I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I want to help speak
up for the pigs:

http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?int=weekly_enews

no wonder the campaign is failing, **** poor reasons.



t.racer wrote:
> I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I want to help speak
> up for the pigs:
>
> http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?int=weekly_enews

I can't access that site from my work, but pig farming is one of the
most brutal and saddest things.

Some of family members in Scotland are farmers, and some own a pig
farm. It is just a massive shed, no windows, nothing. In their defense,
they have upgraded it recently to allow more space, which if it reduces
suffering in one thing, but there really is no half-way house.

An animal as intelligent as a pig, should be granted the life it
deserves, to be outside and eat from the ground.

I was watching the 'Not in My Name' dvd from VIVA, and it showed pigs
running around, almost laughing similar to dogs. When they can have
such happiness, they can also suffer much sadness.

Most of you have probably seen the pics
quidam wrote:
> no wonder the campaign is failing, **** poor reasons.
>
>
>
> t.racer wrote:
> > I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I want to help speak
> > up for the pigs:
> >
> > http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?int=weekly_enews

"quidam" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> no wonder the campaign is failing, **** poor reasons.

Really? All of them? None of the reasons meant
anything to you? Your handle says it all, I guess.

> t.racer wrote:
>> I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I want to help speak
>> up for the pigs:
>>
>> http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?int=weekly_enews
>

George Cherry wrote:
> "quidam" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > no wonder the campaign is failing, **** poor reasons.
>
> Really? All of them? None of the reasons meant
> anything to you? Your handle says it all, I guess.
>
> > t.racer wrote:
> >> I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I want to help speak
> >> up for the pigs:
> >>
> >> http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?int=weekly_enews
> >

Funny they didn't mention the most common reason on the planet to not
eat pigs.

I guess it's top 10 by content not by popularity.

"You can eat it, but it tastes like shit" - crock dundee

it is sad, but I am still going to eat pork.
It is a sad world we live in, I don't believe it can be fixed by not eAting
pigs.

It can be an individual choice for you all, but it will never stop being
eaten.
Be realistic.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

cat's ass wrote:
> it is sad, but I am still going to eat pork.
> It is a sad world we live in, I don't believe it can be fixed by not eAting
> pigs.
>
> It can be an individual choice for you all, but it will never stop being
> eaten.
> Be realistic.
>
>


Yes, we animals will always eat anything we can. Nobody's suggesting
otherwise I don't think. However a little education is a good thing..
perhaps if you know something about your food you can use your vote
(your decision of what to buy) more effectively.

Good luck -

Your reasoning is not logical. Some experts say that a vegan saves 83
animals a year. I'm one of them.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:13:38 -0400, "cat's ass" > wrote:

>it is sad, but I am still going to eat pork.
>It is a sad world we live in, I don't believe it can be fixed by not eAting
>pigs.
>
>It can be an individual choice for you all, but it will never stop being
>eaten.
>Be realistic.

"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
> Your reasoning is not logical. Some experts say that a vegan
> saves 83
> animals a year. I'm one of them.
==========================
I don't think so. You're past saving...

Care to name the experts?


>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:13:38 -0400, "cat's ass" >
> wrote:
>
>>it is sad, but I am still going to eat pork.
>>It is a sad world we live in, I don't believe it can be fixed
>>by not eAting
>>pigs.
>>
>>It can be an individual choice for you all, but it will never
>>stop being
>>eaten.
>>Be realistic.
>

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:13:22 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>
>"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
>> Your reasoning is not logical. Some experts say that a vegan
>> saves 83
>> animals a year. I'm one of them.
>==========================
>I don't think so. You're past saving...

I didn't say I needed saving. Learn to read, mowron.


>Care to name the experts?
Yeah, her name is Siouxzy. http://www.xanga.com/siouxzy
Maybe you could find the original source at the library instead of
playing around on a vegan newsgroup that obviously doesn't interest
you.

"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:13:22 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
>>> Your reasoning is not logical. Some experts say that a vegan
>>> saves 83
>>> animals a year. I'm one of them.
>>==========================
>>I don't think so. You're past saving...
>
> I didn't say I needed saving. Learn to read, mowron.
=======================
Yes, you did. You just claimed that you were one of the 83
animals saved a year, fool. Learn to speak/write. Since you
used the term vegan in singular and the term animals in plural,
and then claimed you were one 'of them', a plural, means you are
saying you're one of the animals saved. I claim you are far from
saved from ignorance and stupidity. And since you just proved my
point, the case is closed, you're still lost...

Besides, 'some experts' don't mean a hill of beans, fool...




>
>
>>Care to name the experts?
> Yeah, her name is Siouxzy. http://www.xanga.com/siouxzy
> Maybe you could find the original source at the library instead
> of
> playing around on a vegan newsgroup that obviously doesn't
> interest
> you.
>
>
>

Actually, I said I'm one of the vegans who save 83 animals per year.
Using "vegan" in the singular and "animals" in the plural was intended
to give the sentence a double meaning. Why, yes, I am a "saved"
animal. True. So, if I'm already "saved," then why would I need
saving? Therefore, I acurately told you that I didn't say I needed
saving. You're the one who should learn to read and write.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:06:33 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>
>"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:13:22 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Your reasoning is not logical. Some experts say that a vegan
>>>> saves 83
>>>> animals a year. I'm one of them.
>>>==========================
>>>I don't think so. You're past saving...
>>
>> I didn't say I needed saving. Learn to read, mowron.
>=======================
>Yes, you did. You just claimed that you were one of the 83
>animals saved a year, fool. Learn to speak/write. Since you
>used the term vegan in singular and the term animals in plural,
>and then claimed you were one 'of them', a plural, means you are
>saying you're one of the animals saved. I claim you are far from
>saved from ignorance and stupidity. And since you just proved my
>point, the case is closed, you're still lost...
>
>Besides, 'some experts' don't mean a hill of beans, fool...
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Care to name the experts?
>> Yeah, her name is Siouxzy. http://www.xanga.com/siouxzy
>> Maybe you could find the original source at the library instead
>> of
>> playing around on a vegan newsgroup that obviously doesn't
>> interest
>> you.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I said I'm one of the vegans who save 83 animals per
> year.
> Using "vegan" in the singular and "animals" in the plural was
> intended
> to give the sentence a double meaning. Why, yes, I am a "saved"
> animal. True. So, if I'm already "saved," then why would I
> need
> saving? Therefore, I acurately told you that I didn't say I
> needed
> saving. You're the one who should learn to read and write.
> ======================
More hand-waving delusion and a need to rewrite reality. Typical
of the vegan loon, eh killer?


> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:06:33 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:13:22 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"t.racer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Your reasoning is not logical. Some experts say that a
>>>>> vegan
>>>>> saves 83
>>>>> animals a year. I'm one of them.
>>>>==========================
>>>>I don't think so. You're past saving...
>>>
>>> I didn't say I needed saving. Learn to read, mowron.
>>=======================
>>Yes, you did. You just claimed that you were one of the 83
>>animals saved a year, fool. Learn to speak/write. Since you
>>used the term vegan in singular and the term animals in plural,
>>and then claimed you were one 'of them', a plural, means you
>>are
>>saying you're one of the animals saved. I claim you are far
>>from
>>saved from ignorance and stupidity. And since you just proved
>>my
>>point, the case is closed, you're still lost...
>>
>>Besides, 'some experts' don't mean a hill of beans, fool...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Care to name the experts?
>>> Yeah, her name is Siouxzy. http://www.xanga.com/siouxzy
>>> Maybe you could find the original source at the library
>>> instead
>>> of
>>> playing around on a vegan newsgroup that obviously doesn't
>>> interest
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

pigs' necks are not like real necks
so they can't be killed without feeling pain

t.racer wrote:
> I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but I want to help speak
> up for the pigs:
>
> http://www.goveg.com/f-top10pigs.asp?int=weekly_enews