if a steer they raise is going to be used entirely
> for human consumption, entirely for animal consumption, or for some
> combination; nor do they care." - Goo
>
> which is a stupid idea by itself. But even more stupidly and
> absurdly, at other times you insist that animals ARE being
> specifically raise for pet food so the ranchers/farmers would
> have to know and care, contrary to what you stupidly and
> ingnorantly insisted above.
>
> "The truth is . . . that some livestock are specifically intended for
> pet food." - Goo
>
> "It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be
> pet food." - Goo
>
> "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food." - Goo
>
> "The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and dogs in the U.S.,
> the food to feed them simply cannot be "leftovers" from the animals
> bred to feed humans. " - Goo
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Goo
> Message-ID: et>
>
> Ron asked Goo:
>
> >So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
> >and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
> >the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
> >supplying the pet food industry?
>
> Yes.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> LOL!!! Always a good one! Thanks again for the fun and amusement
> brought about by your ignorance and absurdity, Goo.




Goo sez:

"I haven't made any absurd claims"


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



Can Goo get any *more* absurd?

On 5 Apr 2006 16:26:53 -0700, "ricky's babysitter" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>>Thanks again for the fun and amusement
>> brought about by your ignorance and absurdity, Goo.
>
>
>
>
>Goo sez:
>
>"I haven't made any absurd claims"
>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>
>
>Can Goo get any *more* absurd?

I have seen him take it to a higher level a few
times, when he made the ludicrous claim that he
never lies :-) Hilarious!!! Maybe you've seen him
do it? The first few times I saw him do it was
about the funniest thing I'd ever seen on the
Internet. It's still quite amusing to see him do
it from time to time.

Just for fun Goob, let's see you do it again.
I'll start by stating a fact that you don't like
people to think about, and you follow up by
hilariously lying about your own dishonesty...
Here goes:

Goo, if you could not lie, you would have nearly
nothing (if anything) left to post.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:06:47 -0400, dh@. wrote:

> Goo, if you could not lie, you would have nearly
>nothing (if anything) left to post.

Oh Goober... your obvious fear of denying your
dishonesty is not as funny as it would be if you
dishonstly tried to deny it. But! it does show without
doubt you're aware that everyone knows you're
a liar. Your fear to respond tells a story too, Goo.

On 13 Apr 2006 11:05:28 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:

>> Here is some pretty
>> classic Goo, showing us sometimes the Goober believes we can
>> *not* know whether or not life on Earth is better than some state
>> of "pre-existence" he imagines that (all?) animals experience:
>>
>> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. " - Goo
>>
>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
>> provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
>> state was for the animals; one simply cannot know." - Goo
>>
>> But! At other times, our poor confused Goober amusingly claims
>> that he *does* know something he claims can *not* be known:
>>
>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
>> them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>>
>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>
>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
>> coming into existence." - Goo
>>
>> ""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
>>
>> ""Life" cannot be a benefit" - Goo
>
>
>LOL!!!
>
>
>Goobal absurdity doesn't appear to have any limitations.

Truly ignorant and stupid, is our absurd Goober. It's sad
that a person can be so clueless, while at the same time
hilarious that he believes himself an authority. A moron
who thinks he's a genius--that's what makes him Goo.

More fun? Oh yes, there is more. Let us recall this
pitiful though amusingly absurd round of Goobal idiotics:

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"No. Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
Period." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"Dogs can't anticipate. Period." - Goo

dh@. wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2006 11:05:28 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
>
> >> Here is some pretty
> >> classic Goo, showing us sometimes the Goober believes we can
> >> *not* know whether or not life on Earth is better than some state
> >> of "pre-existence" he imagines that (all?) animals experience:
> >>
> >> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
> >> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
> >> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. " - Goo
> >>
> >> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
> >> provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
> >> state was for the animals; one simply cannot know." - Goo
> >>
> >> But! At other times, our poor confused Goober amusingly claims
> >> that he *does* know something he claims can *not* be known:
> >>
> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
> >> them better off than before they existed." - Goo
> >>
> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
> >>
> >> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
> >> coming into existence." - Goo
> >>
> >> ""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
> >>
> >> ""Life" cannot be a benefit" - Goo
> >
> >
> >LOL!!!
> >
> >
> >Goobal absurdity doesn't appear to have any limitations.
>
> Truly ignorant and stupid, is our absurd Goober. It's sad
> that a person can be so clueless, while at the same time
> hilarious that he believes himself an authority. A moron
> who thinks he's a genius--that's what makes him Goo.
>
> More fun? Oh yes, there is more. Let us recall this
> pitiful though amusingly absurd round of Goobal idiotics:
>
> "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
>
> "Non human animals experience neither pride nor
> disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
> to feel either." - Goo
>
> "No. Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>
> "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
> other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>
> "Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
> Period." - Goo
>
> "No animals anticipate." - Goo
>
> "Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>
> "Dogs can't anticipate. Period." - Goo



LOL!!!


How does he do it? Just *how* does he do it!!!!?


Every time we think Goo has proved himself the ultimate absurdity, he
manages to top himself.

It's as incredible as it is hilarious!

On 14 Apr 2006 09:15:03 -0700, "ricky's babysitter" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2006 11:05:28 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> Here is some pretty
>> >> classic Goo, showing us sometimes the Goober believes we can
>> >> *not* know whether or not life on Earth is better than some state
>> >> of "pre-existence" he imagines that (all?) animals experience:
>> >>
>> >> "When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>> >> existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>> >> its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. " - Goo
>> >>
>> >> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
>> >> provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
>> >> state was for the animals; one simply cannot know." - Goo
>> >>
>> >> But! At other times, our poor confused Goober amusingly claims
>> >> that he *does* know something he claims can *not* be known:
>> >>
>> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
>> >> them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>> >>
>> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>> >>
>> >> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
>> >> coming into existence." - Goo
>> >>
>> >> ""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
>> >>
>> >> ""Life" cannot be a benefit" - Goo
>> >
>> >
>> >LOL!!!
>> >
>> >
>> >Goobal absurdity doesn't appear to have any limitations.
>>
>> Truly ignorant and stupid, is our absurd Goober. It's sad
>> that a person can be so clueless, while at the same time
>> hilarious that he believes himself an authority. A moron
>> who thinks he's a genius--that's what makes him Goo.
>>
>> More fun? Oh yes, there is more. Let us recall this
>> pitiful though amusingly absurd round of Goobal idiotics:
>>
>> "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
>>
>> "Non human animals experience neither pride nor
>> disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
>> to feel either." - Goo
>>
>> "No. Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>>
>> "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
>> other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>>
>> "Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
>> Period." - Goo
>>
>> "No animals anticipate." - Goo
>>
>> "Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>>
>> "Dogs can't anticipate. Period." - Goo
>
>
>
>LOL!!!
>
>
>How does he do it? Just *how* does he do it!!!!?
>
>
>Every time we think Goo has proved himself the ultimate absurdity, he
>manages to top himself.
>
>It's as incredible as it is hilarious!

It certainly is. Goo may truly be the stupidest person who thinks he's
a genius, who's posting on the Internet.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, poor stupid Goobernicus wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
>Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
>despised, blabbered:
>
>> On 14 Apr 2006 09:15:03 -0700, impotent whining crying homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton cried:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>
>>>>On 13 Apr 2006 11:05:28 -0700, impotent whining crying homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton cried:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>>Here is some pretty
>>>>>>classic Goo, showing us sometimes the Goober believes we can
>>>>>>*not* know whether or not life on Earth is better than some state
>>>>>>of "pre-existence" he imagines that (all?) animals experience:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>>>>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>>>>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. " - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
>>>>>>provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
>>>>>>state was for the animals; one simply cannot know." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But! At other times, our poor confused Goober amusingly claims
>>>>>>that he *does* know something he claims can *not* be known:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
>>>>>>them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
>>>>>>coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""Life" cannot be a benefit" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Goobal absurdity doesn't appear to have any limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Truly ignorant and stupid, is our absurd Goober. It's sad
>>>>that a person can be so clueless, while at the same time
>>>>hilarious that he believes himself an authority. A moron
>>>>who thinks he's a genius--that's what makes him Goo.
>>>>
>>>> More fun? Oh yes, there is more. Let us recall this
>>>>pitiful though amusingly absurd round of Goobal idiotics:
>>>>
>>>>"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
>>>>disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
>>>>to feel either." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No. Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
>>>>other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
>>>>Period." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No animals anticipate." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Dogs can't anticipate. Period." - Goo
>
>All true statements.

LOL!

>>>How does he do it? Just *how* does he do it!!!!?
>
>Intelligence

LOL!!! Just the opposite. A Google search defines you,
Goo:
__________________________________________________ _____________________
Results 1 - 10 of about 602 for Goobernicus. (0.70 seconds)

NewsBackup.com ~ View topic - The cowardice of Goo
Goobernicus Gonad--The moron who thinks he's a genius ... significant issues which Goobernicus has
lied about repeatedly, He has been able to do nothing but ...
www.newsbackup.com/post-4636424.html - 80k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Newsgroup Article sci.psychology.misc:6340
Goobernicus Gonad says that Darwin was projecting. this is classic! ... Goo is short for
Goobernicus. you'Re so funny. you kill me every time. ...
news.quipo.it/scripts/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=sci.psychology.misc &item=6340&utag= - 11k -
Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Proof of anticipation in ducks
Search for Goobernicus, because you are the number one Goober. ... which Goobernicus has lied about
repeatedly, he has been able to do nothing but ... ...
www.vocaboly.com/forums/ftopic7069-0-asc-15.html - 96k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar
pages

Google Groups : sci.psychology.misc
He is Goobernicus Gonad (aka Jon Ball, Rudy Canoza,). Here's a partial list of posters that Goo ...
>C'mon Rudy, you *know* you are the Goobernicus Gonad. ...
groups.google.com/.../2005-08?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.psychology.misc%2Fbrowse_f rm%2Fmonth%2F2005-08%3F&
- 87k - Cached - Similar pages

Google Groups : rec.pets.cats.misc
On 28 Mar 2006, Goobernicus Gonad wondered:. >in what way are people who encourage vegetarianism
>"enemies" of livestock animals? ...
groups.google.com/group/rec.pets.cats.misc/browse_thread/thread/9a849d157640d297/9cb482cd690bf807 -
223k - Cached - Similar pages

:::: UseNet Discussion Groups ::::
Goobernicus is stupid beyond belief. > >There is no one named "Goobernicus". That's you: the moron
who thinks he's a genius. a simple Google search confirms ...
news.acncanada.net/group/sci.psychology.misc/artBodyUsenet.tpt/@article@24570 - 8k - Supplemental
Result - Cached - Similar pages

:::: UseNet Discussion Groups ::::
there is no one named "Goobernicus". Yes. Yes there is. he is Goobernicus Gonad (aka Jon Ball,
Rudy Canoza,) > > you, ****wit David Harrison, are Goo. ...
news.acncanada.net/group/sci.psychology.misc/artBodyUsenet.tpt/@article@24577 - 8k -
Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from news.acncanada.net ]

Golden Retriever Forum - Dogs and anticipation?
Goo is short for Goobernicus. you'Re so funny. you kill Me every time. >it would be hilarious to see
him >try to defend his beliefs, But he is most likely ...
http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/...4&page=1&pp=10 - 68k - Supplemental Result - Cached
- Similar pages

Chatting about Dogs and anticipation in the dog stuff group
Goo is short for Goobernicus. it would be hilarious to see him ... Goo is short for Goobernicus.
you'Re so funny. you kill me every time. ...
digintodogs.com/discuss/dog_stuff/Dogs-and-anticipation - 24k - Supplemental Result - Cached -
Similar pages

Chatting about Dogs and anticipation in the dog stuff group
okay Goo, calm down, I'll finish it: Goo is short for Goobernicus Gonad...the moron who thinks
He's ... like that. hilarious!!! that's why He's Goobernicus. ...
digintodogs.com/discuss/dog_stuff/Dogs-and-anticipation/10 - 30k - Supplemental Result - Cached
- Similar pages

On 17 Apr 2006, a fantasising ignorant Goober wrote:

>Dave wrote:
>
>> So when a dog's owner puts on his coat and his shoes and
>> makes for the door or reaches into the cupboard for a tin of
>> dog food and the dog starts acting in what can only be described
>> as an excited manner how would you explain this phenomenon
>> given your assertion that dogs do not anticipate.
>
>Simple conditioned response.

This gets us back to your apparent belief in voodoo, Goo.
Something *does* make the dog respond. You claim that the
condition which causes the response we are discussing, is
some sort of projection by humans. You amusingly believe that
humans somehow project their emotions into animals causing
the responses in question, and unless you can explain it in
some other way we are left to conclude that you believe it's
via something like voodoo. Why do you believe it's more likely
that animals' changes in behavior are a result of humans
somehow projecting their emotions into the animals, than it is
that the animals are experiencing the emotions which all
evidence strongly suggests that they ARE experiencing, Goo?

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:

> On 17 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >davie "pesco-vegan", nearly as much a ****wit as *the* ****wit, blabbered:
> >
> >> So when a dog's owner puts on his coat and his shoes and
> >> makes for the door or reaches into the cupboard for a tin of
> >> dog food and the dog starts acting in what can only be described
> >> as an excited manner how would you explain this phenomenon
> >> given your assertion that dogs do not anticipate.
> >
> >Simple conditioned response.
>
> This gets us back to your apparent belief in voodoo, Leif.

No. I hold no belief in voodoo, ****wit, nor have I written anything
that indicates one. No belief in voodoo is "apparent", ****wit. Once
again, you just lied.

> Something *does* make the dog respond.

Not anticipation. Anticipation is a conscious state. The dog's
reaction is automatic; not conscious.

I hope that helps.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:

> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
> >Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
> >despised, blabbered:
> >
> >> On 14 Apr 2006 09:15:03 -0700, impotent whining crying homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton cried:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >>>
> >>>>On 13 Apr 2006 11:05:28 -0700, impotent whining crying homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton cried:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Here is some pretty
> >>>>>>classic Goo, showing us sometimes the Goober believes we can
> >>>>>>*not* know whether or not life on Earth is better than some state
> >>>>>>of "pre-existence" he imagines that (all?) animals experience:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
> >>>>>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
> >>>>>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. " - Goo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
> >>>>>>provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
> >>>>>>state was for the animals; one simply cannot know." - Goo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>But! At other times, our poor confused Goober amusingly claims
> >>>>>>that he *does* know something he claims can *not* be known:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
> >>>>>>them better off than before they existed." - Goo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
> >>>>>>coming into existence." - Goo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>""Life" cannot be a benefit" - Goo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>LOL!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Goobal absurdity doesn't appear to have any limitations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Truly ignorant and stupid, is our absurd Goober. It's sad
> >>>>that a person can be so clueless, while at the same time
> >>>>hilarious that he believes himself an authority. A moron
> >>>>who thinks he's a genius--that's what makes him Goo.
> >>>>
> >>>> More fun? Oh yes, there is more. Let us recall this
> >>>>pitiful though amusingly absurd round of Goobal idiotics:
> >>>>
> >>>>"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
> >>>>disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
> >>>>to feel either." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"No. Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
> >>>>other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
> >>>>Period." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"No animals anticipate." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
> >>>>
> >>>>"Dogs can't anticipate. Period." - Goo
> >
> >All true statements.
>
> LOL!

It's odd that you find the truth and enlightenment amusing, ****wit,
but then ignorant Georgia crackers like you have lots of bizarre
reactions.


>
> >>>How does he do it? Just *how* does he do it!!!!?
> >
> >Intelligence
>
> LOL!!! Just the opposite.

No. I am intelligent. You don't really dispute that, ****wit. YOU
are not intelligent, and you don't dispute that finding, either.

I hope that helps.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
> Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
> despised, blabbered:
>
> > On 17 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> > >davie "pesco-vegan", nearly as much a ****wit as *the* ****wit, blabbered:
> > >
> > >> So when a dog's owner puts on his coat and his shoes and
> > >> makes for the door or reaches into the cupboard for a tin of
> > >> dog food and the dog starts acting in what can only be described
> > >> as an excited manner how would you explain this phenomenon
> > >> given your assertion that dogs do not anticipate.
> > >
> > >Simple conditioned response.
> >
> > This gets us back to your apparent belief in voodoo, Leif.
>
> No. I hold no belief in voodoo, ****wit, nor have I written anything
> that indicates one. No belief in voodoo is "apparent", ****wit. Once
> again, you just lied.
>
> > Something *does* make the dog respond.
>
> Not anticipation. Anticipation is a conscious state. The dog's
> reaction is automatic; not conscious.


So the dog is unconscious?

Very difficult for *anyone* including a dog to anticipate anything when
he's unconscious.



>
> I hope that helps.


Not really. You just confuse yourself even more.

On 18 Apr 2006 the Goober wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
>Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
>despised, blabbered:
>
>> On 17 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> >davie "pesco-vegan", nearly as much a ****wit as *the* ****wit, blabbered:
>> >
>> >> So when a dog's owner puts on his coat and his shoes and
>> >> makes for the door or reaches into the cupboard for a tin of
>> >> dog food and the dog starts acting in what can only be described
>> >> as an excited manner how would you explain this phenomenon
>> >> given your assertion that dogs do not anticipate.
>> >
>> >Simple conditioned response.
>>
>> This gets us back to your apparent belief in voodoo, Goo.
>
>No. I hold no belief in voodoo, ****wit, nor have I written anything
>that indicates one. No belief in voodoo is "apparent",

What type of magic or "force" or whatever do you think it is
then, Goober?

>****wit. Once
>again, you just lied.
>
>> Something *does* make the dog respond.
>
>Not anticipation.

What Goo? If you're going to claim it's not what appears to
be some sort of voodoo, what do you think it is? Goo?

>Anticipation is a conscious state. The dog's
>reaction is automatic; not conscious.
>
>I hope that helps.

Well of course it helps display what an idiot you are, but
it still leaves the huge question of: What do you think causes
your supposed human projection to make animals respond
as if they were experiencing emotions that you amusingly
claim they are not capable of experiencing? If not some sort
of voodoo, WHAT do you think it is, Goo???

On 18 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
>Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
>despised, blabbered:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
>> >Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
>> >despised, blabbered:
>> >
>> >> On 14 Apr 2006 09:15:03 -0700, impotent whining crying homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton cried:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On 13 Apr 2006 11:05:28 -0700, impotent whining crying homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton cried:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>Here is some pretty
>> >>>>>>classic Goo, showing us sometimes the Goober believes we can
>> >>>>>>*not* know whether or not life on Earth is better than some state
>> >>>>>>of "pre-existence" he imagines that (all?) animals experience:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>> >>>>>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>> >>>>>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged. " - Goo
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might
>> >>>>>>provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence"
>> >>>>>>state was for the animals; one simply cannot know." - Goo
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>But! At other times, our poor confused Goober amusingly claims
>> >>>>>>that he *does* know something he claims can *not* be known:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
>> >>>>>>them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
>> >>>>>>coming into existence." - Goo
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>""Life" is not a benefit" - Goo
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>""Life" cannot be a benefit" - Goo
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>LOL!!!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Goobal absurdity doesn't appear to have any limitations.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Truly ignorant and stupid, is our absurd Goober. It's sad
>> >>>>that a person can be so clueless, while at the same time
>> >>>>hilarious that he believes himself an authority. A moron
>> >>>>who thinks he's a genius--that's what makes him Goo.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> More fun? Oh yes, there is more. Let us recall this
>> >>>>pitiful though amusingly absurd round of Goobal idiotics:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
>> >>>>disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
>> >>>>to feel either." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"No. Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or any
>> >>>>other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Animals do not experience pride or disappointment.
>> >>>>Period." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"No animals anticipate." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Anticipation requires language." - Goo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Dogs can't anticipate. Period." - Goo
>> >
>> >All true statements.
>>
>> LOL!
>
>It's odd that you find the truth and enlightenment amusing, ****wit,
>but then ignorant Georgia crackers like you have lots of bizarre
>reactions.
>
>
>>
>> >>>How does he do it? Just *how* does he do it!!!!?
>> >
>> >Intelligence
>>
>> LOL!!! Just the opposite.
>
>No. I am intelligent. You don't really dispute that, ****wit.

I do point out how stupid you are though, Goo.

>YOU
>are not intelligent, and you don't dispute that finding, either.

I understand things that you never will be able to, Goober.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:

> On 18 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson helpfully wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
>>Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
>>despised, blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>On 17 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>davie "pesco-vegan", nearly as much a ****wit as *the* ****wit, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So when a dog's owner puts on his coat and his shoes and
>>>>>makes for the door or reaches into the cupboard for a tin of
>>>>>dog food and the dog starts acting in what can only be described
>>>>>as an excited manner how would you explain this phenomenon
>>>>>given your assertion that dogs do not anticipate.
>>>>
>>>>Simple conditioned response.
>>>
>>> This gets us back to your apparent belief in voodoo, Goo.
>>
>>No. I hold no belief in voodoo, ****wit, nor have I written anything
>>that indicates one. No belief in voodoo is "apparent",
>
>
> What type of magic

None. I don't believe in magic. You do, ****wit.

>>****wit. Once
>>again, you just lied.
>>
>>
>>>Something *does* make the dog respond.
>>
>>Not anticipation.
>
>
> What Leif?

Not anticipation. I don't care what it is, ****wit,
even though I do in fact know. I am only interested
here in telling you what it is not: it is not
anticipation.


>>Anticipation is a conscious state. The dog's
>>reaction is automatic; not conscious.
>>
>>I hope that helps.
>
>
> Well of course it helps

Then you can leave.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, a pathetically inept Goober wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
>Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
>despised, blabbered:
>
>> On 18 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh pointed out:

>>>>Something *does* make the dog respond.
>>>
>>>Not anticipation.
>>
>>
>> What, you inept Goober?
>
>Not anticipation.

LOL. *What* then, Goo?

>I don't care what it is, ****wit,

LOL! Your ineptitude is such fun Goob.

>even though I do in fact know.

LOL!!! Goober, you have no clue. You have less
of an idea than anyone else who has discussed it
with you, and I for one recognise your claim to "know"
as being simply another amusingly ludicrous example
of Goobal absurdity.

>I am only interested here in telling you what it is not:
>it is not anticipation.

Well that certainly is an absurd claim Goober. IF!
you think what clearly appears to be anticipation
brought about by conditions which could easily
produce anticipation is not really anticipation, then
what do think it "really" is, Goo? Even though we
know you're dependably an inept failure, you really
should try to explain what you think that you think
"it is" this time Goobernicus. Go!: