rather than seeking treatment for her mental illness, pearl wrote:

> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [snip]
>
> Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed

Yes, the truth: planes crashed into them and the fire weakened the
structure, which then collapsed as top floors gave way and their
combined weight (think gravity) came down to earth. Why do you cling to
conspiracy theories about remote control jumbo jets, Skull and Bones,
and the New World Order instead, you loony bitch?

"William" > wrote in message ...
> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was honest
> and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see that he
> was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and all that but you are lying to him and
> defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have to
say.

You are wrong. I am not defending human/animal relationships,
and I'm not lying to him, or you or anyone else. I have said that
the cockatiel should have been provided with a female cockatiel,
and I still believe that. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you also
missed Derek's support of those who defend the masturbation of
bulls and rape of cows for profit. What are your views on that?

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message <the usual bs>

Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor chico?

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth

rather than seeking treatment for his mental illness"chico chupacabra"
> wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:
>
> > "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor chico?
>
> Yes, the truth: planes crashed into them and the fire weakened the
> structure,

No.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html


'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...191665&q=truth

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "William" > wrote in message ...
> > Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was
honest
> > and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see that
he
> > was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are.

What exactly did he say behind my back? I have a right to know.

> Sorry and all that but you are lying to him and
> > defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have to
> say.
>
> You are wrong. I am not defending human/animal relationships,
> and I'm not lying to him, or you or anyone else. I have said that
> the cockatiel should have been provided with a female cockatiel,
> and I still believe that. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you also
> missed Derek's support of those who defend the masturbation of
> bulls and rape of cows for profit. What are your views on that?
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:01:30 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> liars like Lesley who trades
>> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
>> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
>>
>> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
>> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
>> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
>> yourself as a vegan. Why?
>
>The small moneys received were no more than partial
>recompense for material costs incurred raising them.

No, that's a lie. You make a very decent living from
trading rights-holding beings in the same way a slave-
trader does, and that CANNOT be reconciled with
animal rights.

>I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.

Yet you buy and sell them for personal gain. When
are you going to stop lying and announce that you
don't really believe in the proposition of animal rights?
After all, you do reduce the horses you buy and sell
for profit to mere utilities.

>I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.

No, you don't know that. You wrote and told me how you
had to lie to at least one prospective buyer because they
wanted one that had been regularly and recently ridden.
I wonder what happened to it after they found out it was
useless to them.

>I have never described myself as vegan. You lie.

My mistake. You describe yourself as a near-vegan.
WHY?

rather than seeking treatment for its mental illness, pearl wrote:

> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor
> > > chico?
> >
> > Yes, the truth: planes crashed into them and the fire weakened the
> > structure,
>
> No.

Yes, you loony bitch.

quack lesley, crackpot foot masseuse, wrote:

> Got a valid explanation

Yes, planes wre flown into them by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists
who were trained by al-Qaeda. Now stop snipping and changing the subject
to your conspiracy bullshit, you ranting loony bitch.

pearl wrote:

> 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
> a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the
> yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel
> could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C
> fire.' http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

But it couldn't support the stresses imposed by tons and tons of upper
floors pancaking on one another as gravity interfered with the original
design plans. Loony bitch.

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "William" > wrote in message ...
>> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was
>> honest
>> and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see that he
>> was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and all that but you are lying to him and
>> defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have to
> say.
>
> You are wrong. I am not defending human/animal relationships,
> and I'm not lying to him, or you or anyone else. I have said that
> the cockatiel should have been provided with a female cockatiel,
> and I still believe that. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you also
> missed Derek's support of those who defend the masturbation of
> bulls and rape of cows for profit. What are your views on that?
>
>
I don't think I'm going to get the truth from you. Derek doesn't support the masturbation of bulls and raping cows. He said someone
else supports the harvesting of male ejaculate or something like that. Why do you keep lying about him? You have also said that he
supports meat eating to get your own way. He doesn't. Derek is a vegan and hates everything about farming.



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

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:01:30 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >> liars like Lesley who trades
> >> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
> >> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
> >>
> >> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
> >> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
> >> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
> >> yourself as a vegan. Why?
> >
> >The small moneys received were no more than partial
> >recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
>
> No, that's a lie.

No it is not.

> You make a very decent living from
> trading rights-holding beings

Absolute nonsense.

> in the same way a slave-
> trader does, and that CANNOT be reconciled with
> animal rights.

Of course it can't.

> >I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
>
> Yet you buy and sell them for personal gain. When
> are you going to stop lying and announce that you
> don't really believe in the proposition of animal rights?
> After all, you do reduce the horses you buy and sell
> for profit to mere utilities.

I do not trade horses. I do not buy and sell horses.
I do not, and have never profited from trade in horses.

> >I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.
>
> No, you don't know that.

Yes, I do absolutely know that.

> You wrote and told me how you
> had to lie to at least one prospective buyer because they
> wanted one that had been regularly and recently ridden.
> I wonder what happened to it after they found out it was
> useless to them.

I lied to nobody. To suggest that I'd lie about something
which may potentially be very dangerous is preposterous.

> >I have never described myself as vegan. You lie.
>
> My mistake. You describe yourself as a near-vegan.
> WHY?

Because that's what I am.

rather than seeking treatment for its mental illness, "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor
> > > > chico?
> > >
> > > Yes, the truth: planes crashed into them and the fire weakened the
> > > structure,
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes,

No.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

crackpot traitor "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:
>
> > Got a valid explanation
>
> Yes, planes wre flown into them

'9/11 - WTC Towers Designed to take Multiple Airliner Crashes

World Trade Center Towers - Recorded on 1/25/2001

Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project
Management is on record stating the Towers were designed to
have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. He goes on to say that he
believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.
The structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door
this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing
that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen door.

Watch the video clip (0.44 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

pearl wrote:

>> 'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
>> a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the
>> yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel
>> could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C
>> fire.'
>> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
>
>But it couldn't support the stresses imposed by tons and tons of upper
>floors pancaking on one another as gravity interfered with the original
>design plans.

The central core of this steel-framed structure was composed
of 47 huge steel support columns embedded within concrete.
The floors themselves were extremely strong grids of steel.

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

"William" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "William" > wrote in message ...
> >> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was
> >> honest
> >> and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see that
he
> >> was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and all that but you are lying to him and
> >> defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have to
> > say.
> >
> > You are wrong. I am not defending human/animal relationships,
> > and I'm not lying to him, or you or anyone else. I have said that
> > the cockatiel should have been provided with a female cockatiel,
> > and I still believe that. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you also
> > missed Derek's support of those who defend the masturbation of
> > bulls and rape of cows for profit. What are your views on that?
> >
> >
> I don't think I'm going to get the truth from you.

Your basis for saying that is .... ?

> Derek doesn't support the masturbation of bulls and raping cows.

He didn't oppose it when chico and ball (leif) were supporting it.

Why not? If his objection was genuine, he should have done so.

So should you. Or did you miss that? Or do the two of you
just concentrate your attacks on animal rights supporters?

> He said someone
> else supports the harvesting of male ejaculate or something like that.

I'd get your facts straight before you go around accusing others.

> Why do you keep lying about him?

Where have I lied?

> You have also said that he
> supports meat eating to get your own way. He doesn't.

"everyone can eat it [meat] and still maintain excellent health "

What do you call that, especially when he repeatedly ignores
and snips evidence to the contrary away and repeats the lie?

> Derek is a vegan and hates everything about farming.

So he says. I was taken in by him as well. Mind yourself.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:40:15 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:01:30 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >
>> >> >> liars like Lesley who trades
>> >> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
>> >> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
>> >> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
>> >> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
>> >> yourself as a vegan. Why?
>> >
>> >The small moneys received were no more than partial
>> >recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
>>
>> No, that's a lie.
>
>No it is not.

Yes, it is. You earn money by reducing "them" (plural) to
mere utilities, yet you like to promote the image of an AR
advocate at the same time. When reducing animals to
mere utilities for personal gain how is that any different
to those actions you claim to abhor in other livestock
keepers?

>> in the same way a slave-
>> trader does, and that CANNOT be reconciled with
>> animal rights.
>
>Of course it can't.

And yet, while you reduce the moral status of those
horses to mere utilities for personal gain you try to
promote the image of a staunch animal-rights advocate.
How bizarre.

>> >I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
>>
>> Yet you buy and sell them for personal gain. When
>> are you going to stop lying and announce that you
>> don't really believe in the proposition of animal rights?
>> After all, you do reduce the horses you buy and sell
>> for profit to mere utilities.
>
>I do not trade horses. I do not buy and sell horses.
>I do not, and have never profited from trade in horses.

A pony is a small horse, and you buy and sell "them" for
personal gain, so you DO trade horses.

>> >I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.
>>
>> No, you don't know that.
>
>Yes, I do absolutely know that.

No, you don't.

>> You wrote and told me how you
>> had to lie to at least one prospective buyer because they
>> wanted one that had been regularly and recently ridden.
>> I wonder what happened to it after they found out it was
>> useless to them.
>
>I lied to nobody. To suggest that I'd lie about something
>which may potentially be very dangerous is preposterous.

You certainly did lie to at least one prospective that I know of.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:40:15 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:01:30 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> liars like Lesley who trades
> >> >> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
> >> >> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
> >> >> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
> >> >> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
> >> >> yourself as a vegan. Why?
> >> >
> >> >The small moneys received were no more than partial
> >> >recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
> >>
> >> No, that's a lie.
> >
> >No it is not.
>
> Yes, it is.

No it isn't.

> You earn money by reducing "them" (plural) to
> mere utilities, yet you like to promote the image of an AR
> advocate at the same time. When reducing animals to
> mere utilities for personal gain how is that any different
> to those actions you claim to abhor in other livestock
> keepers?

I don't do anything of the sort.

> >> in the same way a slave-
> >> trader does, and that CANNOT be reconciled with
> >> animal rights.
> >
> >Of course it can't.
>
> And yet, while you reduce the moral status of those
> horses to mere utilities for personal gain you try to
> promote the image of a staunch animal-rights advocate.
> How bizarre.

How predictable that you'd cling to your desperate lies.

> >> >I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
> >>
> >> Yet you buy and sell them for personal gain. When
> >> are you going to stop lying and announce that you
> >> don't really believe in the proposition of animal rights?
> >> After all, you do reduce the horses you buy and sell
> >> for profit to mere utilities.
> >
> >I do not trade horses. I do not buy and sell horses.
> >I do not, and have never profited from trade in horses.
>
> A pony is a small horse, and you buy and sell "them" for
> personal gain, so you DO trade horses.

I have never traded ponies/horses for personal gain.

> >> >I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.
> >>
> >> No, you don't know that.
> >
> >Yes, I do absolutely know that.
>
> No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

> >> You wrote and told me how you
> >> had to lie to at least one prospective buyer because they
> >> wanted one that had been regularly and recently ridden.
> >> I wonder what happened to it after they found out it was
> >> useless to them.
> >
> >I lied to nobody. To suggest that I'd lie about something
> >which may potentially be very dangerous is preposterous.
>
> You certainly did lie to at least one prospective that I know of.

No I didn't/haven't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><..>
> >> >May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
> >> knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
> >> now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
> >> that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
> >> "wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
> >> William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
> >> any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
> >> let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
> >> I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
> >> HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
> >> himself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
> >you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.
>
> I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
> my own accord.
>
> >OK, I've read
> >those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.
>
> Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
> for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
> intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
> regrets.
>
> >And yes, you regret it and
> >blame yourself. Too late!
>
> That's unfortunately true.
>
> >Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?
>
> Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.
...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > They weren't baseless accusations
>
> That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
> and lies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you're still doing it.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:11:19 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"William" > wrote in message ...
>> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
>> > "William" > wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages)
>> >> and he explained why he attacked you among other things.
>> >> He was honest and didn't try to excuse himself in any way.
>> >> Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last
>> >> few days I can see that he was fully within his rights to
>> >> attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and
>> >> all that but you are lying to him and defending human/animal
>> >> sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship
>> >> of those who do it. That's all I have to say.

Thank's Billy.

[..]
>> Derek doesn't support the masturbation of bulls and raping cows.
>
>He didn't oppose it when chico and ball (leif) were supporting it.

I oppose all farming.

[..]
>> You have also said that he
>> supports meat eating to get your own way. He doesn't.
>
>"everyone can eat it [meat] and still maintain excellent health "
>
>What do you call that

To paraphrase, "everyone can eat the meat of infant human
beings and still maintain excellent health." That's another
true statement, but nowhere is there any promotion of it.
You see, when insisting that I promote meat when in fact
my opening sentence declares that I would never promote
meat, others can see that you're lying about me.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:42:09 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:40:15 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:01:30 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> liars like Lesley who trades
>> >> >> >> horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
>> >> >> >> same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
>> >> >> You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
>> >> >> and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
>> >> >> yourself as a vegan. Why?
>> >> >
>> >> >The small moneys received were no more than partial
>> >> >recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
>> >>
>> >> No, that's a lie.
[..]
>> You earn money by reducing "them" (plural) to
>> mere utilities, yet you like to promote the image of an AR
>> advocate at the same time. When reducing animals to
>> mere utilities for personal gain how is that any different
>> to those actions you claim to abhor in other livestock
>> keepers?
>
>I don't do anything of the sort.

Yes, you do, and you cannot deny it. When buying and
selling horses you reduce their moral status to mere
utilities, so explain how you are different to any other
livestock keeper and why criticise them for doing
exactly what you do.

>> >> in the same way a slave-
>> >> trader does, and that CANNOT be reconciled with
>> >> animal rights.
>> >
>> >Of course it can't.
>>
>> And yet, while you reduce the moral status of those
>> horses to mere utilities for personal gain you try to
>> promote the image of a staunch animal-rights advocate.
>> How bizarre.
>
>How predictable that you'd cling to your desperate lies.

Then, are you now admitting you're not an animal-rights
advocate?

>> >> >I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
>> >>
>> >> Yet you buy and sell them for personal gain. When
>> >> are you going to stop lying and announce that you
>> >> don't really believe in the proposition of animal rights?
>> >> After all, you do reduce the horses you buy and sell
>> >> for profit to mere utilities.
>> >
>> >I do not trade horses. I do not buy and sell horses.
>> >I do not, and have never profited from trade in horses.
>>
>> A pony is a small horse, and you buy and sell "them" for
>> personal gain, so you DO trade horses.
>
>I have never traded ponies/horses for personal gain.

You've admitted that you receive "small moneys" for
"them", so stop lying. You trade rights-holding animals
for cash like any other livestock keeper.

>> >> You wrote and told me how you
>> >> had to lie to at least one prospective buyer because they
>> >> wanted one that had been regularly and recently ridden.
>> >> I wonder what happened to it after they found out it was
>> >> useless to them.
>> >
>> >I lied to nobody. To suggest that I'd lie about something
>> >which may potentially be very dangerous is preposterous.
>>
>> You certainly did lie to at least one prospective that I know of.
>
>No I didn't/haven't.

Yes, you did.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:11:19 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> Or do the two of you just concentrate your attacks on animal rights supporters?

So, just because William criticised YOU for openly lying about
me you think that he "*just* concentrates his attacks [pl] on
animal rights supporters" [pl] when in fact he's only criticised
you. You're in one hell of a paranoid mess and can't stand
criticism from vegans, and when you are criticised by them
you then try to imply that they *just* criticise ARAs.

Derek wrote:

Blatant lies about several AR supporters, including me.

You have not answered my post, even though I tracked you
back to where you were trying to hide from me, you foul-
minded, malignant little smear of pond-scum.

<snip>

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "chico chupacabra" > lied in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet,
>> > traitor
>> > chico?
>> =================
>> Two planes hit them, I'm sure you've heard of it....
>

Again... Two planes hit them, I'm sure you've heard of it....


snip ignorant tin-foil hat brigade delusions...

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:11:19 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"William" > wrote in message ...
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> >> > "William" > wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages)
> >> >> and he explained why he attacked you among other things.
> >> >> He was honest and didn't try to excuse himself in any way.
> >> >> Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last
> >> >> few days I can see that he was fully within his rights to
> >> >> attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and
> >> >> all that but you are lying to him and defending human/animal
> >> >> sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship
> >> >> of those who do it. That's all I have to say.
>
> Thank's Billy.

'Thanks very much' for believing you, even after you admitted to lying.

> [..]
> >> Derek doesn't support the masturbation of bulls and raping cows.
> >
> >He didn't oppose it when chico and ball (leif) were supporting it.
>
> I oppose all farming.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> >> Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>> pearl wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> You approve of people "diddling" animals
> >
> >
> >>> No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> >>> artificial insemination.
> >
> >
> >> There was also no sexual gratification for Glorfindel when she allowed
> >> the bird to do its thing. She only said that she thought it was sweet
> >> that the bird was getting some enjoyment in its difficult life. Since
> >> she did not get sexual gratification, and since the cattle ranchers
> >> who, um, 'milk' the sperm from the bulls do not get gratification, they
> >> are on the same moral level. Possibly Glorfindel's morals are even
> >> better than the ranchers. Her motive was for the bird to be happy, and
> >> their motive was to sell the sperm for money and then impregnate the
> >> females without regard to letting the animals do it their own way.
> >
> >
> >
> > That is why I feel artificial insemination is wrong at both
> > (bad pun ) ends of the process. The bull does not choose
> > to be forced into this process. He may get some gratification,
> > but that is not the purpose of the activity. The purpose
> > is to *USE* an animal, make the animal a thing, a slave, a
> > tool.
>
> Nothing wrong with that. I'll point out that only
> humans have been slaves.
>
>
> > The person doing it doesn't *care* if the bull enjoys
> > it,
>
> Exactly!
>
>
> > only that the bull produces. That is wrong.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>
> > The same is
> > true of the cow: she gets no enjoyment from the insemination
> > at all.
>
> Not an issue.
>
>
> > That's why the restraint used is called a "rape rack."
>
> Figure of speech. This term does not appear outside
> quotes indicating it is a forced slang expression. As
> always, Karen, being a militant dyke "feminist", you
> put your buttons right out there to be pushed.
>
>
> > It is rape for her,
>
> No. There is no concept of consensual sex for animals.
>
>
> > and she gets no more moral consideration than
> > the bull.
>
> Doesn't deserve any on this issue.
>
>
> > She is an economic tool for the farmer.
>
> Right. Your point is...?
>
>
> > He gets
> > milk (by taking the calf away and turning him into veal
> > and her into another milk-machine slave) and eventually sells the
> > spent cow for meat. It is a thoroughly evil system
>
> No.
>
>
> > and both inhumane and harmful to all the animals involved -- bull,
> > cow, and calf.
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
> >
> > It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.
>
> False.

------------------------------------------------------------

Derek wrote: ***NOTHING**.

Two days later:

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On 17 Aug 2006 13:02:15 -0700, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
> >>
> >> <restore>
> >> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> >> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
> >> >>
> >> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,
> >> <end restore>
> >>
> >> >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> >> >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> >> >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> >> >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.
> >> >
> >> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.
> >>
> >> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
> >> animal or bird should never include debasing it
> >
> >...nor the pet owner himself...
>
> Of course, but I don't believe the animal fiddlers here
> appreciate that aspect very well. A little further down
> this page I wrote, "She availed herself as his sexual
> partner, thereby debasing him and herself."
>
> de·base
> To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade.
> See Synonyms at adulterate. See Synonyms at corrupt.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debased

<..>

Yet his 'tutor' ball (leif) supports 'animal fiddling' for profit.

Where's your harassment of ball and chico over it, Derek?

> [..]
> >> You have also said that he
> >> supports meat eating to get your own way. He doesn't.
> >
> >"everyone can eat it [meat] and still maintain excellent health "
> >
> >What do you call that, especially when he repeatedly ignores
and snips evidence to the contrary away and repeats the lie?
>
> To paraphrase, "everyone can eat the meat of infant human
> beings and still maintain excellent health." That's another
> true statement, but nowhere is there any promotion of it.

It is not a true statement. Your insistence that X is true in the
face of evidence to the contrary can only be taken as support.

> You see, when insisting that I promote meat when in fact
> my opening sentence declares that I would never promote
> meat, others can see that you're lying about me.

The rest of the paragraph and your repeated ignoring and
snipping of evidence to the contrary proves you're a liar.

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:42:09 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message ...

> >> You earn money by reducing "them" (plural) to
> >> mere utilities, yet you like to promote the image of an AR
> >> advocate at the same time. When reducing animals to
> >> mere utilities for personal gain how is that any different
> >> to those actions you claim to abhor in other livestock
> >> keepers?
> >
> >I don't do anything of the sort.
>
> Yes, you do,

No I don't. You are a nasty dirty liar, Derek.

<ditto>

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:11:19 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >
> > Or do the two of you just concentrate your attacks on animal rights supporters?
>
> So, just because William criticised YOU for openly lying about
> me you think that he "*just* concentrates his attacks [pl] on
> animal rights supporters" [pl] when in fact he's only criticised
> you. You're in one hell of a paranoid mess and can't stand
> criticism from vegans, and when you are criticised by them
> you then try to imply that they *just* criticise ARAs.

William is a fool to believe someone who's admitted to lying, liar.

Where was he when chico and leif were supporting human/animal
sex relationships. Where were you? Why didn't you harass them?

"rick" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "chico chupacabra" > lied in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet,
> >> > traitor
> >> > chico?
> >> =================
> >> Two planes hit them, I'm sure you've heard of it....
> >
>
> Again... Two planes hit them, I'm sure you've heard of it....
>
> snip ignorant tin-foil hat brigade delusions...

From Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction
& Project Management? LOL!!

'9/11 - WTC Towers Designed to take Multiple Airliner Crashes

World Trade Center Towers - Recorded on 1/25/2001

Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project
Management is on record stating the Towers were designed to
have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. He goes on to say that he
believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.
The structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door
this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing
that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen door.

Watch the video clip (0.44 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:45:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out of
>>>it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
>>>providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
>>>animals, what more can possibly benefit them?
>>
>> As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
>> incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.
>
>No I'm not, watch... Life can have a positive value for them.
.. . .
>> Even though I haven't bought any lamb in the past 10 years I
>> can still consider the fact that some sheep have lives of positive
>> value only because they are raised for food, without any thought
>> of imaginary moral browny points in regards to myself. You--in
>> complete contrast--could never do that.
>
>I could think it, but what would be the point?

To consider aspects of reality that you're afraid to consider, but
which are very significant in regards to human influenc on animals.

>> That same type of thinking also applies to the billions of other
>> animals who live because they're raised for food but I never
>> contribute to the lives of, because they are part of different
>> farming and marketing systems than what I make my insignificant
>> contributions to. You are necessarily completely lost now due to
>> your selfish obesession with imaginary browny points which don't
>> apply in these examples, but you can consider nothing else.
>
>You're a liar or a fool, probably both. When you refer to "animals who live
>because they're raised for food" you are implying that is a justification
>for raising them. You are trying to extract moral brownie points where none
>are due.

From my position you necessarily will remain the liar and fool, unless
you can explain how I could even think about moral brownie points
in regards to animal's lives which I had nothing to do with. You are
and always will remain the liar and fool, completely unable to even
explaining what you think you're trying to talk about.

.. . .
>>>Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?
>>
>> Everything.
>
>Not good enough.

LOL! What else do you think should be considered?
.. . .
>I personally, in my own life, support providing decent lives and
>humane deaths for livestock.

Since you are maniacally opposed to seeing any one else
even consider doing that instead of becoming vegan, of
course I can only believe you're lying again.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:37:58 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
>> >> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>> >> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>> >> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
>> >> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>> >> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
>> >> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>> >> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>> >> >American population.
>> >>
>> >> The American population would consume a lot more
>> >> grain if we didn't eat meat.
>> >
>> >Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.
>> >
>> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>> >
>> >> >..
>> >> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>> >> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>> >> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>> >> >for cultivated feed grains.
>> >>
>> >> Good enough.
>> >
>> >No.. very bad indeed.
>> >
>> >'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
>> >of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
>> >By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
>> >including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
>> >all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
>> >..
>> >Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
>> >in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
>> >of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
>> >the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
>> >that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
>>
>> How would it be better if they were growing corn and soy beans
>> instead....if they could?
>
>15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>
>30 million hectares are at present used just to produce feed grains.
>
>In addition, 272 million hectares are grazed - over 50% overgrazed,
>and/or forage crops like hay (which is fertilized, sprayed, harvested..)
>
>Over 302 million hectares land is used for the U.S. livestock industry.
>
>15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>
>That would leave 299 million hectares of US land to revert to Natural
>habitat,

LOL. I mean: I doubt it.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:56:31 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:29:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:15:26 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:45:23 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:24:14 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>>>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
>>>>>>>>>has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
>>>>>>>>>found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
>>>>>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>>>>>>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>>>>>>>steer found in the feedlot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>>>>>>>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>>>>>>>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>>>>>>>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>>>>>>>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>>>>>>>feedlot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.
>>>>
>>>> I can, but I said I don't this time...yet.
>>>
>>>You never will,
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>________________________________________________ _________
>>Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses
>>
>> By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
>>notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
>>claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
>>national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
>>product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
>>received were in general support of the standard as originally
>>proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
>>follow.
>>
>>Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage
>>
>> Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
>>of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
>>originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
>>percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
>>90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
>>source.
>>. . .
>>AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
>>grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
>>maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
>>was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
>>forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
>>lifetime of the animal.
>>. . .
>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Those are the comments and criticisms put forward, but,
>as we can see by your material above, those suggestions
>aren't being implemented.

They're changing the standard to 99%, unless you "aras"
can stop them simply so you can continue bitching because
it's 80%.

.. . .
>To keep insisting that so-called grass-fed beef has no
>association with collateral deaths is a desperate lie

Yes, so I don't say that. I do however point out that it
causes fewer animal deaths than some (if not all) vegetable
products.

which an image search showed to be more popular:On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:34:30 -0600, Glorfindel
> wrote:

>Derek wrote:
>
>Blatant lies about several AR supporters, including me.
>
>You have not answered my post, even though I tracked you
>back to where you were trying to hide from me, you foul-
>minded, malignant little smear of pond-scum.
>
><snip>

I'm noticing a lot of Goo in 2goo lately...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, 2goo demanded:

>promote vivisection
__________________________________________________ _______
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.

There are several reasons for this:

* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.

* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.

* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.

In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]

http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:

Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.

Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.

60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.

Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.

More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.

Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.

The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.

7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.

There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.

Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.

Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.

Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.

http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:45:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out
>>>>of
>>>>it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
>>>>providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
>>>>animals, what more can possibly benefit them?
>>>
>>> As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
>>> incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.
>>
>>No I'm not, watch... Life can have a positive value for them.

I just proved you wrong.

. . .
>>> Even though I haven't bought any lamb in the past 10 years I
>>> can still consider the fact that some sheep have lives of positive
>>> value only because they are raised for food, without any thought
>>> of imaginary moral browny points in regards to myself. You--in
>>> complete contrast--could never do that.
>>
>>I could think it, but what would be the point?
>
> To consider aspects of reality that you're afraid to consider

I'm not afraid, I have considered it completely and given it the appropriate
weight.

, but
> which are very significant in regards to human influenc on animals.

What is the significance? I don't see any.

>>> That same type of thinking also applies to the billions of other
>>> animals who live because they're raised for food but I never
>>> contribute to the lives of, because they are part of different
>>> farming and marketing systems than what I make my insignificant
>>> contributions to. You are necessarily completely lost now due to
>>> your selfish obesession with imaginary browny points which don't
>>> apply in these examples, but you can consider nothing else.
>>
>>You're a liar or a fool, probably both. When you refer to "animals who
>>live
>>because they're raised for food" you are implying that is a justification
>>for raising them. You are trying to extract moral brownie points where
>>none
>>are due.
>
> From my position you necessarily will remain the liar and fool, unless
> you can explain how I could even think about moral brownie points
> in regards to animal's lives which I had nothing to do with.

By association. You figure that if you assign brownie points to people who
consume lamb then you must also be eligible for them for consuming chicken
and beef.

> You are
> and always will remain the liar and fool, completely unable to even
> explaining what you think you're trying to talk about.

> . . .
>>>>Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?
>>>
>>> Everything.
>>
>>Not good enough.
>
> LOL! What else do you think should be considered?

Not specific enough, you're hiding behind vague statements. I already
believe I consider everything that warrants consideration. If you want me to
consider that if I didn't eat chicken then fewer chickens would be born,
then you'll have to tell me the specific reason for doing so.

. . .
>>I personally, in my own life, support providing decent lives and
>>humane deaths for livestock.
>
> Since you are maniacally opposed to seeing any one else
> even consider doing that instead of becoming vegan, of
> course I can only believe you're lying again.

Now you're just arguing with strawmen.

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "William" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
>> > "William" > wrote in message ...
>> >> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was
>> >> honest
>> >> and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see that
> he
>> >> was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and all that but you are lying to him and
>> >> defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have
>> >> to
>> > say.
>> >
>> > You are wrong. I am not defending human/animal relationships,
>> > and I'm not lying to him, or you or anyone else. I have said that
>> > the cockatiel should have been provided with a female cockatiel,
>> > and I still believe that. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you also
>> > missed Derek's support of those who defend the masturbation of
>> > bulls and rape of cows for profit. What are your views on that?
>> >
>> >
>> I don't think I'm going to get the truth from you.
>
> Your basis for saying that is .... ?
>
>> Derek doesn't support the masturbation of bulls and raping cows.
>
> He didn't oppose it when chico and ball (leif) were supporting it.
>
> Why not? If his objection was genuine, he should have done so.
>
> So should you. Or did you miss that?

Pearl. Please! I'm not going to fight you, and I'm not going to fight your battles for you.


Or do the two of you
> just concentrate your attacks on animal rights supporters?
>
>> He said someone
>> else supports the harvesting of male ejaculate or something like that.
>
> I'd get your facts straight before you go around accusing others.

Please be calm Pearl. I'm not going to fight you.

>> Why do you keep lying about him?
>
> Where have I lied?
>
>> You have also said that he
>> supports meat eating to get your own way. He doesn't.
>
> "everyone can eat it [meat] and still maintain excellent health "
>
> What do you call that, especially when he repeatedly ignores
> and snips evidence to the contrary away and repeats the lie?
>
>> Derek is a vegan and hates everything about farming.
>
> So he says. I was taken in by him as well. Mind yourself.
>
>
Derek and his charming wife have accepted my invitation to celebrate their twenty fifth wedding anniversary as my guests at my hotel
next week. They will be welcomed by all my vegan friends there who are looking forward to meeting them very much. Some of my
permanent residents have been vegan for over thirty years and we are all thrilled to bits at the thought of his company. He can play
chess with some of our elders, swim in our pool every morning to help his back condition, talk with his friends about veganism and
alternative therapies to help him, enjoy the superb food provided by our chef, and they can both relax in good company for as long
as they want to stay as my guests.

Remember --
Each of us inevitable; Each of us limitless - each of us with his or her right upon the earth; Each of us allowed the eternal
purports of the earth; Each of us here as divinely as any is here. Walt Whitman.




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

"William" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "William" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> >> > "William" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> Pearl, Derek aka Ipse Dixit did write to me (several pages) and he explained why he attacked you among other things. He was
> >> >> honest
> >> >> and didn't try to excuse himself in any way. Now I've read all this crap between you two over the last few days I can see
that
> > he
> >> >> was fully within his rights to attack you because you are as he says you are. Sorry and all that but you are lying to him
and
> >> >> defending human/animal sex relationships because you don't want to lose the friendship of those who do it. That's all I have
> >> >> to
> >> > say.
> >> >
> >> > You are wrong. I am not defending human/animal relationships,
> >> > and I'm not lying to him, or you or anyone else. I have said that
> >> > the cockatiel should have been provided with a female cockatiel,
> >> > and I still believe that. Maybe you missed that. Maybe you also
> >> > missed Derek's support of those who defend the masturbation of
> >> > bulls and rape of cows for profit. What are your views on that?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> I don't think I'm going to get the truth from you.
> >
> > Your basis for saying that is .... ?

William?

> >> Derek doesn't support the masturbation of bulls and raping cows.
> >
> > He didn't oppose it when chico and ball (leif) were supporting it.
> >
> > Why not? If his objection was genuine, he should have done so.
> >
> > So should you. Or did you miss that?
>
> Pearl. Please! I'm not going to fight you, and I'm not going to fight your battles for you.

It's a bit late for that, Billy. You waded in making some pretty hefty
accusations. In an effort to support 'our poor Derek', I might add.

> Or do the two of you
> > just concentrate your attacks on animal rights supporters?
> >
> >> He said someone
> >> else supports the harvesting of male ejaculate or something like that.
> >
> > I'd get your facts straight before you go around accusing others.
>
> Please be calm Pearl. I'm not going to fight you.

That's the last thing I wanted, you know.

> >> Why do you keep lying about him?
> >
> > Where have I lied?

At least have the decency to retract your accusations.

> >> You have also said that he
> >> supports meat eating to get your own way. He doesn't.
> >
> > "everyone can eat it [meat] and still maintain excellent health "
> >
> > What do you call that, especially when he repeatedly ignores
> > and snips evidence to the contrary away and repeats the lie?
> >
> >> Derek is a vegan and hates everything about farming.
> >
> > So he says. I was taken in by him as well. Mind yourself.
> >
> >
> Derek and his charming wife have accepted my invitation to celebrate their twenty fifth wedding anniversary as my guests at my
hotel
> next week. They will be welcomed by all my vegan friends there who are looking forward to meeting them very much. Some of my
> permanent residents have been vegan for over thirty years and we are all thrilled to bits at the thought of his company. He can
play
> chess with some of our elders, swim in our pool every morning to help his back condition, talk with his friends about veganism and
> alternative therapies to help him, enjoy the superb food provided by our chef, and they can both relax in good company for as long
> as they want to stay as my guests.
>
> Remember --
> Each of us inevitable; Each of us limitless - each of us with his or her right upon the earth; Each of us allowed the eternal
> purports of the earth; Each of us here as divinely as any is here. Walt Whitman.

Too bad you forgot that in your attempted character assassination.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:37:58 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
> >> >> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
> >> >> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
> >> >> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
> >> >> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
> >> >> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
> >> >> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> >> >> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> >> >> >American population.
> >> >>
> >> >> The American population would consume a lot more
> >> >> grain if we didn't eat meat.
> >> >
> >> >Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.
> >> >
> >> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
> >> >
> >> >> >..
> >> >> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >> >> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> >> >> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> >> >> >for cultivated feed grains.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good enough.
> >> >
> >> >No.. very bad indeed.
> >> >
> >> >'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
> >> >of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
> >> >By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
> >> >including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
> >> >all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
> >> >..
> >> >Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
> >> >in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
> >> >of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
> >> >the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
> >> >that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
> >>
> >> How would it be better if they were growing corn and soy beans
> >> instead....if they could?
> >
> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
> >
> >30 million hectares are at present used just to produce feed grains.
> >
> >In addition, 272 million hectares are grazed - over 50% overgrazed,
> >and/or forage crops like hay (which is fertilized, sprayed, harvested..)
> >
> >Over 302 million hectares land is used for the U.S. livestock industry.
> >
> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
> >
> >That would leave 299 million hectares of US land to revert to Natural
> >habitat,
>
> LOL. I mean: I doubt it.

I'll repost the following, which you previously snipped without
comment, and you try to disprove anything written herein, ok?

'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

In contrast, - area used for food cultivation, U.S:

U.S acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
Vegetables 3,264,343
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html

= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
+
Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
(= 1,806,010 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
+
6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
=
Total: 12,965,370 hectares, - round to 13 million hectares.

'More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population .'

'Twenty times more land is required to feed a meat-eater
than a vegetarian. (A meat-eater requires 3 and ¼ acres of
land to feed him/herself per year, where as a vegetarian
requires 1/6 of an acre.)'
http://goodnews.lot212.com/printout....=105532&type=0

302m+13m= 315m hectares used /20 = 15.75m hectares
- needed for a vegan population - leaving free to revert
to *natural habitat* 315-15.75= 299.25 million hectares !
- currently losing topsoil unsustainably; many indigenous
species slaughtered, entire ecosystems now monoculture.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...

> They're changing the standard to 99%, unless you "aras"
> can stop them simply so you can continue bitching because
> it's 80%.

'Cattle battle
Phil Hayworth
Tracy Press

To most consumers, the term "grass-fed" means cattle living out their
lives in a bucolic setting, happily munching away on tender shoots of
grass, the way nature intended.

Later, they wind up on someone's plate the way man intended.

But if a proposed Department of Agriculture regulation passes as written,
the term grass-fed could refer to cattle raised on grass but that have
spent their entire lives confined and, quite possibly, fed all the hormones
and antibiotics some consumers avoid.

"It must be linked to where the animals live," said Dr. Patricia Whisnant,
president of American Grass Fed Association.

Whisnant is asking for humane treatment of animals, not just a way to
produce a more naturally fed product. But that might make it tough for
cattle ranchers in San Joaquin County to take advantage of the "grass-fed"
label.

That's because it takes a lot of land and a lot of grass to let cattle roam
out here, where long, hot summers turn verdant grasslands to dust and
where once-vacant ranch land grows houses more profitably than cows.

"You need about 15 to 20 acres of land to properly grass-feed just one
cow," figures Teresa Becchetti, livestock adviser with the University of
California Agriculture Extension.

Most of the 156,000 cows that make up San Joaquin County's $91 million
beef industry are grain-fed and often confined on small, family farms, she
said.

Meanwhile, reports of mad cow disease from Europe and diseases
possibly passed on through infected feed have consumers looking for
purer forms of beef. California's beef producers are more than willing to
give the consumer whatever label they want, so long as it sells more beef
and brings more profit.

Matt Byrne, executive director of the California Cattlemen's Association,
said that any time an industry can segment, it's a good thing. But that's not
good enough for Tim Fritz, a forage agronomist with King's AgriSeeds in
Pennsylvania.

"I don't think grass-fed animals standing in confinement for 160 to 220
days, without shade, eating corn silage and being fed antibiotics and
growth hormones, should fall under the definition of 'grass-fed,'" he
wrote in a letter posted to the USDA, which is taking comments on the
new regulation through Aug. 10.

Jim Rickert, owner of Prather Ranch, a 34,000-acre organic operation near
Mount Shasta, said that grass feeding is really a throwback to the way
things were done before giant feedlots, hormones, grains and antibiotics.
But grass-fed beef is sometimes tough. He said grain feeding is really the
only way to get a consistent product to market.

http://tracypress.com/2006-08-04-Cattle.php

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, 2goo demanded:
>
> >promote vivisection
> __________________________________________________ _______

> If scientists could replace animal research and testing
> with methods which did not need to use animals then
> they would.

> There are several reasons for this:

> * Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
> Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
> suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
> uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
> biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
> techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.

> * Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
> which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
> screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
> their effectiveness and toxicity.

> * The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
> British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
> animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
> to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
> to other areas of research.
> [...]
> http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm

'These artificial moral dilemmas are invented by the pro-vivisection
lobby to emotionally blackmail people into accepting animal
experiments. In fact, with the constant risk of misleading predictions,
the real choice is not between dogs and babies but between good and
bad science. Vivisection is bad science because it only tells us about
animals whereas in medicine we need to know about human disease.

If vivisection is so unscientific, why does it continue?

There are powerful vested interests whose profits and livelihoods
depend on animal experiments. Most experiments (52% in 1994)
are conducted by commercial laboratories, for example, drug
companies and contract research laboratories, which indicates that
much vivisection is profit-orientated. Furthermore, many scientists
build their careers on animal experiments and are not trained for
other approaches.

Animal research is ideally suited to the 'publish or perish' world of
academic (university) science: having obtained results from one
species, researchers can try another and carry out more experiments
to try and understand the different responses, all of which produces
scientific publications - the measure of success.

Animal experiments are also more 'convenient' than clinical studies
of human volunteers or patients. This is because lab animals are
considered disposable species that can be manipulated as required,
whereas clinical investigations must be careful not to harm the
patients they study.

Supplying the needs of university, government and industrial
laboratories is also big business for the animal breeders and the
cage and equipment suppliers.
....'
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...20Testing/Vivi...

> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
> helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
> Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
> fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
> possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
> today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
> veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
> toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
> animals.

Wild animals decimated driven to the brink of extinction
due to hunting and the livestock industry.

> In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
> all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
> regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
> [...]

> http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

> __________________________________________________ _______

> WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
> Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
> adults this year.

'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine
to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated.
The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine
came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the
polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the
Nobel prize for this discovery.

Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited
with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal
models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues
would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that
monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown
to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human
tissue, if not more so.

Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when
he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying:
'Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception
of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental
models [of polio] in monkeys'.

This fact is confirmed by the following comment: 'Only after researchers
ceased relying on the misleading animal studies, and heeded evidence
uncovered by human clinical virological studies, could they identify the
pathogenesis of polio' [Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science
(London: Routledge, 1996), p.127].

http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6

See also; http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html

> Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
> be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.

'The link between diabetes and a damaged pancreas was first
established by post-mortem analysis of human patients. This
finding encouraged researchers to give pancreatic extracts to
both laboratory animals and diabetic patients, but the extracts
were so crude they caused severe toxicity. Even Banting and
Best's first human trial had to be stopped, with Banting admitting
that results were not as encouraging as those achieved 13 years
earlier by Zuetzer. (Banting and Best's well-publicized dog
experiments are widely believed to have produced the cure for
diabetes). Only when the biochemist J. B. Collip used chemical
techniques to purify the extracts did a more effective and less
toxic preparation become available. [Source, together with
original references: R. Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons,
1988]

Although in the past, most insulin originated from animal sources,
diabetic patients are now usually treated with human insulin,
produced from bacteria by genetic engineering.
....'
http://www.animalliberationfront.com...20Testing/Vivi...

'In New Scientist, March 18 1982, doctors say they believe insulin
could be responsible for the high levels of blindness in diabetics.
Massive available data shows that diabetes is preventable through
appropriate diet. That the highest incidence of the disease is in the
United States, which consumes an average of 35 percent animal fats
and meat, the lowest in Japan which diet contains an average of five
percent, and that when the Japanese take to American eating habits
they developed diabetic problems. One of the well-worn favourites
of the exponents of vivisection when tub-thumping supposed
examples of the benefits of their grotesque and obvious fraud, is
the discovery of insulin to administer to diabetic patients. Yet
more people per capita are dying of diabetes today than in 1900
- twentytwo years before the discovery of insulin.
........'
http://www.health.org.nz/diab.html

> 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
> kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
> pressure.

'Deaths per year (US) 6
-------------------------------------------------------
heart disease 709,894
cancer 551,833
stroke 166,028
diabetes 68,662
Chronic Liver Disease/Cirrhosis 26,219
high blood pressure 17,964
------------------------------------------------------
...
Number of Americans Living with Diet- and
Inactivity-Related Diseases
-------------------------------------------------------
Seriously Overweight/Obese9 113,360,000
High Blood Pressure9 50,000,000
Diabetes10 15,700,000
Coronary Heart Disease9 12,600,000
Osteoporosis7 10,000,000
Cancer11 8,900,000
Stroke9 4,600,000]
-------------------------------------------------------
...'
http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpoli...on_policy.html

As with diabetes, ...

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a
range of dietary plant food composition that suggested
an absence of a disease prevention threshold. That is,
the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds,
kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers,
groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions
in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.
Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats
them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because
eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal
health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and
cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more
animals to look for cures for these diseases. .."...
C. David Coats (from the preface of his book:
Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)

.... - which in turn injure and kill man by the million.

> Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
> now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.

'1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial
chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that
exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-
supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]
[1]Lancet, June 25 1977, pp1348-9.
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html

'There is much evidence that childhood leukemia is also the
direct legacy of vaccination, the foundation stone of vivisection.

"Vaccinations and sulfa drugs have been recognised as being
directly responsible for the production of leukemia in humans."
(Dr B. Duperrat, of the Sant-Louis Hospital in Paris, writing in
the French medical journal Presse Medicale, March 12 1955.)

"Already published reports, as well as our own observations
indicate that smallpox vaccination sometimes produces
manifestations of leukemia. In children and adults observed
in the clinics of Cracow, smallpox vaccination has been
followed by violent local and general reactions and by leukemia."
(Professors Julian Aleksandrowickz and Boguslave Halileokowski
of the Medical Academy of Cracow, Poland wrote as reported in
Lancet, May 6 1967.)

"The vaccine modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it
towards alkaline and oxidised terrain - the terrain of cancer.
The fact can no longer be denied."
(The January 1958 issue of another French medical journal,
Revue De Pathologie Generale et de Physiologie Clinique.)

"In England and Wales, total death rates from all forms of
leukemia have increased more than six times between 1920
and 1952... According to Wilkinson, sulphanomides (antibiotics)
stand convicted as one of the contributing factors, even when
fairly low dosages were employed. In cases reported in detail,
the tragic path from a granulocytosis to haemolitic anaemia and
acute monolytic leukemia is revealed in black and white."
(The July 1957 issue of Medical World, article by Freda Lucas.)

"Leukemia has been dramatically increasing, especially among
children, ever since the various modern 'therapies' have been
inflicted upon a frightened, artfully misinformed public.
Urethane has sometimes an inhibitory effect on human leukemia
in contrast to what animal experiments had shown."

"The characteristic effects in leukemia were detected solely as
a result of clinical observation. The various leukemias in the
mouse and rat were relatively refractory to the influence of
urethane, and the remarkable effect in the human might have
eluded discovery if attention had been directed to the animal
alone. That illustrates the hazards of such work."
(Prof. Alexander Haddow, British Medical Journal, December
2 1950, page 1272.)

"The argument from man is so much more convincing than
the argument from mice - which indeed, may be completely
misleading, as in the case of urethane, which has some inhibitory
action on human tumours, but a marked, though temporary one
on chronic human leukemias."
(Dr C.G. Learoyd, Surgeon, Medical World, August 1954, page 172.)

"The drugs Prednisone and Vincristine are often hailed as 'curing'
childhood leukemia. Both drugs were rejected by the US National
Cancer Institute as 'useless' on the basis of animal tests.
Prednisone was developed as a result of clinical observation of
the effects of adrenal extract. Vincristine is an alkaloid of 'Vincra
Rosea', a type of periwinkle plant, and extracts of periwinkle were
used in the Roman Empire to 'dry tumours' (Pliny). They were
eventually brought to clinical trials. The children cured of leukemia
owe their lives to clinical observations and trials - and not to the
animal 'model'."
(Brandon Reines, Cancer Research on Animals: Impact and
Alternatives.)
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/chleu.html

> More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
> this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.

'On January 6 1992 the N.Z. Woman's Weekly cites the work of
Dr George Duncan of the University of East Anglia who is using
human eye tissue in cataract research. He, and fellow researchers
at Lister Hospital, claim that human tissue tests "give reassurance
that experiments on animals do not".

"The wounds of an animal behave so differently from those of
man that the conclusions drawn from them by the vivisectors are
completely valueless and have caused more damage than benefit."
(Lawson Tait, quoted in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science -
a choice to make.)

In the Journal of Organotherapy, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January-February
1932, page 23, it is reported that a well-known operation for cataract
devised by Philip Syng Physick, was the result of clinical research alone.

In Medical Press, January 27 1954, page 74, in criticism of an article
which drew attention to reports of successful treatment of cataract
through experiments on rats, Posner warns that there are dangerous
hazards, even resulting in blindness should the method be applied to
human beings.
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/catrct.html

> Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
> spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.

'Spinal cord experiments on animals are part of the medical
fraud of vivisection. We are told that animals must be used
in this horrifying way in attempts to understand physiological
mechanisms and to test surgical procedures, but extracts from
articles written by those undertaking this "research" show that
spinal cord research with animals is obviously not working.
...'
http://www.health.org.nz/spcord.html

> The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
> replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
> confined to wheelchairs.

'John Charnley developed an arthoplasty of the hip in 1946, but
a preliminary trial led him to believe that it was unsatisfactory(1).

In 1949, Charnley received a Home Office licence to experiment
on animals, and it is said that he grafted bones in goats but did
not record the results. Likewise, he did not publish ANY papers
on any animal experiments he may have conducted(1). Charnley
wrote "A few observations on the human are often of more value
than a large series of experiments on animals..."The `crucial`
experiment was an isolated observation"(2). The `crucial`
experiment had been performed on a human patient(3).

Later, Charnley measured co-efficiency of the fracture of
articular cartilage. This could be done quite simply in an
engineering laboratory but it was not so easy in animal joints,
since the cartilage could not be fashioned into a plane surface.
Charnley checked the published papers and found two written
in 1934 and 1936 by E S Jones, who had described his
experiments on the knees of horses but Charnley believed
that such experiments were open to various objections and
decided to make measurements on a freshly amputated knee
joint of a human patient(3).

Thus, Charnley may have had a vivisector`s license and,
possibly, did conduct some animal experiments - but he
realized that the progress had to come from clinical work -
which he did.
...'
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_a.../surgerycontin...

> 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
> palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.

'Phototherapy has proven successful in humans and Gunn rats for
the long-term management of unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia.
Exposure to high-intensity visible light induces catabolism of bilirubin
to less toxic, diazonegative derivatives, which can be excreted in bile
and urine.(6) This therapy was not derived from the Gunn rat model.
In 1958, by measuring the effects of sunlight and artificial blue light
on serum bilirubin concentrations in newborn infants, Cremer
demonstrated that phototherapy had potential value in the prevention
of hyperbilirubinemia.(40) Lucey et al. noted, "The decolorizing
effect of sunlight and artificial light upon solutions of bilirubin has
been known for many years. This observation prompted Cremer to
first use phototherapy clinically"(41) in 1958. In 1968, Lucey et al.
conducted the first controlled study of low-birthweight infants to
test the effectiveness of phototherapy in the prophylaxis of
hyperbilirubinemia. They found that, "...continuous phototherapy
is effective in significantly modifying hyperbilirubinemia."(41) To
date, the treatment of CJN syndrome "...usually requires exchange
transfusions and phototherapy."(34)
...'
http://www.curedisease.com/Perspecti...liment/Model%2...

> There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
> patients with end-stage renal disease.

'In Holland, Willem Kolff heard of cellophane in 1938 from
Prof Brinkman, his biochemistry teacher at Groningen University.
One he was aware of this, Kolff took 45cm of skin used to cover
sausages, filled the skin with blood and added 100mg of urea.
He sealed both ends of the sausage skin, fixed it to a board and
rocked it in saline solution in a bath. After 30 minutes, all of the
urea had passed from the blood to the rinsing solution. This led
to Kolff`s idea of an artificial kidney. He purchased further
supplies of the sausage skin and began calculating the requirements
for the design. Through trial and error, Kolff built four machines,
but none were considered reliable enough for clinical use. In 1942,
Kolff and Berk constructed the fifth prototype - but it remained
unused for some time. In 1943, the first patient was referred to
Kolff as doctors at the time thought that the machine would, at
least, do no harm - but it did. The first 15 patients treated with
the new artificial kidney all died.. It was not until 1945 that Kolff
successfully treated Sofia Schafstedt, a 67 year old woman.
Kolff went on to send eight machines to different parts of the
Netherlands. After 1946, one machine was sent to London,
another to New York, and a third to Montreal, Canada(1).
ref
1.Keck,PS. Meserko,JJ. Proc Am Acad of Cardiovascular
Perfusion. vol 6. 1985
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_a.../abdominalsurg...

> Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
> development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
> unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.

'(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912),
'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on
animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments
been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great
blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the
discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of
misleading evidence from animal data'.
...'
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html

> Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
> others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.

"Official statistics from many countries indicate that smallpox
(and other communicable diseases) were declining before
vaccination programs were enforced. This may be attributed to
the sanitation reforms and nutritional teachings instituted around
the mid-1800's. For example, water supplies were protected
from contamination, streets and stables were cleaned, sewage
was removed, and food was delivered while still fresh. However,
once smallpox vaccinations became mandatory, deaths from the
disease steadily increased. In fact, records in several countries
show that nearly every contagious disease-plague, cholera,
measles, scarlet fever, dysentery, whooping cough-except
smallpox (kept alive by mandatory shots), declined in number
and severity on its own." [Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned
Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp.
12-20](p. 45)

Before England passed a compulsory vaccination law in 1853,
the highest death rate for anytwo year period was only 2,000
cases, even during the most severe epidemics. [Eleanor McBean,
The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research,
1974) pp. 13]"(Jenner himself admitted that smallpox was
relatively unknown before he began his vaccinations. In fact,
there were only a few hundred cases of smallpox in England at
that time.) After more than fifteen years of mandatory
vaccinations, in 1870 and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people
died from the disease. In Germany, over 124,000 people died
of smallpox during the same epidemic. All had been vaccinated.
In Japan, nearly 29,000 people died in just seven years under a
stringent compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination program.
Compare these devastating figures to Australia, where the
government terminated compulsory vaccinations when two
children died from their smallpox shots. As a result, smallpox
virtually disappeared in that country (three cases in fifteen years)."
(p. 46)

"Every examination of the facts indicates that the smallpox
vaccine was not only ineffective but dangerous. Undoctored
hospital records consistently show that about 90 percent of
all smallpox cases occurred after the individual was vaccinated.
" . . . There is a direct relationship between the percentage of
babies vaccinated and the number of smallpox deaths: the
higher the percentage, the greater the fatalities. In other words,
deaths from smallpox tumbled only after people refused the
shots [see Figure 1 below]."(p. 46)
....
http://gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Does...eally_Need.htm

> Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
> from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
> more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.

At least that's applicable to the target species.

... http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/errors.html

> http://www.ampef.org/research.htm

Pro-vivisection propaganda.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:52:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:45:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out
>>>>>of
>>>>>it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
>>>>>providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
>>>>>animals, what more can possibly benefit them?
>>>>
>>>> As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
>>>> incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.
>>>
>>>No I'm not, watch... Life can have a positive value for them.
>
>I just proved you wrong.

LOL. You didn't prove a damn thing. You made a claim that you
could never back up, but I'd like to see you try. Try to explain in
some detail what you think would give life positive value for them.

> . . .
>>>> Even though I haven't bought any lamb in the past 10 years I
>>>> can still consider the fact that some sheep have lives of positive
>>>> value only because they are raised for food, without any thought
>>>> of imaginary moral browny points in regards to myself. You--in
>>>> complete contrast--could never do that.
>>>
>>>I could think it, but what would be the point?
>>
>> To consider aspects of reality that you're afraid to consider
>
>I'm not afraid, I have considered it completely and given it the appropriate
>weight.

Appropriate for an "ara", but NOT for anyone who can appreciate
the fact.

>, but
>> which are very significant in regards to human influenc on animals.
>
>What is the significance? I don't see any.

You claim to understand that life can have positive value for the
animals, yet you can't appreciate the fact because you can only
consider yourself and not THEM. If you could, you could easily
see the significance. Unless you can learn to consider what the
animals gain--which is lives of positive value--you necessarily will
never be able to see any significance in it. Your selfishness is
too pure to allow you to consider the animals, as I keep pointing
out because you keep proving it and insisting that it's true.

.. . .

>I already believe I consider everything that warrants consideration.

Let's lay them out to see what you beleive warrants consideration:

1. the "ar" opinion presented by Salt.
2. a similarity you claim exists between appreciating lives of
positive value for livestock and child prostitution.
3. an imginary moral point system.

If you think there's anything else add it or I'll know those are the
only 3 things you ever consider.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:15:52 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:37:58 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> Claim and Standard:
>> >> >> >> >>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>> >> >> >> >>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>> >> >> >> >>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
>> >> >> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>> >> >> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
>> >> >> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>> >> >> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>> >> >> >American population.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The American population would consume a lot more
>> >> >> grain if we didn't eat meat.
>> >> >
>> >> >Americans are already consuming too much grain in their diet.
>> >> >
>> >> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >..
>> >> >> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>> >> >> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>> >> >> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>> >> >> >for cultivated feed grains.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Good enough.
>> >> >
>> >> >No.. very bad indeed.
>> >> >
>> >> >'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
>> >> >of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
>> >> >By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
>> >> >including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
>> >> >all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
>> >> >..
>> >> >Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
>> >> >in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
>> >> >of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
>> >> >the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
>> >> >that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
>> >>
>> >> How would it be better if they were growing corn and soy beans
>> >> instead....if they could?
>> >
>> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>> >
>> >30 million hectares are at present used just to produce feed grains.
>> >
>> >In addition, 272 million hectares are grazed - over 50% overgrazed,
>> >and/or forage crops like hay (which is fertilized, sprayed, harvested..)
>> >
>> >Over 302 million hectares land is used for the U.S. livestock industry.
>> >
>> >15.75m hectares in total would be needed for a vegan population.
>> >
>> >That would leave 299 million hectares of US land to revert to Natural
>> >habitat,
>>
>> LOL. I mean: I doubt it.
>
>I'll repost the following, which you previously snipped without
>comment, and you try to disprove anything written herein, ok?

No. You may or may not be right about those claims.
Neither of us could know. Some of the info I did check on
appeared to be written in 1997, and I have no doubt things
have been improved since then. You would certainly never
be honest enough to acknowledge if they had, but would be
more likely to lie about it even if you were aware that they had.

What I doubt is that the land would revert to natural habitat,
and you can give absolutely no reason to believe that it would.
More likely it would become housing and business property,
which would provide life for far LESS wildlife than it does while
supporting livestock.

In considering your dishonesty I'm aware that some animal
products involve far fewer wildlife deaths than some types of
vegetable products. I'm also well aware that you dishonestly
would deny that. If you were an honest person who had a
true interest in human influence on animals, you would also
be pointing out that aspect of the situation. In contrast, you
dishonestly want people to be unaware of the fact, obviously
because you care only about promoting veganism regardless
of human influence on animals which you've shown not to
care about at all.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:20:25 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>> They're changing the standard to 99%, unless you "aras"
>> can stop them simply so you can continue bitching because
>> it's 80%.
>
>'Cattle battle
>Phil Hayworth
>Tracy Press
>
>To most consumers, the term "grass-fed" means cattle living out their
>lives in a bucolic setting, happily munching away on tender shoots of
>grass, the way nature intended.

That's the way it usually is, not that you "aras" could possibly
appreciate the fact.

>once-vacant ranch land grows houses more profitably than cows.

Or vegetables, no doubt. So much for letting it revert to its
natural habitat, which you dishonestly pretend happens to
ex-grazing land.