FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Where's everybody gone? (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/96820-wheres-everybody-gone.html)

Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 07:38 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Leify-Goo wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > cheeky upchuck wrote:
> >
> >>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel.

> >
> >
> > Your fear of aging is showing again.

>
> No. YOU have aged badly. No one would want to follow
> your shitty example.


Have we met in real life? No. Where do you get the idea that I'm
aging badly? And what does that mean? Does it mean that I have ceased
to be attractive to YOU? Sounds like a bonus, since who would want you
sniffing after them.

> >>>Do you remember that girlfriend of your's
> >>
> >>No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still
> >>together, you stinky old ****.

> >
> >
> > How come you claimed to be with her for 4 years

>
> Because he


lied about it and was caught fully with cites and all.


Leif Erikson[_1_] 12-08-2006 07:42 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Scented Nectar wrote:

> Leify-Goo wrote:
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>cheeky upchuck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your fear of aging is showing again.

>>
>>No. YOU have aged badly. No one would want to follow
>>your shitty example.

>
>
> Have we met in real life? No. Where do you get the idea that I'm
> aging badly?


Car-less; heavy pot abuser; low-paying scut job;
posting to usenet at 2:30am; 46 years old.

That's aging badly by anyone's definition.


>>>>>Do you remember that girlfriend of your's
>>>>
>>>>No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still
>>>>together, you stinky old ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>How come you claimed to be with her for 4 years

>>
>>Because he was, and now it's longer.

>
>
> lied


Yes, you lied.

Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 07:46 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Derek wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 08:19:58 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I ... have never traded sex for weed.
> >>
> >> It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure
> >> he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-)

> >
> >I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult
> >rather than state a fact.

>
> I made a bad joke. Rather than trading "sex for weed", which you
> obviously deny, I implied that chico may have made a mistake and
> got things the wrong way round, meaning you trade "weed for sex"
> instead.


Well, either way, I've never traded either for either. Although both
are pleasures, I don't trade sex given for anything but sex received.
:) And although I trade money in order to receive weed, I am very
strict about refusing to sell it myself. That carries legal penalties
that are too heavy.

> It's a frequent occurance for him to do this
> >to me. If he's trying to make a valid point of something, it's not
> >working from my perspective.



Leif Erikson[_1_] 12-08-2006 07:50 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Scented Nectar wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>>On 11 Aug 2006 08:19:58 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I ... have never traded sex for weed.
>>>>
>>>>It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure
>>>>he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-)
>>>
>>>I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult
>>>rather than state a fact.

>>
>>I made a bad joke. Rather than trading "sex for weed", which you
>>obviously deny, I implied that chico may have made a mistake and
>>got things the wrong way round, meaning you trade "weed for sex"
>>instead.

>
>
> Well, either way, I've never traded either for either.


That's a lie.

Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 07:50 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Leify-Goo wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > Leify-Goo wrote:
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>>cheeky upchuck wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Your fear of aging is showing again.
> >>
> >>No. YOU have aged badly. No one would want to follow
> >>your shitty example.

> >
> >
> > Have we met in real life? No. Where do you get the idea that I'm
> > aging badly?

>
> Car-less; heavy pot abuser; low-paying scut job;
> posting to usenet at 2:30am; 46 years old.
>
> That's aging badly by anyone's definition.


Get a life Goo. And try to get some facts straight too, you pathetic
inept Goober.

> >>>>>Do you remember that girlfriend of your's
> >>>>
> >>>>No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still
> >>>>together, you stinky old ****.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How come you claimed to be with her for 4 years
> >>
> >>Because he was, and now it's longer.

> >
> >
> > lied

>
> Yes, you lied.


About what? You've snipped so much that you're not making sense. As
Usual.


Leif Erikson[_1_] 12-08-2006 07:53 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky the pot-head slut wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Skanky the pot-head slut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Skanky the pot-head slut wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chico Chupacabra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your fear of aging is showing again.
>>>>
>>>>No. YOU have aged badly. No one would want to follow
>>>>your shitty example.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have we met in real life? No. Where do you get the idea that I'm
>>>aging badly?

>>
>>Car-less; heavy pot abuser; low-paying scut job;
>>posting to usenet at 2:30am; 46 years old.
>>
>>That's aging badly by anyone's definition.

>
>
> Get a life


Have a good one. Not a wasted, dead-end horror like yours.


>>>>>>>Do you remember that girlfriend of your's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still
>>>>>>together, you stinky old ****.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How come you claimed to be with her for 4 years
>>>>
>>>>Because he was, and now it's longer.
>>>
>>>
>>>lied

>>
>>Yes, you lied.

>
>
> About what?


Everything. Mostly, though, you lied about not being
able to be moral and stop causing needless animal
deaths. You also lied about not ****ing that kid next
door up the ass with a broom handle.

Nearly 3:00am, and there you are, stoned out of your
****ing gourd and posting to usenet. That's a shit life.

Dutch 12-08-2006 09:43 AM

Where's everybody gone?
 

"Rupert" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [..]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral
>> >> >> >> philosophy
>> >> >> >> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of
>> >> >> >> others
>> >> >> >> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not
>> >> >> > supposed
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when
>> >> >> > trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating
>> >> >> > rights
>> >> >> > violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You give him too much credit. I find he indulges in such a tangled
>> >> >> quagmire
>> >> >> of ideas that it's impossible to know where the logic ends and the
>> >> >> equivocation begins. The quote provided is a prime example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases in
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right to be treated
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> respect is violated; that is what makes their murder wrong."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --> What makes murder wrong is that it is the act of unlawfully
>> >> >> depriving
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> person of their life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, well let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the
>> >> > wrongness of murder consists in its illegality?
>> >>
>> >> No, the judgments of wrongness and illegality are derived from the
>> >> same
>> >> moral reasoning. It's wrong *and* illegal to deprive a person of their
>> >> life
>> >> because every person has a right to their life and property, *unless*
>> >> you
>> >> have a defensible reason to do so.
>> >
>> > So you're saying murder is wrong because it violates the right to life,
>> > and you think that's a better account than Regan's claim that it's
>> > wrong because it violates the right to respectful treatment. Is that
>> > right?

>>
>> Pretty much, yes. I'm not campaigning in support of disrespect, I just
>> don't
>> think it's a sound foundation for rights. There is plenty of
>> disrespectful
>> treatment right here on newsgroups, much of it well-deserved, some
>> perhaps
>> not.

>
> I don't think this is what Regan has in mind when he's talking about
> "respectful treatment".


Maybe not, he doesn't say, he leaves the reader to decide for himself I
guess.

>> The idea that I should be morally or legally restricted from hating you
>> or calling you a ****ing asshole if that's how I feel about you is scary,
>> bounding on totalitarianism. I don't need that kind of protection, or
>> those
>> kinds of constraints. I think a solid core a well-defined rights is what
>> serves us best, not subjective terms like "respect".

>
> Well, you might be right. Arguably saying that all rights derive from
> the right to respectful treatment doesn't illuminate the matter as much
> as just giving a case-by-case definition of what the rights are. It
> depends on how clear a definition Regan can give of "respectful
> treatment". I don't know whether he's tried to do that anywhere.


Like I said, when you respect someone's rights, that's respectful treatment.
It's a circular statement, and if you haven't defined what those rights are,
you aren't saying anything.





Derek[_2_] 12-08-2006 12:09 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
On 11 Aug 2006 23:46:52 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 11 Aug 2006 08:19:58 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I ... have never traded sex for weed.
>> >>
>> >> It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure
>> >> he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-)
>> >
>> >I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult
>> >rather than state a fact.

>>
>> I made a bad joke. Rather than trading "sex for weed", which you
>> obviously deny, I implied that chico may have made a mistake and
>> got things the wrong way round, meaning you trade "weed for sex"
>> instead.

>
>Well, either way, I've never traded either for either.


I know that, SN. Like I said, I made a bad joke.

>Although both
>are pleasures, I don't trade sex given for anything but sex received.


That's where you and I differ. I would gladly trade sex for
a new laptop, for example. Maybe even for a nice meal.

>:) And although I trade money in order to receive weed, I am very
>strict about refusing to sell it myself. That carries legal penalties
>that are too heavy.


It should be readily available to anyone over the age of 16,
in my opinion. I used to smoke a lot of it, and, as we can
all tell, it hasn't done me any harm. ;-)

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 02:28 PM

skanky's lies about public transportation
 
Skanky waffled:

> I no longer think I'll be getting a pickup truck,


I never thought you would anyway. They cost a lot more to own than
you'll ever earn.

> but who knows.


You certainly know you won't get a vehicle, you slothful degenerate pothead.

> I used to have an SUV


Sure ya did.

> and enjoy driving large vehicles.


Why don't you get a job as a bus driver? It would be like killing two
birds with the same stone. Wait. They drug test for that position. You
can't work for the bus authority.

*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!*

> Hahah, I made you google.


No, you didn't. But I did for the wild claims you make about public
transportation.

> Do you have a hate-on for public transportation?


I oppose it for a number of valid reasons. Keep reading.

> Do you hate it for being environmentally friendly,


It is *not* environmentally friendly, at least not in the US. If
anything, it contributes to more pollution per capita than cars do
because of the scope of public transportation systems (the ever
increasing size of such systems and the hours they run) compared to the
ever decreasing ridership. It's a wasteful abuse of taxpayer funds AND
of fuel.

Much has changed since the "efficiency" and "environment" arguments were
made for increased subsidies for urban mass transit in the 1970s.
Automobile fuel efficiency is up over 50%. The number of people riding
public buses and trains is down, WAY down in many areas, which results
in a net increase in the fuel cost per rider mile AND a net increase in
the amount of pollution generated per rider mile.

A few facts. First, trains -- which probably have higher ridership per
mile than buses:
Amtrak has virtually no impact on reducing traffic congestion,
pollution, or energy use. Even a doubling of train ridership
would reduce energy consumption and traffic congestion by less
than 0.1 percent.

Amtrak is by far the most highly subsidized form of intercity
transportation. The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is
$100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. On some of
the long-distance routes, such as New York to Los Angeles, the
taxpayer subsidy per passenger exceeds $1,000. It would be
cheaper for taxpayers to close down expensive lines and purchase
discount round-trip airfare for all the Amtrak riders.

A 1982 Congressional Budget Office study concluded that "even
with future improvements in Amtrak's operating efficiency, the
Northeast Corridor rail service will yield only limited energy
savings, while the rest of the system will yield an energy loss.
The [Amtrak] rail system as a whole will yield a net energy
loss." Since that time, Amtrak's fuel efficiency has improved
less than the improvement in automobile fuel efficiency.

If all Amtrak passengers switched to cars, U.S. energy
consumption would rise by only 0.1 percent.
(above from: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-266.html)

Think public buses are more cost-efficient than trains? Guess again.
Capital Metro is my city's mass transit bureaucracy. Our state
comptroller has routinely audited school districts, state agencies, and
local agencies to show taxpayers how their money is being spent and to
highlight areas where things should be changed. Here is the report on
Austin's Cap Metro:

The total operating cost connected with providing these services
was $70.3 million in fiscal 1998. In that year, Capital Metro
took in $7.9 million in fares from its various services, or a
little more than 10 percent of its costs.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/tpr/capmet/chpt5.htm

That means, you dole-scrounging ****, nearly 90% of the cost of riding
the bus was taken from taxpayers -- local and federal money -- who also
have to pay for their own cars, their own insurance, their own
maintenance, etc., just so slothful people like you can get around
without cars.

What about your claims about the environment?

Here are some data about different modes of transportation, how much
energy they consume per person per mile, and how much CO2 per rider per
mile they generate:

Mode | Btu/person/mile | Energy/person/mile | CO2/person/mile
Automobile (driver only) 5,815 0.046 gal 0.911 lbs
Automobile (avg, 1.59 people) 3,635 0.029 gal 0.569 lbs
Automobile (2 persons) 2,908 0.023 gal 0.451 lbs
Automobile (3 persons) 1,938 0.015 gal 0.304 lbs
Personal truck (driver only) 7,217 0.058 gal 1.131 lbs
Personal truck (1.64 people) 4,511 0.036 gal 0.707 lbs
Composite (cars+lighttrucks) 6,375 0.051 gal 0.999 lbs
Motorcycles 2,494 0.020 gal 0.391 lbs
Snowmobiles 10,423 0.083 gal 1.633 lbs
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid598.php


Mode | Btu/person/mile | Energy/person/mile | CO2/person/mile
Transit bus (diesel) 4,802 0.035 gal 0.775 lbs
Transit rail (electric) 3,168 0.928 kWh 1.328 lbs
Commuter rail (electric) 2,932 0.859 kWh 1.229 lbs
Commuter rail (diesel) 2,932 0.021 gal 0.473 lbs
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid599.php

Note that carpooling -- with just one passenger per car -- reduces the
level of emissions to a level 50% below that of taking a bus and would
produce only one-third the CO2 emissions of an electric commuter rail
per passenger mile. (Electric vehicles are *NOT* CO2-neutral. It takes a
lot of electric energy to repower a battery, and that energy is usually
produced by burning coal or through fission.)

Thus, Skanky, you're not only a leech on society but your form of
transportation puts at least the same burden on the environment as all
those people who get around faster because they don't have to make so
many bloody bus stops or make transfers to other buses to get closer to
where they want to go.

You're also totally ****ing wrong, as usual. Public transportation takes
money from everyone to subsidize the few who actually use it (the phrase
"take advantage of it" seems especially apropos given the fact that
public buses are subsidized at nearly 90%). And there's no inherent
environmental benefit to taking a bus -- they're usually empty here
anyway, but they still run around without riders and stay on schedule in
case someone ever decides to get on -- over a car.

> or just because you feel a
> car must be used in order for you to feel superior?


It has nothing to do with superiority, you stupid bitch, it has to do
with wasting time in traffic (a bus trip in Austin, on average, takes
two- to four- times longer than driving depending on time of day) and
draining the taxpayers for a bloated boondoggle that, like every other
government program, never delivers on any of its promises. Our bus
system has ruined our roads -- the same ones its revenues were supposed
to keep repaired, but we know its revenues are about 10% of its
operating expenses. If it's the same or similar in Toronto, just
remember your fare represents a tiny drop in the bucket for what it
actually costs to get your smelly, lazy, fat ass around. All those
people who get around more efficiently than you do in their cars are
paying for your reduced bus fare. But who can blame them for avoiding
taking the bus? They have lives, and you have all your idle time.

> Just what is your
> problem with someone taking a streetcar sometimes?


I'd have NO problem with it if she had to pay what it actually costs,
but I'll always have a righteous indignation for those whose lifestyles
are totally or almost totally subsidized by others -- and public
transportation, in the examples above, is subsidized from 40% to 90%.

<snip your typical pseudo-psychology prattle>

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 02:43 PM

well, chumpo?
 
Les-Ali bin Footrub wrote:

>>>>While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your
>>>>take on
>>>
>>>Guess.

>>
>>Tell us how all these UK-Muslim terror suspects

>
> Evening round-up of twilight zone manic spewing propaganda...



I know you and people like Alex Jones get your knickers in knots and go
apeshit over the slightest things. I'm still waiting for you to explain
how the following "Zionist Neo-Cons" are involved with Skull &
Crossbones, the Bildeburgers, the CFR, Ronald McDonald House, and the
Harper Valley PTA.

Abdula Ahmed Ali
Cossor Ali
Shazad Khuram Ali
Nabeel Hussain
Tanvir Hussain
Umair Hussain
Umar Islam
Waseem Kayani
Assan Abdullah Khan
Waheed Arafat Khan
Osman Adam Khatib
Abdul Muneem Patel
Tayib Rauf
Muhammed Usman Saddique
Assad Sarwar
Ibrahim Savant
Amin Asmin Tariq
Shamin Mohammed Uddin
Waheed Zaman

Come on, Les-Ali, CONNECT THE ****ING DOTS.

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 03:02 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky **** wrote:

>>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel.

>
> Your fear


I don't fear aging, stupid.

>>>Do you remember that girlfriend of your's

>>
>>No apostrophe in "yours." Yes, I know her quite well and we're still
>>together, you stinky old ****.

>
> How come


Call it love, Skanky. That's what usually holds couples together.

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 03:09 PM

skanky is an underachiever
 
Skanky, slothful bus-riding underachiever from Toronto, wrote:

> You just keep on proving that


....you're a loser.

> That doesn't work on people like me who are happy
> with their lives.


You have such low standards that it's no surprise you'd find contentment
and happiness with your low level of "success" (though it's hard for
others to see 46 years of underachievement and chronic failure as
"successful").

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 03:26 PM

Cyber-worlds?
 
Skanky wrote:

> Karen Winter wrote:
>
>>Skanky -- we all know Leif/Chico/whoever it is pretending to be
>>today/ invents a lot of stuff, but is there any truth in its claim you
>>create avatars for online roleplaying? Sounds cool. I might like to
>>check it out, depending on exactly what's involved. Google?
>>
>><snip>

>
>
> Hi Karen Winter. I used to make avatars for a program called
> 3dAnarchy/Atmosphere. It was a 3d live chat and build program.
> Unfortunately


For you. The rest of the world doesn't miss it.

> it was discontinued.


That's what happens to things that are marginal, they become redundant,
obsolete, useless. Just like you.

> I have a memorial page for it at
> http://www.scentednectar.com/atmo/index.htm


*humming Taps very disrespectfully*

> These days I'm using ActiveWorlds as my 3d live chat and build program
> of choice. I don't know how to make avatars for it,


You're too resistant to change to even learn. Figures.

> but have made a
> lot of objects and textures.


But no money. Imagine that.

> I have a page on it at
> http://www.scentednectar.com/aw/index.htm I think it's the best
> program of its kind currently out there,


From Wikipedia:
As a commercial platform, Active Worlds has not been notably
successful.

No wonder you enjoy wasting time with it.

> especially since you can build
> on much huger pieces of land than in the competition (like Second
> Life).


Forget about your five ****ing acres when you retire. That's the only
land you'll ever own -- AW Fantasyland.

> The people there are generally much nicer than the trolls on
> the newsgroups here. You can enter, explore and chat in many of the
> worlds for free as a 'tourist'.


You can enter and explore many parts of the real world as a tourist for
free, too. Of course, you still have to get from Point A to Point B and
you don't have a car...

> A 'citizenship' is fairly cheap,


So is your subsidized bus fare.

> with that you can build whatever you want in the public building
> worlds.


You could've built whatever you wanted here in the real world if you'd
only applied yourself, Skanky. Too bad you seek refuge in a phony world
instead of making your real one better.

> My fave public build world is Alphaworld. It is the virtual
> size of California,


There are some minor differences. Owning land in California, lucrative
and rewarding. Owning land in "Alphaworld," costs you money.

> and there is tons of open space to claim and build on.


Why would you waste your time and money building a fantasy world when
you could spend it building whatever life you want for yourself in the
real one?

> Power users buy their own (expensive) worlds,


"Power users" = really big losers.

> but I find my needs
> met by just having a cit.


You'll spend US$84 a year for a phony world but not pay a couple bucks a
month for real usenet access?

> If you become a cit, you can also do things
> like whisper


Hey, I can whisper in THIS real world. And it doesn't cost me US$84 a
year, either, cheapskate.

> and send telegrams and other stuff.


Same here. Why would you want to whisper or send phony telegrams in a
phony make-believe world, Skanky?

> If you check it out,
> the 2 main chatting areas are Alphaworld's Ground Zero, and the Gate.
> Both are moderated, but if you chat with people in remote areas or
> whisper or telegram, it's not censored. Maybe I'll run into you there.


It sounds like Karen's cup of tea, especially if there are other
degenerate sex fiends around for her to trade stories about jacking off
parrots and stuff.

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 03:31 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky wrote:

>>>>Your life is a crock alright. Forty-something wastrel.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your fear of aging is showing again.

>>
>>No. YOU have aged badly. No one would want to follow
>>your shitty example.

>
> Where do you get the idea that I'm
> aging badly?


Forty-six. Dead end job with marginal pay. Your boss is probably half
your age. Pothead. Bus rider. No car. Atmosphere, Active World. Too
cheap for a usenet account. Cankles.

> And what does that mean?


Forty-six. Dead end job with marginal pay. Your boss is probably have
your age. Pothead. Bus rider. No car. Atmosphere, Active World. Too
cheap for a usenet account. Cankles.

> Does it mean that I have ceased
> to be attractive to YOU?


There's nothing to cease. I doubt you were ever attractive, much less to
Mr Erikson.

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 03:33 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky wrote:

>>That's aging badly by anyone's definition.

>
> Get a life


He has one, and it's not at Atmosphere or Active Worlds.

chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 03:34 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky lied:

>>>>>I ... have never traded sex for weed.
>>>>
>>>>It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure
>>>>he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-)
>>>
>>>I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult
>>>rather than state a fact.

>>
>>I made a bad joke. Rather than trading "sex for weed", which you
>>obviously deny, I implied that chico may have made a mistake and
>>got things the wrong way round, meaning you trade "weed for sex"
>>instead.

>
> Well, either way, I've never traded either for either.


Liar.

dh@. 12-08-2006 06:09 PM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:52:39 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:

>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of
>animal behavior.


What do you think about the following idiocy?

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

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
.. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"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

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - 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

"Ranchers . . . 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

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron asked:
>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?


Goo replied:
Yes.

Message-ID: et>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Ron pointed out:
>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
>PET FOOD.


Goo replied:
Some are.

Message-ID: .com>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

dh@. 12-08-2006 06:13 PM

an observation about "the side"
 
On 10 Aug 2006, Goo lied:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:26:04 +0100, lesley the foot-rubbing whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
>>
>> >"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>> >> OBSERVATIONS...
>> >
>> >"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>> >..
>> >Violence/rape by definition causes harm, where is the harm in ****ing a sheep?
>> >
>> >09 August 2006 19:56 GMT
>> >
>> >> Thus, sticking with "the side" appears to be more important to its members
>> >than either the facts of the issues at hand or the sanity or the normalcy of others
>> >on "the side." Given the whole lot of you, I think it's very fair when people judge
>> >> others by the company they keep.
>> >
>> >
>> >Your buddy-pal Leif, chumpo. Aren't you proud?

>>
>> You "aras" all agree with Goo's claims that:

>
>The below are all true statements, ****wit.


No Goo, they are not. But it's nice to see that you stopped thinking
you disagree with yourself about them. It's bad enough that you can't
explain your absurd claims, and even more pathetic when you can't
explain how you think you disagree with yourself either.

>>"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
>>consideration." - Goo
>>
>>"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>" There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first
>>place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>animals." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


chico chupacabra 12-08-2006 06:45 PM

an (incorrect ) observation about "the side"
 
****wit wrote:

>>I disagree with your self-identification as an expert in the field of
>>animal behavior.

>
> What do you think


I think you're a ****wit, ****wit.

> "Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
> any other animal you've ever encountered." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Animals do not experience frustration." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
> saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
> hallucinating." - Mr Erikson
>
> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
> benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
> benefit from farming." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Mr Erikson
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Mr Erikson
>
> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Mr Erikson
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Mr Erikson
>
> "I have examined the question at length, and feel
> there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
> is not a benefit." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Mr Erikson
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Mr Erikson
>
> "Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Non human animals experience neither pride nor
> disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
> to feel either." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Anticipation requires language." - Mr Erikson
>
> "No animals anticipate." - Mr Erikson
>
> "The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
> the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
> the great apes have no sense of self." - Mr Erikson
>
> "They are not aware that they can see. " - Mr Erikson
>
> "They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Mr Erikson
>
> "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." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Ranchers . . . 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." - Mr Erikson
>
> "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
> pet food. " - Mr Erikson


These are true statements, ****wit.

>>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?

>
>
> Mr Erikson replied:
> Yes.
>
> Message-ID: et>
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Ron pointed out:
>
>>You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become
>>PET FOOD.


Cattle that live that long are rendered into pet food, ****wit. Twelve
year-old cattle typically don't end up in the human food supply. Steers
that end up in the human food supply tend to be less than three
years-old. So Mr Erikson is correct, ****wit.

> Mr Erikson replied:
> Some are.


Cattle aren't raised 12 years to become sirloin steaks or prime rib,
****wit.

Glorfindel 12-08-2006 07:25 PM

Cyber-worlds?
 

> Scented Nectar wrote:


>>> <snip>


>> Hi Glorfindel. I used to make avatars for a program called
>> 3dAnarchy/Atmosphere. It was a 3d live chat and build program.
>> Unfortunately


I'll check out your pages. I'm looking for an interesting
liveChat or RPG of some kind, but haven't settled on one yet.
Are you interested in media fandom at all, or have you
ever attended MediaWestCon? Right now I'm following
the BBC series of Sharpe movies. Intriguing characters,
although I grumble a bit about the historical accuracy.
The books, I'm told, are better, but I haven't gotten to
them yet: I'm in the middle of a major research project
at the moment in another area, and haven't had time.
There's a whole Age of Sail fandom going on centering
on Hornblower ( where I have read all the books already )
and Sharpe, and I want to get into it in some way.

BBC has so much better programming than anything American.
Even the _Ring_ movies were made by an Australian -- which
figures, since the books were written by Tolkien. All
the U.S. seems to be good for today is invading other
people's countries and killing innocent civilians.

<snip>

>> I have a memorial page for it at
>> http://www.scentednectar.com/atmo/index.htm


>> These days I'm using ActiveWorlds as my 3d live chat and build program
>> of choice. I don't know how to make avatars for it,
>> but have made a
>> lot of objects and textures.


>> I have a page on it at
>> http://www.scentednectar.com/aw/index.htm I think it's the best


>> program of its kind currently out there,
>> especially since you can build
>> on much huger pieces of land than in the competition (like Second
>> Life).


>> The people there are generally much nicer than the trolls on
>> the newsgroups here. You can enter, explore and chat in many of the
>> worlds for free as a 'tourist'.
>> A 'citizenship' is fairly cheap,
>> with that you can build whatever you want in the public building
>> worlds.
>> My fave public build world is Alphaworld. It is the virtual
>> size of California,
>> and there is tons of open space to claim and build on.
>> Power users buy their own (expensive) worlds,
>> but I find my needs
>> met by just having a cit.
>> If you become a cit, you can also do things
>> like whisper
>> and send telegrams and other stuff.
>> If you check it out,
>> the 2 main chatting areas are Alphaworld's Ground Zero, and the Gate.
>> Both are moderated, but if you chat with people in remote areas or
>> whisper or telegram, it's not censored. Maybe I'll run into you there.


> It sounds like Glorfindel's cup of tea


Might be. I'll check it out. Thanks.

Glorfindel 12-08-2006 07:49 PM

public transportation
 

What we need to do is make public transit more attractive and encourage
more people to ride it. It's vital for people who can't drive, like
blind people, the severely disabled, and old people. Taxi scrip is
an alternative, but doesn't seem to work as well -- people I know who
have had to depend on it for time-critical things, like getting to a
scheduled appointment, find it frustrating because the driver often
doesn't pick you up on time. I've lived in San Francisco, which has
a excellent three-system form of public transit, and while I was there
I sold my car and only used the public system. Unfortunately, many
cities don't have a decent system. The buses/trains don't go where
people need to go, so people don't ride them unless they absolutely
must, so service gets cut, and so on. I don't mind paying taxes for
public transit -- it helps the people who need it, and is better than
all the private cars cluttering up the highways and creating pollution.
I use it if it goes anywhere near where I need to go, and if the
schedule is anywhere near reliable.

I'd sure rather pay for buses and trains than bombs.

<snip>

Leif Erikson[_1_] 12-08-2006 07:57 PM

public transportation
 
Karen Winter, statist schismatic bird-diddling cat
shampooer, wrote:
>
> What we need to do


There's Karen's statist leaning again; the one she
unsuccessfully tries to conceal behind sophomoric
"anarchist" rhetoric.


> is make public transit more attractive and encourage
> more people to ride it.


Why, Karen? Why is it any of your or "society's"
interest? People will transport themselves as they see
fit. Keep your bird-diddling hands off people's
transportation choices.



> It's vital for people who can't drive, like
> blind people, the severely disabled, and old people. Taxi scrip is
> an alternative, but doesn't seem to work as well -- people I know who
> have had to depend on it for time-critical things, like getting to a
> scheduled appointment, find it frustrating because the driver often
> doesn't pick you up on time. I've lived in San Francisco, which has
> a excellent three-system form of public transit, and while I was there
> I sold my car and only used the public system. Unfortunately, many
> cities don't have a decent system. The buses/trains don't go where
> people need to go, so people don't ride them unless they absolutely
> must, so service gets cut, and so on. I don't mind paying taxes for
> public transit -- it helps the people who need it,


People are, and ought to be, responsible for their own
costs of transport. You don't have a "right" to
transport from point A to point B at anyone's expense
but your own.


> and is better than
> all the private cars cluttering up the highways and creating pollution.
> I use it if it goes anywhere near where I need to go, and if the
> schedule is anywhere near reliable.
>
> I'd sure rather pay for buses and trains than bombs.


You get the privilege of paying for both.

Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 08:57 PM

skanky's lies about public transportation
 

cheeky chucklebutt wrote:
> Skanky waffled:
>
> > I no longer think I'll be getting a pickup truck,

>
> I never thought you would anyway. They cost a lot more to own than
> you'll ever earn.


What is it you think I earn? Since I have never disclosed my earnings
here, where did you get the idea that my income is low? Admit that you
are lying again, liar. For the record, my income is well above
average. I'm in a unionized position with extremely good seniority. I
will be someday receiving 3 pensions, which when combined with my
savings will make my retirement days quite happy too. Now, admit that
you lied as you do with many other things about me. Are you man enough
to retract your statement? I doubt it.

> > but who knows.

>
> You certainly know you won't get a vehicle, you slothful degenerate pothead.
>
> > I used to have an SUV

>
> Sure ya did.


4 wheel drive, riding up high. It was a fun vehicle.

> > and enjoy driving large vehicles.

>
> Why don't you get a job as a bus driver? It would be like killing two
> birds with the same stone. Wait. They drug test for that position. You
> can't work for the bus authority.
>
> *BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!*


Not here, they don't drug test. I'm a responsible toker. You will
never find me driving after I toke.

[snip rant against public transportation]


Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 09:04 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Leify-Goo wrote:
> Everything. Mostly, though, you lied about not being
> able to be moral and stop causing needless animal
> deaths. You also lied about not ****ing that kid next
> door up the ass with a broom handle.
>
> Nearly 3:00am, and there you are, stoned out of your
> ****ing gourd and posting to usenet. That's a shit life.


What the **** Goo? Are you actually accusing me of molesting kids????
Not only that, but in the manner you like to frequently use as an
example? Don't make me have to write another limerick about you, Rudey
Doody.


Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 09:09 PM

skanky is an underachiever
 

cheeky chumpo:
> blah blah 46 years of blah blah


Look you moron, I'm 43. When I was at the newsgroup here last year at
this time, I was 42. Let me dumb it down for you, 42+1=43. I know
don't have that many fingers and toes, so I won't be too hard on you if
you continue to make this math error.


Leif Erikson[_1_] 12-08-2006 09:13 PM

skanky's lies about public transportation
 
Scented Nectar wrote:

> cheeky chucklebutt wrote:
>
>>Skanky waffled:
>>
>>
>>>I no longer think I'll be getting a pickup truck,

>>
>>I never thought you would anyway. They cost a lot more to own than
>>you'll ever earn.

>
>
> What is it you think I earn?


Very little. Scut work always pays very little. So
little you depend on public transportation, and can't
afford to take even a single tiny baby step toward food
independence.


>>>but who knows.

>>
>>You certainly know you won't get a vehicle, you slothful degenerate pothead.
>>
>>
>>>I used to have an SUV

>>
>>Sure ya did.

>
>
> 4 wheel drive, riding up high. It was a fun vehicle.


It wasn't yours.


>>>and enjoy driving large vehicles.

>>
>>Why don't you get a job as a bus driver? It would be like killing two
>>birds with the same stone. Wait. They drug test for that position. You
>>can't work for the bus authority.
>>
>>*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!*

>
>
> Not here, they don't drug test.


You stupid, stupid, stupid ****:

NEW TTC STAFF FACE DRUG TESTS

Candidates For Safety-Sensitive Jobs Will Be Targeted

The Toronto Transit Commission will require prospective
employees to submit to drug tests, a move the TTC’s
political masters describe as overkill.

"I’ve never been big on drug testing," said TTC chair
Howard Moscoe, councillor for the North York Spadina ward.

"I don’t recall any instances of our drivers being
impaired by drugs, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s
overkill."

He said he was unaware of the new policy and intends to
raise it for discussion at the next commission meeting,
June 17.

TTC management, which plans to implement the program in
30 days, doesn’t see it as a big deal. The politicians
weren’t consulted because it’s considered an internal
human resources matter.

"Acceptable eyesight obviously is a requirement if
you’re driving," said deputy general manager Lynn Hilborn.

"There are standard things we do already and this is
being added."

The testing covers all candidates for safety-sensitive
jobs - vehicle operators, mechanics and repair workers
for the TTC’s vast track, signal, electrical and
communication systems.

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijua...sion_new_h.htm



Every ****ing time, Skanky. Every ****ing time, you
open your mouth and blabber some bullshit, and it's
*always* wrong.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 12-08-2006 09:15 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
Skanky the child rapist blabbered:

> Leif Erikson set the record straight:
>
>>Everything. Mostly, though, you lied about not being
>>able to be moral and stop causing needless animal
>>deaths. You also lied about not ****ing that kid next
>>door up the ass with a broom handle.
>>
>>Nearly 3:00am, and there you are, stoned out of your
>>****ing gourd and posting to usenet. That's a shit life.

>
>
> What the **** Leif?


You were up after 3:00am posting to usenet. Loser.


> Are you actually accusing me of molesting kids????


You and your filthy **** sister both did it.

Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 09:26 PM

Cyber-worlds?
 

cheeky upchuck wrote:
> That's what happens to things that are marginal, they become redundant,
> obsolete, useless. Just like you.


You're fear of non-conformity is showing again.

> > These days I'm using ActiveWorlds as my 3d live chat and build program
> > of choice. I don't know how to make avatars for it,

>
> You're too resistant to change to even learn. Figures.


You are projecting. I have no interest in making avatars right now.
If I did, I'd be doing it, just as I do with the many other things I
make.

> > but have made a
> > lot of objects and textures.

>
> But no money. Imagine that.


I get all the money I need from my real life work. My objects and
textures are offered for free to the world. I have no interest in
selling my art, although there are many other builders who do just
that.

> From Wikipedia:
> As a commercial platform, Active Worlds has not been notably
> successful.


It's been around since before 1996, when I first became a cit. Put
into context of the *entire* wiki article, they are focusing on the
very small side business some object creators have. Rather than try to
squeeze pennies out of a hobby, I offer my stuff for free and am
delighted when I visit someone's build and see that they are using my
objects.

> > and send telegrams and other stuff.

>
> Same here. Why would you want to whisper or send phony telegrams in a
> phony make-believe world, Skanky?


Moron, the people I interact with there are just as real as the people
YOU interact with on this newsgroup.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 09:35 PM

Cyber-worlds?
 

Glorfindel wrote:
> > Scented Nectar wrote:

>
> >>> <snip>

>
> >> Hi Glorfindel. I used to make avatars for a program called
> >> 3dAnarchy/Atmosphere. It was a 3d live chat and build program.
> >> Unfortunately

>
> I'll check out your pages. I'm looking for an interesting
> liveChat or RPG of some kind, but haven't settled on one yet.
> Are you interested in media fandom at all, or have you
> ever attended MediaWestCon? Right now I'm following
> the BBC series of Sharpe movies. Intriguing characters,
> although I grumble a bit about the historical accuracy.
> The books, I'm told, are better, but I haven't gotten to
> them yet: I'm in the middle of a major research project
> at the moment in another area, and haven't had time.
> There's a whole Age of Sail fandom going on centering
> on Hornblower ( where I have read all the books already )
> and Sharpe, and I want to get into it in some way.


I am a fan of certain shows and books, but have never really done
anything online about it other than the occasional newsgroup. These
days I'm going through a mystery book phase.

> BBC has so much better programming than anything American.
> Even the _Ring_ movies were made by an Australian -- which
> figures, since the books were written by Tolkien. All
> the U.S. seems to be good for today is invading other
> people's countries and killing innocent civilians.


The US govt. sure does like their wars.

> <snip>
>
> >> I have a memorial page for it at
> >> http://www.scentednectar.com/atmo/index.htm

>
> >> These days I'm using ActiveWorlds as my 3d live chat and build program
> >> of choice. I don't know how to make avatars for it,
> >> but have made a
> >> lot of objects and textures.

>
> >> I have a page on it at
> >> http://www.scentednectar.com/aw/index.htm I think it's the best

>
> >> program of its kind currently out there,
> >> especially since you can build
> >> on much huger pieces of land than in the competition (like Second
> >> Life).

>
> >> The people there are generally much nicer than the trolls on
> >> the newsgroups here. You can enter, explore and chat in many of the
> >> worlds for free as a 'tourist'.
> >> A 'citizenship' is fairly cheap,
> >> with that you can build whatever you want in the public building
> >> worlds.
> >> My fave public build world is Alphaworld. It is the virtual
> >> size of California,
> >> and there is tons of open space to claim and build on.
> >> Power users buy their own (expensive) worlds,
> >> but I find my needs
> >> met by just having a cit.
> >> If you become a cit, you can also do things
> >> like whisper
> >> and send telegrams and other stuff.
> >> If you check it out,
> >> the 2 main chatting areas are Alphaworld's Ground Zero, and the Gate.
> >> Both are moderated, but if you chat with people in remote areas or
> >> whisper or telegram, it's not censored. Maybe I'll run into you there.

>
> > It sounds like Glorfindel's cup of tea

>
> Might be. I'll check it out. Thanks.


Hope you like it. I find it a very addictive program.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 09:44 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

Derek wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2006 23:46:52 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 11 Aug 2006 08:19:58 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 10 Aug 2006 09:19:09 -0700, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I ... have never traded sex for weed.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not like chico to make mistakes, but in this case I'm sure
> >> >> he'll agree that he may have got something back to front. ;-)
> >> >
> >> >I doubt he'll agree, because the purpose of his lies are to insult
> >> >rather than state a fact.
> >>
> >> I made a bad joke. Rather than trading "sex for weed", which you
> >> obviously deny, I implied that chico may have made a mistake and
> >> got things the wrong way round, meaning you trade "weed for sex"
> >> instead.

> >
> >Well, either way, I've never traded either for either.

>
> I know that, SN. Like I said, I made a bad joke.


I couldn't see your facial expressions, but I think I knew on some
level you were either joking or left out a crucial word or something.
:)

> >Although both
> >are pleasures, I don't trade sex given for anything but sex received.

>
> That's where you and I differ. I would gladly trade sex for
> a new laptop, for example. Maybe even for a nice meal.


I guess I have to reluctantly admit that I would probably do it for a
couple million dollars. Does that make us prostitutes? Heheh.

> >:) And although I trade money in order to receive weed, I am very
> >strict about refusing to sell it myself. That carries legal penalties
> >that are too heavy.

>
> It should be readily available to anyone over the age of 16,
> in my opinion. I used to smoke a lot of it, and, as we can
> all tell, it hasn't done me any harm. ;-)


I agree. Humans have used euphoriants such as weed for centuries.
It's just politics that say which euphoriants we are allowed to use.


Scented Nectar 12-08-2006 09:59 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 

cheeky upchuck wrote:
> Liar.


Prove it please. What's that? You can't? Hmm, wonder why...


Glorfindel 13-08-2006 02:20 AM

public transportation
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

<snip>

Glorfindel wrote:

>> What we need to do is make public transit more attractive and encourage
>> more people to ride it.


> Why is it any of your or "society's" interest?


Because some people, unlike you, are concerned about less
fortunate people, people who have disabilities or other
handicaps which make it difficult for them to drive themselves.
That is what being a part of humanity and a genuinely moral
person is about: helping others and making life better for
the less fortunate, the hungry, the poor, the sick, the
blind, the lame, widows, orphans, the poor ... you know,
all the people Jesus talked about.

Decent people do care about other human beings, and non-human
beings as well. You care about no one by yourself, and nothing
but money.

<snip>

>> It's vital for people who can't drive, like
>> blind people, the severely disabled, and old people. Taxi scrip is
>> an alternative, but doesn't seem to work as well -- people I know who
>> have had to depend on it for time-critical things, like getting to a
>> scheduled appointment, find it frustrating because the driver often
>> doesn't pick you up on time. I've lived in San Francisco, which has
>> a excellent three-system form of public transit, and while I was there
>> I sold my car and only used the public system. Unfortunately, many
>> cities don't have a decent system. The buses/trains don't go where
>> people need to go, so people don't ride them unless they absolutely
>> must, so service gets cut, and so on. I don't mind paying taxes for
>> public transit -- it helps the people who need it,


> People are, and ought to be, responsible for their own costs of
> transport. You don't have a "right" to transport from point A to point
> B at anyone's expense but your own.


But compassion and a concern for social justice and, for those of us
who are Christians, Christ's words, oblige us to care for our
neighbors who cannot care for themselves. You probably haven't
noticed, but there actually are poor people and disabled people who need
help, and part of the obligation of a just society is to provide it.

<snip>

>> I'd sure rather pay for buses and trains than bombs.




Scented Nectar 13-08-2006 03:43 AM

skanky's lies about public transportation
 

reLeif-on-his-floor Erikson wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > What is it you think I earn?

>
> Very little. Scut work always pays very little. So
> little you depend on public transportation, and can't
> afford to take even a single tiny baby step toward food
> independence.


Prove yourself Goo. You are making stuff up about me, so do attempt to
prove yourself. Prove that I do 'scut' work and that I use transit
because of lack of $. You can't. Also, tell me why I should go to the
extremes of food independence that are your standards and not mine.
Tell me why it's not my choice whether or not I do that sort of stuff,
and whether it's when I retire or now. Let's see if you can do all
this without spitting all over your keyboard.

> > 4 wheel drive, riding up high. It was a fun vehicle.

>
> It wasn't yours.


Then who's was it? Elaborate on this claim you're making.

> > Not here, they don't drug test.

>
> You stupid, stupid, stupid ****:


I'd like to send a sympathy card to your wife and kid (if they really
exist). It would say "we only have to deal with Goo in the newsgroups
- you have to LIVE with him!!! :)

> NEW TTC STAFF FACE DRUG TESTS
> Every ****ing time, Skanky. Every ****ing time, you
> open your mouth and blabber some bullshit, and it's
> *always* wrong.


Nope, just wasn't aware of that one. Drug testing isn't as popular
here in Canada as it is in the states. Hey Goo, why do you exaggerate?
Or can you prove that EVERY time I'm ALWAYS wrong? Now, run along and
rinse out your potty mouth.


Leif Erikson[_1_] 13-08-2006 04:33 AM

public transportation
 
Karen Winter, statist schismatic bird-diddling cat
shampooer ****ing away time in the trailer park on
Calle Mejia, wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Karen Winter, statist schismatic bird-diddling cat shampooer ****ing away time in the trailer park on Calle Mejia, wrote:
>
>>> What we need to do is make public transit more attractive and encourage
>>> more people to ride it.

>
>
>> Why is it any of your or "society's" interest?

>
>
> Because some people, unlike you, are concerned about less
> fortunate people,


Then *you* pay for their private transportation, bitch.


> people who have disabilities or other
> handicaps which make it difficult for them to drive themselves.


No one has a "right" to transporation, comrade.


> That is what being a part of humanity and a genuinely moral
> person is about: helping others


At *your* expense, not the taxpayer's.


> and making life better for
> the less fortunate, the hungry, the poor, the sick, the
> blind, the lame, widows, orphans, the poor ... you know,
> all the people Jesus talked about.


Oh, goody. Did Jesus talk about helping birds jerk off?


> Decent people do care about other human beings, and non-human
> beings as well. You care about no one by yourself, and nothing
> but money.


False.


>>> It's vital for people who can't drive, like
>>> blind people, the severely disabled, and old people. Taxi scrip is
>>> an alternative, but doesn't seem to work as well -- people I know who
>>> have had to depend on it for time-critical things, like getting to a
>>> scheduled appointment, find it frustrating because the driver often
>>> doesn't pick you up on time. I've lived in San Francisco, which has
>>> a excellent three-system form of public transit, and while I was there
>>> I sold my car and only used the public system. Unfortunately, many
>>> cities don't have a decent system. The buses/trains don't go where
>>> people need to go, so people don't ride them unless they absolutely
>>> must, so service gets cut, and so on. I don't mind paying taxes for
>>> public transit -- it helps the people who need it,

>
>
>> People are, and ought to be, responsible for their own costs of
>> transport. You don't have a "right" to transport from point A to
>> point B at anyone's expense but your own.

>
>
> But compassion and a concern for social justice and, for those of us
> who are Christians, Christ's words, oblige us to care for our
> neighbors who cannot care for themselves.


Then stop ****ING AROUND with the low-paid scut work
you do, get a job that pays commensurate with your
educational level, and *you* pay for transport for
those around you who are less advantaged. It's not the
taxpayer's responsibility, comrade.


> You probably haven't
> noticed, but there actually are poor people and disabled people who need
> help, and part of the obligation of a just society is to provide it.


"There is no such thing as society."
-- Margaret Thatcher - 31 Oct 1987

Lady Thatcher is correct.


>>> I'd sure rather pay for buses and trains than bombs.


You will pay for both.

Leif Erikson[_1_] 13-08-2006 04:35 AM

skanky's lies about public transportation
 
Scented Nectar wrote:

> reLeif-on-his-floor Erikson wrote:
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>What is it you think I earn?

>>
>>Very little. Scut work always pays very little. So
>>little you depend on public transportation, and can't
>>afford to take even a single tiny baby step toward food
>>independence.

>
>
> You are making stuff up about me,


I am retelling your life story.


>>>4 wheel drive, riding up high. It was a fun vehicle.

>>
>>It wasn't yours.

>
>
> Then who's was it?


WHOSE, you stupid bitch; not "who's".

Who cares? We just know it wasn't yours.


>>>Not here, they don't drug test.

>>
>>You stupid, stupid, stupid ****:
>>
>>NEW TTC STAFF FACE DRUG TESTS
>>Every ****ing time, Skanky. Every ****ing time, you
>>open your mouth and blabber some bullshit, and it's
>>*always* wrong.

>
>
> Nope, just wasn't aware of that one.


The TTC tests bus drivers for drugs. You were wrong,
*and* you didn't know what the **** you were talking
about, but it didn't stop you from opening your
ignorant fat pothead yap and running it. It never has
stopped you, and it never will.

pearl[_1_] 13-08-2006 01:01 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"Leif Erikson" the child rapist > blabbered in message
nk.net...

> >>deaths. You also lied about not ****ing that kid next
> >>door up the ass with a broom handle.


"Pedophiles prefer to have sex with children and have
elaborate fantasies about children."
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_3677686 [404]

'The notion that deviant fantasies are an important part of sexual
deviance was emphasized by Abel and Blanchard (1974), in their
review of fantasy in the development of sexual preferences. ....
Barbaree and Marshall, 1989), have supported the belief that at
least some child molesters do fantasize about children. For this
reason, deviant sexual fantasies have become one area of focus
in the research on child molesters, as well as other sexual offender
populations. For example, Dutton and Newlon (1988) reported
that 70% of their sample of adolescent sexual offenders admitted
having sexually aggressive fantasies before committing their
offenses. Similar findings were reported by MacCulloch, Snowden,
Wood and Mills (1983) and Prentky et al. (1989) with adult
offenders. Rokach (1988) also found evidence of deviant themes
in sexual offenders' self-reported fantasies.
...'
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communit..._molesters.htm

SN:
> > Are you actually accusing me of molesting kids????

>
> You and your filthy **** sister both did it.


'Projection
Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to
other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something
about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert
attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is
achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is
actually an admission or revelation about themselves. This knowledge
can be used to perceive the bully's own misdemeanours; for instance,
when the allegations are of financial or sexual impropriety, it is likely
that the bully has committed these acts; when the bully makes an
allegation of abuse (such allegations tend to be vague and non-specific),
it is likely to be the bully who has committed the abuse. When the bully
makes allegations of, say, "cowardice" or "negative attitude" it is the
bully who is a coward or has a negative attitude. In these circumstances,
the bully has to understand that if specious and insubstantive allegations
are made, the bully will also be investigated.
....
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully...htm#Projection

'Warning signs

It is very difficult to predict who may or may not be a potential rapist.
Considering rapists have many personality types and use many different
methods, it might seem impossible. However, certain behavioral
characteristics have been observed in some rapists. These should be
used cautiously as "warning signs", since non-rapists and other innocent
people may also show similar behaviours.

*Extreme emotional insensitivity and egotism.
*Habitual degradation and verbal devaluation of others.
*Tries to tell others what they are feeling and thinking as though
it is his decision and not theirs. "She said no, but she meant yes".
*Consistently uses intimidation in language or threatening behavior to
get his way. Uses words like "bitch" and "whore" to describe women.
*Excessive, chronic, or brooding anger.
*Becomes obsessed with the object of his romantic affections
long after his advances have been rejected.
*Extreme mood swings.
*Violent outbursts; lack of impulse control.
*Aggressive and violent.
*Under the influence of alcohol or drugs, cruel behavior is seen.
...'
http://www.answers.com/topic/rape





pearl[_1_] 13-08-2006 01:35 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message .net...
> >
> >
> >>>>Answer the questions

> >
> >>It absolutely is necessary that I try to discredit this poster now.

> >
> > Treasonous mass murder supporting coward.

>
> The 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were
> the mass murderers,


The 9/11 terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC are certainly
mass murderers, but WHO are they?

'Seven of the WTC Hijackers found alive!

Some of the men the FBI claims hijacked planes on Sept. 11 and
crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York, the
Pentagon, and Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania are still alive.

No they weren't pulled from the rubble, they were never on the planes.

The FBI press release of September 27th, 2001 containing names,
photographs, aliases and other information is seriously flawed. They
have used these peoples names and made claims based on the fact
they were pilots and other supposedly incriminating evidence and
yet they were not involved. Places of birth, birthdays and other
personal details were displayed on news throughout the world.

The FBI still lists these men as suspected hijackers who were killed
during the terrorist assault, this is absurd.
....'
http://www.newsgateway.ca/hijackers_still_alive.htm





pearl[_1_] 13-08-2006 01:50 PM

Where's everybody gone?
 
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> cheeky upchuck wrote:


> > Liar.

>
> Prove it please. What's that? You can't? Hmm, wonder why...


How/why does he come up with this tosh in the first place?

This appears to apply to the poor 'sweet' little upchuck..

'Some narcissists are raised by weak or inaccessible mothers
and harsh, rigid, or sadistic fathers. They tend to bond with
males in male settings (army, sports, police, bodybuilding,
the Catholic Church) and to seek empathy, warmth, support,
secure friendship, and love among their male peers. This
macho bonding masks repressed and latent homosexual
tendencies, the result of incestuous or simply pathologically
excessive love towards the father (or father figure).

Terrified of these homosexual tendencies, these narcissists are
besieged by feelings of guilt (towards their mothers with whom
they compete for the father's affection) and inadequacy (they
can never quite measure up to the father's standards). They
become extreme and virulent misogynists. By hating women and
defying them - they hate and defy life itself (women being the
givers of life). They thus deny their effeminate self and exercise
their self-destructive impulses.

Narcissists are misogynists. They team up with women as mere
sources of SNS (secondary narcissistic supply). The woman's
chores are to accumulate past Narcissistic Supply and release it
in an orderly manner, so as to regulate the fluctuating flow of
primary supply. In other words, the woman's chore is to bear
witness to the narcissist's moments of glory and recount them
to him when he is down.
...
The narcissist divides all women to saints and whores. He finds
it difficult to have sex ("dirty", "forbidden", "punishable",
"degrading") with feminine significant others (spouse, intimate
girlfriend). To him, sex and intimacy are mutually exclusive
rather than mutually expressive propositions. Sex is reserved
to "whores" (all other women in the world).
...
The narcissist hates women virulently, passionately and
uncompromisingly. His hate is primal, irrational, the progeny
of mortal fear and sustained abuse. Granted, most narcissists
learn how to suppress, disguise, even repress these untoward
feelings. But their hatred does get out of control and erupt
from time to time. It is a terrifying, paralyzing sight - the true
face of the narcissist.

To live with a narcissist is an arduous and eroding task.
Narcissists are atrabilious, infinitely pessimistic, bad-tempered,
paranoid and sadistic in an absent-minded and indifferent
manner. Their daily routine is a rigmarole of threats, complaints,
hurts, eruptions, moodiness and rage. The narcissist rails against
slights true and imagined. He alienates people. He humiliates
them because this is his only weapon against the humiliation
wrought by their indifference.
...
Narcissists are angry men - but not because they never
experienced love and probably never will. They are angry
because they are not as powerful, awe inspiring and successful
as they wish they were and, to their mind, deserve to be.
Because their daydreams refuse so stubbornly to come true.
Because they are their worst enemy. And because, in their
unmitigated paranoia, they see adversaries plotting everywhere
and feel discriminated against and contemptuously ignored.
....'
http://samvak.tripod.com/6.html

His "love" for his "girlfriend". His passion for strippers..
ETC.

We're not dealing with 'normal' people here .. obviously.






pearl[_1_] 13-08-2006 01:53 PM

well, chumpo?
 
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>While you're foaming at the mouth about everything, what's your
> >>>>take on
> >>>
> >>>Guess.
> >>
> >>Tell us how all these UK-Muslim terror suspects

> >
> > Evening round-up of twilight zone manic spewing propaganda...

>
>
> I know you and people like Alex Jones get your knickers in knots and go
> apeshit over the slightest things.


'LIQUID TERROR: Training People To Act Like Subservient Slaves
Terrorists planned to mix liquids so why are they all being poured into
airport bins?
Steve Watson / Infowars.net | August 11 2006

The latest terror plot facade is nothing more than an exercise to assess
how subservient the general population has become and a primer to
making permanent the panicked and ridiculous freedom crushing
security measures we are seeing being rushed into implementation at
the moment.

Whilst the government is saying there is no going back on these
measures and that they will become permanent, the media is bleating
about rushing in biometric retina scanners and Orwellian behaviour
sensing technology. This is the only way they can do these things
without backlash and protest, just have a major terror alert and rush
them through.

How is it that people can still deny that our governments are forwarding
a big brother control agenda? ID cards, Biometric databases, retina
scanners, face scanning cameras, behaviour sensing machines. The list
goes on. It has been proven over and over that these measures will not
help prevent terrorism, the government itself has even admitted this, so
why do they relentlessly push them?

The latest mind bending terror stupidity has every passenger at airports
pouring their potentially explosive liquids into bins inside the airports.

How stupid can things get? How far does it have to go before people
start asking simple questions about what they are being made to do in
the name of security?

If these liquids are potentially explosive what the hell is the good in
pouring them all into large bins inside overcrowded airports and mixing
them all together?

The Asheville Citizen Times interviewed a mother who was forced to
pour away her baby's milk:

"I have mixed feelings about all this," Leoni said as she waited to board
a flight for Miami at Asheville Regional Airport. "On the one side, I'm
fine with the safety measures and the effects, but on the other hand, I
had to pour out my baby's milk this morning. They said I couldn't take
it on board."

And here she is pouring the potentially deadly milk into a vat of other
potentially explosive dangerous liquids.

The official counterterrorism statement told us that the plan involved
mixing a sports drink with a gel-like substance to concoct explosives
that could be ignited with an MP3 player or cell phone. The sports
drink could be combined with a peroxide-based paste to form a potent
explosive cocktail, counterterrorism officials said.

If you believe the dodgy science that suggests that these liquids can be
ignited by calling up your mom or whacking on a bit of Led Zeppelin
on your MP3 player then they better clear the airports pretty smartish
because those bins full liquids could go up any second. unless they
are just bins full of baby milk and Dr Pepper that is.

The Scientific American states:

Furthermore, some chemicals can be mixed to create a toxic gas
capable of killing people in an enclosed space such as an airplane.

Great, marvelous, lets get mixing them in bins then!

The XOPL blogger here is bang on the money and I couldn't put it
any better:

Sir, I'm going to have to take this bottle of water away from you
since it might be a liquid explosive, and I'm going to have to mix it
with all of these other bottles of possibly liquid explosive, and I'm
going to have to dump them all in this trash can... together.
Nevermind that the plot specifically mentions mixing chemicals
and/or nitroglycerin... which explodes if handled too roughly.

The only conclusion you can reach here is that airport security are
not looking for terrorists because if they truly believed terrorists were
attempting to board planes with liquids they wouldn't be mishandling
the liquids in this way.

http://infowars.net/articles/August2...0806liquid.htm






pearl[_1_] 13-08-2006 01:55 PM

NEW ADDITION TO LESLEY'S INSANITY
 
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>The buildings COMPLETELY COLLAPSED in VIRTUAL FREE FALL
> >>>>>>>into their own footprint. How does weakened / softened STEEL do that?
> >>>>
> >>>>Gravity. It's the law.
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/fttvl
> >>>
> >>>I knew it.
> >>
> >>Apparently you don't know it because you continue to reject the law of
> >>gravity. It's why things fall straight down, Lesley.

> >
> > Apparently you're rejecting the law of STEEL, chumpo.

>
> About time


You addressed the issue.






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter