|
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:37:41 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><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. >... No artificial moral dilemmas have been mentioned, but instead real aspects of the situation that real researchers must deal with. In contrast to dealing with problems in realistic ways as the researchers do, "aras" commit terrorist acts which always result in more suffering for humans and other animals, not less. >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> [...] >> 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. And construction of roads and buildings, and production of paper and wood products, electricity and crops etc, which "aras" contribute to just as everyone else does. It's pathetically amusing that "aras" always point the finger at the few things they don't contribute to, while completely ignoring or dishonestly denying the things that they do. .. . . >"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. If man kills wildlife in order to protect his animals' feed, what makes you think he doesn't kill them to protect his own as well? |
Vagan question, getting started.
William wrote:
<snip> > Derek and his charming wife Oh, you mean the lay-about adulterous slut. Great example of sexual probity in that family, eh? A slut and a cuckold who takes it without protest. No wonder he's so weird about anything having to do with sex. Compensating, no doubt. > have accepted my invitation to celebrate their twenty fifth wedding anniversary as my guests at my hotel > next week. Watch out. Once he knows where you live, he'll do something to make your life miserable as soon as you get on the wrong end of one of his irrational temper tantrums. He's psycho. Everybody gets it from him sooner or later. Watch yourself. <snip> |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > 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 m... >>>>> 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. It's irrelevant which "details" about their lives I think makes their life "decent", plenty of space, ability to relate with others of their kind, good food, comfort, absence of pain and suffering. I made the exact same claim that you make, that some livestock animals have decent lives, it's simply a subjective opinion, just like yours. The only difference between our views is that I know that we OWE them decent lives, you think that the animals owe us a debt of gratitude for providing them with life. >> . . . >>>>> 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. No appropriate for any moral, thinking person. >>, 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, Yes. > yet you can't appreciate the fact because you can only > consider yourself and not THEM. Not true. > If you could, you could easily > see the significance. Unless you can learn to consider what the > animals gain "Considering what they gain" is ****wit-ese for claiming a moral credit to yourself. >--which is lives of positive value--you necessarily will > never be able to see any significance in it. The significance is that we act morally by providing them with lives of positive value, and they avoid suffering. > 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. Not true. I am the one considering the animals and alleviating their suffering, not "what they gain" which is a self-serving thing to consider. . . . > >>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. He doesn't lay out the AR position in that particular essay, he specifically accepts and concedes that man can use animals as food. That is not the AR position. > 2. a similarity you claim exists between appreciating lives of > positive value for livestock and child prostitution. There is a direct similarity between your "appreciating" no matter where you do it. If you assault someone and they are airlifted to Atlanta for emergency medical care, you cannot argue that you "provided them with the opportunity" to visit Atlanta. If you cut someone off in traffic, crash their car and make them miss a flight which crashes killing all on board, you cannot (successfully) argue in traffic court that you did them a favor. Even though it's literally true, the dynamics of these situations do not permit such arguments. Similarly if you stop to help someone who has been injured and as a result of your good faith efforts they die, it is considered that did nothing wrong. In these cases it is the intent and nature of the act that is judged, not the actual outcome. When we raise animals for food, for our benefit, that is the component of that act which establishes whether it is right or wrong, that is what we are debating, not whether or not there is some attendent "benefit" to them. > 3. an imginary moral point system. It is you who is insisting that "providing lives" in this context is a moral consideration, I am telling you that it is not. A couple of the arguments to support that view are above. Those moral brownie points are indeed imaginary. > If you think there's anything else add it or I'll know those are the > only 3 things you ever consider. What you need to consider is that in the context of using animals for food we incur a moral obligation to provide those animals with decent lives. "Considering their lives" in the sense of The Logic of the Larder is inadmissable, just as in the many other similar examples I have laid out. You are simply wrong, dead wrong, always have been and always will be as long as you pursue this line of thought. |
Vagan question, getting started.
Karen Winter, schismatic ******* and S&M-bestiality-pedophilia
proponent, got filled with "the spirit" and unlovingly wrote: > William wrote: > > <snip> > > > Derek and his charming wife > > Oh, you mean the lay-about adulterous slut. What's your claim to fame? Advocating for bestiality, diddling cockatiels "regularly," promoting child molestor groups like NAMBLA, not liking your son as a person, hoping your grandson will be rebellious and *** so he'll bond with YOU instead of his father, abandoning your son and sending him from relative to relative while you were joining dress-up communes and experimenting with *******ism and god-knows-what-else in California, spending your adult life tearing apart your church and then whining about the fall out when enough shit has hit the fan that the people you thought it would be okay to alienate decide they won't take shit like that from a queer old cow like you, and so on. I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the Nashes' marriage. Because it represents everything you disdain, you sick anti-Christ ****. Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of marriage. I wish you much happiness and joy together. <snip BS: remember what you wrote a couple summers ago about your anarchist friends in LA watching someone closely, Karen? You have some nerver to talk about anyone else being a threat.> |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:10:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> 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 om... >>>>>> 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. > >It's irrelevant which "details" To YOU it is, but then you can't APPRECIATE the fact that some of them have lives of positive value even IF you were able to understand it...and there's still no evidence that you ever could. >about their lives I think makes their life "decent", What you were pretending to be able to understand is what you think would give life positive value. Whether or not a "decent" life would also give it positive value in your opinion, so far appears to be much more complex a question than you would ever be able to consider in detail. >plenty of space, ability to relate with others of their kind, good >food, comfort, absence of pain and suffering. I made the exact same claim >that you make, that some livestock animals have decent lives, it's simply a >subjective opinion, just like yours. The only difference between our views >is that I know that we OWE them decent lives, you think that the animals owe >us a debt of gratitude for providing them with life. No. How would they even be aware that we provide them with their lives? They aren't aware. YOU think they know because an imaginary talking pig led you to believe they do, and in your ignorance and stupidity you necessarily think everyone else believes they know about it too, otherwise you could never come up with the absurd idea that anyone could think they owe us any gratitude. Even if livestock are capable of gratitude, they could never feel grateful to us for something they're not even aware of. Duh you poor moron, duh! . . . >> 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. > >Not true. I am the one considering the animals and alleviating their >suffering, not "what they gain" which is a self-serving thing to consider. By now I'm really curious just how inconsiderate you are. Do you think you can consider what ANY animals gain from lives of positive value? If so, try to explain which animals, and why. > . . . >> >>>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. > >He doesn't lay out the AR position in that particular essay, he specifically >accepts and concedes that man can use animals as food. That is not the AR >position. > >> 2. a similarity you claim exists between appreciating lives of >> positive value for livestock and child prostitution. > >There is a direct similarity between your "appreciating" no matter where you >do it. If you assault someone and they are airlifted to Atlanta for >emergency medical care, you cannot argue that you "provided them with the >opportunity" to visit Atlanta. If you cut someone off in traffic, crash >their car and make them miss a flight which crashes killing all on board, >you cannot (successfully) argue in traffic court that you did them a favor. >Even though it's literally true, the dynamics of these situations do not >permit such arguments. Similarly if you stop to help someone who has been >injured and as a result of your good faith efforts they die, it is >considered that did nothing wrong. In these cases it is the intent and >nature of the act that is judged, not the actual outcome. When we raise >animals for food, for our benefit, that is the component of that act which >establishes whether it is right or wrong, that is what we are debating, not >whether or not there is some attendent "benefit" to them. > >> 3. an imginary moral point system. > >It is you who is insisting that "providing lives" in this context is a moral >consideration, I am telling you that it is not. A couple of the arguments to >support that view are above. Those moral brownie points are indeed >imaginary. > >> If you think there's anything else add it or I'll know those are the >> only 3 things you ever consider. > >What you need to consider LOL! You'll never be able to consider all the things that I can, so it's amusing for you to attempt to tell me what I "need" to consider when I'm already way beyond you on that. But we have established that you can only consider the three things I pointed out that you can, unless you can add some more to it. Or do you want to say that 2. has several parts, so it should go something like: 2. a similarity you claim exists between appreciating lives of positive value for livestock and (a) child prostitution. (b) assaulting someone. (c) cutting someone off in traffic. (d) killing an injured person while attempting to help them. Do you think you gain even more browny points for making up more absurd "reasons" not to consider the animals? Do you now get 6 points instead of 3, since you invented 3 more "reasons" to refuse consideration of them? It's beginning to look like you're finally answering a question that was "nonsense" to you: The reason you feel that you get more browny points for refusing to consider the animals than for considering them, is because you can't think of any reasons to consider them but can think of several reasons why you think you should not. If I keep helping you like this, you may some day get an idea what you think you believe after all. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:10:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:52:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:45:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message >>>>>>news:su1se2hngrgq2hu8n22aef1b0is1g27578@4ax. com... >>>>>>> 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. >> >>It's irrelevant which "details" > > To YOU it is, It's irrelevant PERIOD. What use are those details? > but then you can't APPRECIATE the fact that > some of them have lives of positive value even IF you were able > to understand it...and there's still no evidence that you ever could. I've aready said I believe that some livestock live decent lives. >>about their lives I think makes their life "decent", > > What you were pretending to be able to understand is what you > think would give life positive value. Whether or not a "decent" life > would also give it positive value in your opinion, so far appears to > be much more complex a question than you would ever be able > to consider in detail. I just went on to do so in detail right below. >>plenty of space, ability to relate with others of their kind, good >>food, comfort, absence of pain and suffering. I made the exact same claim >>that you make, that some livestock animals have decent lives, it's simply >>a >>subjective opinion, just like yours. The only difference between our >>views >>is that I know that we OWE them decent lives, you think that the animals >>owe >>us a debt of gratitude for providing them with life. > > No. How would they even be aware that we provide them with > their lives? They aren't aware. I didn't say they were aware of it, but you think their lives are a blessing bestowed upon them by meat consumers. > YOU think they know because an > imaginary talking pig led you to believe they do, and in your ignorance > and stupidity you necessarily think everyone else believes they know > about it too, otherwise you could never come up with the absurd idea > that anyone could think they owe us any gratitude. Even if livestock > are capable of gratitude, they could never feel grateful to us for > something they're not even aware of. Duh you poor moron, duh! It's not an awareness that you think exists, it's a debt you think they owe us. .. >>> 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. >> >>Not true. I am the one considering the animals and alleviating their >>suffering, not "what they gain" which is a self-serving thing to consider. > > By now I'm really curious just how inconsiderate you are. Do you > think you can consider what ANY animals gain from lives of positive > value? If so, try to explain which animals, and why. Any consideration of "what they gain" is self-serving, by definition. Compare it to any bargain, such as a trade with another person; when you consider "what they gain" you are thinking that you gave them something of value, you are patting yourself on the back for being so generous. You're not being "considerate" when you do that ****wit, you're being self-serving. >>>>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. >> >>He doesn't lay out the AR position in that particular essay, he >>specifically >>accepts and concedes that man can use animals as food. That is not the AR >>position. >> >>> 2. a similarity you claim exists between appreciating lives of >>> positive value for livestock and child prostitution. >> >>There is a direct similarity between your "appreciating" no matter where >>you >>do it. If you assault someone and they are airlifted to Atlanta for >>emergency medical care, you cannot argue that you "provided them with the >>opportunity" to visit Atlanta. If you cut someone off in traffic, crash >>their car and make them miss a flight which crashes killing all on board, >>you cannot (successfully) argue in traffic court that you did them a >>favor. >>Even though it's literally true, the dynamics of these situations do not >>permit such arguments. Similarly if you stop to help someone who has been >>injured and as a result of your good faith efforts they die, it is >>considered that did nothing wrong. In these cases it is the intent and >>nature of the act that is judged, not the actual outcome. When we raise >>animals for food, for our benefit, that is the component of that act which >>establishes whether it is right or wrong, that is what we are debating, >>not >>whether or not there is some attendent "benefit" to them. >> >>> 3. an imginary moral point system. >> >>It is you who is insisting that "providing lives" in this context is a >>moral >>consideration, I am telling you that it is not. A couple of the arguments >>to >>support that view are above. Those moral brownie points are indeed >>imaginary. >> >>> If you think there's anything else add it or I'll know those are the >>> only 3 things you ever consider. >> >>What you need to consider > > LOL! You'll never be able to consider all the things that I can, There's nothing you can consider or understand that I can't, because you're a fool. > so it's amusing for you to attempt to tell me what I "need" to > consider when I'm already way beyond you on that. But we have > established that you can only consider the three things I pointed > out that you can, unless you can add some more to it. Or do you > want to say that 2. has several parts, so it should go something > like: > > 2. a similarity you claim exists between appreciating lives of > positive value for livestock and You're not appreciating them liar ****wit, you're taking credit for them. > > (a) child prostitution. > (b) assaulting someone. > (c) cutting someone off in traffic. > (d) killing an injured person while attempting to help them. All of those examples are compelling, but alas, you have no brain. > Do you think you gain even more browny points for making up > more absurd "reasons" not to consider the animals? You're not being considerate ****wit, when you're thinking "what they gain", it's just another way of considering "what you give them". Do you > now get 6 points instead of 3, since you invented 3 more > "reasons" to refuse consideration of them? You get NO brownie point for thinking about "what they get out of it". > It's beginning to > look like you're finally answering a question that was "nonsense" > to you: The reason you feel that you get more browny points for > refusing to consider the animals than for considering them, is > because you can't think of any reasons to consider them but > can think of several reasons why you think you should not. > If I keep helping you like this, you may some day get an idea > what you think you believe after all. You're stark raving mad ****wit. |
Vagan question, getting started.
A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote:
> Karen Winter, schismatic ******* and S&M-bestiality-pedophilia > proponent, got filled with "the spirit" and unlovingly wrote: > >> William wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > Derek and his charming wife >> >> Oh, you mean the lay-about adulterous slut. You feel no shame for the wrongs you've done to your loved ones? Have you ever been loved --- really loved -- no matter what? > What's your claim to fame? Advocating for bestiality, diddling > cockatiels "regularly," promoting child molestor groups like NAMBLA, not > liking your son as a person, hoping your grandson will be rebellious and > *** so he'll bond with YOU instead of his father, abandoning your son > and sending him from relative to relative while you were joining > dress-up communes and experimenting with *******ism and > god-knows-what-else in California, spending your adult life tearing > apart your church and then whining about the fall out when enough shit > has hit the fan that the people you thought it would be okay to alienate > decide they won't take shit like that from a queer old cow like you, and > so on. > > I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the Nashes' > marriage. Because it represents everything you disdain, you sick > anti-Christ ****. > > Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of marriage. I > wish you much happiness and joy together. Hugs and kisses to you Chico. I always knew you had a warm heart all along. Derek knows it too. > <snip BS: remember what you wrote a couple summers ago about your > anarchist friends in LA watching someone closely, Karen? You have some > nerver to talk about anyone else being a threat.> |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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. How so? Provide *facts*. Until you do, my figures stand. '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. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:50:52 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>Karen Winter, schismatic ******* and S&M-bestiality-pedophilia >proponent, got filled with "the spirit" and unlovingly wrote: > >> William wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > Derek and his charming wife >> >> Oh, you mean the lay-about adulterous slut. > >What's your claim to fame? Advocating for bestiality, diddling >cockatiels "regularly," promoting child molestor groups like NAMBLA, not >liking your son as a person, hoping your grandson will be rebellious and >*** so he'll bond with YOU instead of his father, abandoning your son >and sending him from relative to relative while you were joining >dress-up communes and experimenting with *******ism and >god-knows-what-else in California, spending your adult life tearing >apart your church and then whining about the fall out when enough shit >has hit the fan that the people you thought it would be okay to alienate >decide they won't take shit like that from a queer old cow like you, and >so on. > >I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the Nashes' >marriage. Because it represents everything you disdain, you sick >anti-Christ ****. > >Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of marriage. I >wish you much happiness and joy together. Thanks so very much for that, chico. Belinda's sending her thanks as well on the PC upstairs. You've made our day, and we'll remind ourselves of your congratulations and hopes for the next 25 years. ><snip BS: remember what you wrote a couple summers ago about your >anarchist friends in LA watching someone closely, Karen? You have some >nerver to talk about anyone else being a threat.> |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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. You cannot call something a "fact", without first providing evidence. Can you show that the following isn't already the way it usually is? "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. http://tracypress.com/2006-08-04-Cattle.php > >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. I am saying that that is what could happen to "ex-grazing land". There are 299,000,000 hectares that could/should be released. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:37:41 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > ><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. > >... > > No artificial moral dilemmas have been mentioned, but instead > real aspects of the situation that real researchers must deal with. Biomedical research using animals when 'necessary', ... or not. > In contrast to dealing with problems in realistic ways as the > researchers do, "aras" commit terrorist acts which always result > in more suffering for humans and other animals, not less. ESEC Responds USA Today Depicts Animal Advocates as "Lunatic Science-Hating Fringe" December 10, 1999 Brian Gallagher, Editorial Page Editor USA Today The editorial (Beastly behavior, 12/9/99) and Tim Friend's report (Violence escalates over animal research, 12/8/99) and countless other media coverage portray animal researchers as dedicated heroes, while depicting animal advocates as the lunatic science-hating fringe who care more about rats, chickens and dogs than about their "own kind." Such reports are inflammatory and over-simplified. There is a clear, concerted effort by the deep-pocketed medical research establishment to portray all animal activists as either terrorists or naïve "animal lovers" with no understanding of research and medicine. Fortunately, many animal advocacy organizations, including the 104-year-old Boston- based New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) are committed to finding a better way to cure human disease without relying on unsound and misleading animal models. NEAVS Board and Advisory Board include physicians, veterinarians, psychologists, professors, authors, attorneys and researchers. As professionals, we know that animal experimentation fails. Its real success lies in bringing enormous economic gains to laboratories, universities and the pharmaceutical industry. More than a decade ago, the American Medical Association's Research Action Plan stated: "The animal activist movement must be shown to be not only anti-science but also 1) responsible for violent and illegal acts that endanger life and property, and 2) a threat to the public's freedom of choice." Today, well-funded organizations such as Americans for Medical Progress, Inc., exist solely to promote and defend the use of animals in research. Your editorial stated, "Serious science truly needs research animals. The polio vaccine was developed on monkeys." However, many prominent members of the scientific community itself have spoken out against animal research and, although rarely reported in the media, have stated that cures have been delayed and overlooked based on the results of animal research. Noted polio researcher Dr. Albert Sabin, in Congressional testimony said, "the work on prevention [of polio] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading models of the disease in monkeys." The medical research community also has a long history of curing cancer in rats and mice. But, as [now former] Dr. Richard Klausner, Director of the National Cancer Institute, said in May 1998, "We have cured cancer in mice for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." As increasing numbers of scientists themselves acknowledge, animal models are not good human disease models. Witness the cigarette industry: for years, cigarettes were promoted as safe for humans - because cigarette smoking did not cause cancer in dogs. For more than a century, animal experimentation has not delivered on its promises. This, clearly, is not because of so-called terrorism or lack of financial support. The public deserves to learn that there are better ways to achieve the cures that are falsely promised through the sacrifice of millions of animals each year. What the media should portray are the major efforts of animal advocacy groups to further scientific research by supporting non-animal methods. Only when the media begin to thoroughly research the topics they seem so ready to report on, will the public truly understand the issues and the unproductive and often dangerous paths taken by using animal models for human disease and treatment. Sincerely, Theodora Capaldo, EdD President The Ethical Science and Education Coalition (ESEC) http://www.neavs.org/esec/esecrespon...y_12011999.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. > > > >Wild animals decimated driven to the brink of extinction > >due to hunting and the livestock industry. > > And construction of roads and buildings, and production > of paper and wood products, electricity and crops etc, which > "aras" contribute to just as everyone else does. It's pathetically > amusing that "aras" always point the finger at the few things > they don't contribute to, while completely ignoring or dishonestly > denying the things that they do. 299 million hectares which were once natural habitat. 'Animal Enemies In the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power. The ranching establishment's assault on the environment, therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching, both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed areas. Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock. Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in large enough numbers to affect production in some manner. And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods, inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing some offensive characteristic. http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html Next page- http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.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. > > If man kills wildlife in order to protect his animals' feed, what > makes you think he doesn't kill them to protect his own as well? 1. 16 million hectares vs. 315 million hectares. 2. Predators don't eat crops. 3. Herbivores would have plenty to eat in their own habitat. |
Vagan question, getting started.
"Belinda" > wrote in message ...
> A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote: .... There are names for people like you. Like hypocrite. Now **** off, you obese, self-crippled, pill-popping, shit-stirring cuckold. alt.food.vegan - Dec 6 2004, 8:07 am by usual suspect .... farmers for your share of animal deaths. You're a buck-passing, self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. They're no better or worse ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jan 6 2005, 4:01 am by usual suspect .... While you're making introductions with Skanky Nectar, tell her what a loathsome arsehole you are, Nash -- a self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. ... alt.food.vegan - Dec 12 2004, 3:38 am by usual suspect fat cuckold kept lying: THREE phases of human testing required for approval I've always maintained that only three are required Liar. talk.politics.animals - Jun 4 2004, 1:46 am by usual suspect a big FU to vegans everywhere :-) .... in the not too distant future." if you want my opinion, Who wants the opinion of a self-crippled, unemployed, undisciplined, massively obese cuckold from a ... alt.food.vegan - Dec 30 2004, 11:03 pm by usual suspect .... She* got it, even if you don't (no surprise there, you big fat cuckold): Or maybe you just said that to help in your efforts to pick me up? ... talk.politics.animals - Jan 6 2005, 3:52 am by usual suspect Foie Gras Bill Passes California Senate fat, self-crippled, lying cuckold Anecdotal, but I've seen my share of birds gorge themselves. Yesterday afternoon, I saw one of ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 24 2004, 10:58 pm by usual suspect .... Where do you -- a self-crippled, morbidly obese, unemployed, dole-scrounging, blue-footed, shit-stirring cuckold -- get off on correcting others? ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 5 2005, 2:24 am by usual suspect Self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and British cuckold Derek Nash wrote: And what's that supposed to mean? You wrote last month that ... alt.food.vegan - Nov 15 2005, 12:37 am by usual suspect Dreck is a dole scrounger, after all! .... newsgroups. Question: Was he lying when he admitted ****ing your wife? Cuckold Dreck Nash: No, he wasn't. http://snipurl.com/6osh talk.politics.animals - Jun 13 2004, 12:34 am by usual suspect .... The irony is that you, Dreck the Self-Crippled Town Cuckold, consume liters of Worcestershire sauce, food from mass produced crops which kill animals, and pop ... alt.food.vegan - Dec 3 2004, 4:33 am by usual suspect .... No lying involved. Dreck assumes one cannot flirt or fool around if one is in a relationship, but he of ALL people should know better since he's a cuckold. ... alt.food.vegan - Oct 26 2005, 1:35 am by usual suspect Jonathan Ball: Criminally Dishonest Coward fat cuckold-in-queue wrote: <... He's not quite as bright as he thinks he is, He's never crippled himself. That alone means he'll ... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jun 1 2004, 11:42 pm by usual suspect .... apologized. You've admitted he was being honest when he noted that he gave your wife the bone. END RESTORE Answer the question, cuckold. alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 24 2004, 5:05 am by usual suspect .... [start - Jonathan Ball to you] Digging really deep in the archives in your desparation to stir the shit, you blue-footed cuckold. <... alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Dec 6 2004, 3:31 am by usual suspect .... the cuckold of Eastbourne wrote: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Sat, Jun 17 2006 9:51 am by chico chupacabra > Hugs and kisses to you Chico. I always knew you had a warm heart all along. > Derek knows it too. Amazing where an intense session of arse-sucking will get you, eh. Derek learned well from his "tutor". He's got it down pat by now. |
Vagan question, getting started.
unscrupulous pony factory-farmer~~pearl~~ wrote:
> "Belinda" > wrote in message > ... > > > A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote: > > ... There are names for people like you. Whatever Derek and I have disagreed about (and still do), and no matter how disagreeable we both have been about it at times, he and Belinda deserve a lot of credit and congratulations for putting their family first and making their marriage work for a quarter-century. Leave it to you and Karen to ignobly badger and assail others at a time of celebration rather than offer congratulations for accomplishing something at which both of you failed so miserably. |
Vagan question, getting started.
Belinda (and Derek) wrote:
> A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote: > > > Karen Winter, schismatic ******* and S&M-bestiality-pedophilia > > proponent, got filled with "the spirit" and unlovingly wrote: > > > >> William wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > Derek and his charming wife > >> > >> Oh, you mean the lay-about adulterous slut. > > You feel no shame for the wrongs you've done to your loved ones? > Have you ever been loved --- really loved -- no matter what? > > > What's your claim to fame? Advocating for bestiality, diddling > > cockatiels "regularly," promoting child molestor groups like NAMBLA, > > not liking your son as a person, hoping your grandson will be > > rebellious and *** so he'll bond with YOU instead of his father, > > abandoning your son and sending him from relative to relative while > > you were joining dress-up communes and experimenting with *******ism > > and god-knows-what-else in California, spending your adult life > > tearing apart your church and then whining about the fall out when > > enough shit has hit the fan that the people you thought it would be > > okay to alienate decide they won't take shit like that from a queer > > old cow like you, and so on. > > > > I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the > > Nashes' marriage. Because it represents everything you disdain, you > > sick anti-Christ ****. > > > > Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of > > marriage. I wish you much happiness and joy together. > > Hugs and kisses to you Chico. I always knew you had a warm heart all > along. Derek knows it too. Your and Derek's efforts to keep your family and marriage together are highly commendable. Karen's comments were totally out of line, but unsurprisingly so given her weird and vulgar tendency to praise and desire the most destructive things and outcomes (per my response to her). Hope you two have a nice time at Billy's hotel. > > <snip BS: remember what you wrote a couple summers ago about your > > anarchist friends in LA watching someone closely, Karen? You have > > some nerver to talk about anyone else being a threat.> > > |
Vagan question, getting started.
A frustrated maid wearing a tinfoil hat "pearl" > wrote: > "Belinda" > wrote in message ... > >> A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote: > > ... There are names for people like you. Like hypocrite. Now **** off, you > obese, self-crippled, pill-popping, shit-stirring cuckold. > alt.food.vegan - Dec 6 2004, 8:07 am by usual suspect > > ... farmers for your share of animal deaths. You're a buck-passing, self-crippled, > dole-scrounging cuckold. They're no better or worse ... > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jan 6 2005, 4:01 am by usual suspect > > ... While you're making introductions with Skanky Nectar, tell her what a loathsome > arsehole you are, Nash -- a self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. ... > alt.food.vegan - Dec 12 2004, 3:38 am by usual suspect > > fat cuckold kept lying: THREE phases of human testing required for approval > I've always maintained that only three are required Liar. > talk.politics.animals - Jun 4 2004, 1:46 am by usual suspect > > a big FU to vegans everywhere :-) > ... in the not too distant future." if you want my opinion, Who wants the opinion of > a self-crippled, unemployed, undisciplined, massively obese cuckold from a ... > alt.food.vegan - Dec 30 2004, 11:03 pm by usual suspect > > ... She* got it, even if you don't (no surprise there, you big fat cuckold): Or maybe > you just said that to help in your efforts to pick me up? ... > talk.politics.animals - Jan 6 2005, 3:52 am by usual suspect > > Foie Gras Bill Passes California Senate > fat, self-crippled, lying cuckold Anecdotal, but I've seen my share of > birds gorge themselves. Yesterday afternoon, I saw one of ... > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 24 2004, 10:58 pm by usual suspect > > ... Where do you -- a self-crippled, morbidly obese, unemployed, dole-scrounging, > blue-footed, shit-stirring cuckold -- get off on correcting others? ... > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 5 2005, 2:24 am by usual suspect > > Self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and British cuckold Derek Nash wrote: And > what's that supposed to mean? You wrote last month that ... > alt.food.vegan - Nov 15 2005, 12:37 am by usual suspect > > Dreck is a dole scrounger, after all! > ... newsgroups. Question: Was he lying when he admitted ****ing your wife? > Cuckold Dreck Nash: No, he wasn't. http://snipurl.com/6osh > talk.politics.animals - Jun 13 2004, 12:34 am by usual suspect > > ... The irony is that you, Dreck the Self-Crippled Town Cuckold, consume liters of > Worcestershire sauce, food from mass produced crops which kill animals, and pop ... > alt.food.vegan - Dec 3 2004, 4:33 am by usual suspect > > ... No lying involved. Dreck assumes one cannot flirt or fool around if one is in a > relationship, but he of ALL people should know better since he's a cuckold. ... > alt.food.vegan - Oct 26 2005, 1:35 am by usual suspect > > Jonathan Ball: Criminally Dishonest Coward > fat cuckold-in-queue wrote: <... He's not quite as bright as he thinks > he is, He's never crippled himself. That alone means he'll ... > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jun 1 2004, 11:42 pm by usual suspect > > ... apologized. You've admitted he was being honest when he noted that he gave > your wife the bone. END RESTORE Answer the question, cuckold. > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 24 2004, 5:05 am by usual suspect > > ... [start - Jonathan Ball to you] Digging really deep in the archives in your > desparation to stir the shit, you blue-footed cuckold. <... > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Dec 6 2004, 3:31 am by usual suspect > ... the cuckold of Eastbourne wrote: > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Sat, Jun 17 2006 9:51 am by chico chupacabra Ahhh, you brought all those lovely memories of past times when things were rough -- just for me? Thanks Lesley -- but I'm sure Derek could find more and even better ones if he wanted to. Go back into the archives and use a different search word other than cuckold -- you'll find some much funnier ones. >> Hugs and kisses to you Chico. I always knew you had a warm heart all along. >> Derek knows it too. > > Amazing where an intense session of arse-sucking will get you, eh. Now you just leave Karen and Sylvia out of this Lesley!! > Derek learned well from his "tutor". Oh yes --- he did learn well -- and more than you can ever hope to. |
Vagan question, getting started.
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ... > Belinda (and Derek) wrote: > >> A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote: >> >> > Karen Winter, schismatic ******* and S&M-bestiality-pedophilia >> > proponent, got filled with "the spirit" and unlovingly wrote: >> > >> >> William wrote: >> >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> > Derek and his charming wife >> >> >> >> Oh, you mean the lay-about adulterous slut. >> >> You feel no shame for the wrongs you've done to your loved ones? >> Have you ever been loved --- really loved -- no matter what? >> >> > What's your claim to fame? Advocating for bestiality, diddling >> > cockatiels "regularly," promoting child molestor groups like NAMBLA, >> > not liking your son as a person, hoping your grandson will be >> > rebellious and *** so he'll bond with YOU instead of his father, >> > abandoning your son and sending him from relative to relative while >> > you were joining dress-up communes and experimenting with *******ism >> > and god-knows-what-else in California, spending your adult life >> > tearing apart your church and then whining about the fall out when >> > enough shit has hit the fan that the people you thought it would be >> > okay to alienate decide they won't take shit like that from a queer >> > old cow like you, and so on. >> > >> > I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the >> > Nashes' marriage. Because it represents everything you disdain, you >> > sick anti-Christ ****. >> > >> > Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of >> > marriage. I wish you much happiness and joy together. >> >> Hugs and kisses to you Chico. I always knew you had a warm heart all >> along. Derek knows it too. > > Your and Derek's efforts to keep your family and marriage together are > highly commendable. He was an 19 year old boy when he married me, and I was just an 18 year old girl. We knew nothing, but now we know -- well most things anyway. Karen's comments were totally out of line, but > unsurprisingly so given her weird and vulgar tendency to praise and > desire the most destructive things and outcomes (per my response to > her). She's insane and dangerous. I've always known it -- for years and years. > Hope you two have a nice time at Billy's hotel. > Thanks. We'll have a nice time time where ever we go. Billy's hotel sounds wonderful and perfect for us. >> > <snip BS: remember what you wrote a couple summers ago about your >> > anarchist friends in LA watching someone closely, Karen? You have >> > some nerver to talk about anyone else being a threat.> >> >> |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:37:41 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >> >> ><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. >> >... >> >> No artificial moral dilemmas have been mentioned, but instead >> real aspects of the situation that real researchers must deal with. > >Biomedical research using animals when 'necessary', ... or not. > >> In contrast to dealing with problems in realistic ways as the >> researchers do, "aras" commit terrorist acts which always result >> in more suffering for humans and other animals, not less. > >ESEC Responds >USA Today Depicts Animal Advocates as "Lunatic Science-Hating Fringe" They quite obviously are, or they wouldn't commit terrorist acts against it. .. . . >For more than a century, animal experimentation has not delivered >on its promises. This, clearly, is not because of so-called terrorism __________________________________________________ _______ [...] Other targets were the University of California at San Francisco, where many data, including work aimed at developing alternatives to animal research, were lost, and Western Washington University, where three dozen research rats and rabbits were stolen. ALF proudly stated that it destroyed one scientist's lifetime of work there. [...] http://www.sciam.com/2000/0200issue/0200techbus1.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >or lack of financial support. This is an old article, and undoubtedly "aras" have made things even worse by now than they had when it was written, but it clearly shows what "ar" has to "offer": __________________________________________________ _______ [...] The Department of Justice says there have been more than 313 instances of animal-rights violence in the United States. This has led to a 10 percent to 20 percent increase in research costs, much of it funded by taxpayers. While PETA and the other groups loudly condemn scientific research involving animals (90 percent of which are rodents, according to Americans for Medical Progress, a pro-research foundation), they spend a pittance on animal shelters. Eleven million animals are destroyed annually for lack of facilities. Yet PETA spent less than $ 3,955 of its $ 12 million in fiscal 1995 and $ 6,100 of its $ 10.9 million in fiscal 1996 for shelter programs, according to its nonprofit tax forms filed with the IRS. The Humane Society does not operate a single shelter, despite a $ 40 million budget. [...] http://www.ampef.org/articles/terart1.htm ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >The public deserves to learn that there are better ways to achieve the cures So far all we know about is how "ara" terrorism makes things worse by destroying research, raising the cost of research because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering. How has it done anything that isn't stupid, contemptible and destructive? |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:38:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> 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. > >You cannot call something a "fact", without first providing evidence. You can't appreciate grass raised animal products under any conditions, even when they contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products, and even when they provide lives of positive value for livestock. In fact you would be far more likely to lie and say they don't, than be able to appreciate it out of consideration of the animals involved. >Can you show that the following isn't already the way it usually is? > >"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. >http://tracypress.com/2006-08-04-Cattle.php Since only 3 out of 369 comments about the original regulation were in favor of it: __________________________________________________ _______ 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. http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ I'd say most farmers who commented probably don't raise their cattle that way. But even IF they so, some do raise them on pasture which is a fact that I can appreciate for several reasons, and you "aras" not only can NOT appreciate at all, but dishonestly want to deny. It really is quite disgusting, and the truth about you "aras" only gets worse and worse...never better. Your lack of appreciation for grass raised beef, and your dishonesty regarding that and cds in rice production have necessarily forced me to develop an even lower opinion of you and "aras" in general, than the already very low opinion I had of you already. It sux! >> >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. > >I am saying that that is what could happen to "ex-grazing land". I'm in FAVOR of grazing land for reasons you can't appreciate, like: 1. it provides decent lives for livestock. 2. it provides a better place for wildlife than commercial and residential property. 3. it provides a better place for wildlife than roads and parking lots. 4. it provides a better place for wildlife than crop fields. I've seen lots of grazing land become something else, and it always becomes something that supports LESS wildlife (and of course no livestock) than when it had been grazing land. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:26:05 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> dh pointed out: > >> 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. > >How so? Provide *facts*. Until you do, my figures stand. > >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States . . . __________________________________________________ _______ FOR RELEASE: Aug. 7, 1997 .. . . The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ Since 2000, several thousand ranchers and farmers across the United States and Canada have stopped sending their animals to the feedlots. http://www.eatwild.com/basics.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ |
:Derek and his slut whine when given some of what they give others
Belinda wrote: <snip> >>>You feel no shame for the wrongs you've done to your loved ones? Don't you? >>>Have you ever been loved --- really loved -- no matter what? Yes, I have been, and still am, by *my* wife. As she is by me. <snip> >>>>I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the >>>>Nashes' marriage. Not in the least. I just resent them trying to take credit under false pretenses. "Charming wife" indeed. <snip> >>>>Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of >>>>marriage. I wish you much happiness and joy together. How about wishing me and my wife congratulations on our over-25 years of marriage? <snip> > Glorfindel's comments were totally out of line All based on Leif/Jon/Chico's past information and Derek's own confessions on Usenet. You always rake up old stuff from years ago to throw at me. Just taking a page from your book. Sauce for the Gander, eh? <snip> >>>> remember what you wrote a couple summers ago about your >>>>anarchist friends in LA watching someone closely, Karen? Watching to prevent the nutcases here from getting away with a physical attack. After what Derek did recently, I see I was completely justified. I've never done anything, or had anyone do anything -- Derek has twice directly attacked me in the real world. *HE*'s the dangerous and crazy one. And everyone knows it. |
Derek, unrepentant terrorist
Derek wrote: <snip> >>What's your claim to fame? <snip> Living a life of caring for the "least of these" and living my principles. None of the garbage you claim about me is true -- it's all lies you, and those you masochistically suck up to, have invented to harass me, not only on Usenet, which is fair game, but in the real world, where you cause real damage for no reason except spite and stupidity. Does your "charming wife" know you and your slimy buddies published pictures of my neighborhood and my address so that anyone who wants -- inflamed by your lies -- could come and kill us? Such things have happened, when idiots like you pull such stunts. If something does happen to us, YOU, Derek, will be to blame. It will be on your head, and on your conscience, if that shriveled black lump even exists. You know what you did, you know it was wrong, you know it was evil, and you did it anyway. Shame, shame, shame. Belinda, if you are reading this, THAT is the kind of person your husband is -- a terrorist, inciting to violence, threatening people in the real world, not once, but twice. All on the basis of lies. <snip> |
Derek, unrepentant terrorist
Glorfindel wrote:
> Does your "charming wife" know you and your slimy > buddies published pictures of my neighborhood and > my address The least you could do is share this information with all of us, instead of just teasing us. Not that I would have any desire whatsoever to look at pictures of your neighborhood and your address. For what it's worth, I have posted links to my photograph, work, schools, etc., and I know that people have seen them because from time to time people mention things that they could know only from looking at my photograph or viewing personal information. It's not a big deal to me -- I personally feel that participating in usegroup discussions constitutes a waiver of privacy rights to the extent of the topic of the newsgroups, and I particularly object to anonymous posters, like you, Glorfindel, who to my knowledge has never revealed your identity. Being outed is merely simple justice. Charles Carter. |
Karen Winter whines incessantly
Karen Winter, schismatic child-abandoning bird-diddler, wrote:
> >>>>I can see why YOU would feel threatened by the success of the > >>>>Nashes' marriage. > > Not in the least. I just resent them You resent anything that isn't dysfunctional and totally ****ed up. Your son turned out alright despite your abandonment, so you still don't like him as a person. You want your grandson to by dysfunctional and homosexual so he'll rebel against his father and can identify with you. You wanted your church to go off the deep end (btw, how can you say you'll "go with the Episcopalians because they have the line of succession and the sacraments" when the fracture widens when you reject Episcopalian priests like Father Richard and Father Dale and their sacraments?) and stick fingers in the eyes of those in the world-wide fellowship -- never people sitting right next to you in the pews in Santa Fe. You've admitted to attending NAMBLA meetings and receiving their newsletter for years; you wrote you would've introduced your son to pedophiles. You've endorsed bestiality as being pro-AR in the past and more recently admitted to diddling your mangy bird at the breakfast table. Then you complain when someone brings your public writings to your clergy's attention and feel threatened that your views are exposed. You're contemptible. For whatever flaws Derek has confessed, at the end of the day he's a guy who loves his wife and family and would try to move heaven and earth to protect them. That includes working out some very painful events and forgiving people who've hurt him. I congratulate him and Belinda for working things out and making their marriage last. > credit under false pretenses. They've made no pretenses: Billy made a bigger deal of their anniversary than they did. I shouldn't have dignified your shitty post as an occasion to wish them a happy anniversary, but better I respond to your crap than they. You should reflect on your pathetic mistake, Karen, and learn from it; alas, that's beneath people like you. > "Charming wife" indeed. I've not dealt with her as others here have, but by all indication she's a very nice lady. The same, sadly, cannot be said of you. |
Karen Winter, unrepentant NAMBLA advocate and bird molestor
Karen Winter, who doesn't like her son as a person, wrote:
> *I* wrote that (you retard): > > <snip> > > >>What's your claim to fame? > > <snip> > > Living a life of caring NOT FOR YOUR FIRST TWO HUSBANDS. You didn't care enough about either of them to stick around and work things out. NOT FOR YOUR FATHER OR MOTHER. You dragged them into your weird dress-up cult so they could witness you marrying some guy in drag. You weren't reared to be like that. I hope they didn't take how you turned out personally, as though they'd failed as parents. You basked in causing them grief. NOT FOR YOUR SON. You abandoned him, shuffling him from relative to relative. Why? Because you found it unworthy of your time to raise him. What was more worthy than rearing a child? Shampooing stray cats and attending NAMBLA meetings. Diddling cockatiels for breakfast. Experimenting in every weird sexual situation you could find -- and there were plenty of opportunities for that in LA and SF (but not in NM). Now you don't even like him as a person and you "wish" your grandson will be *** and identify with you over your son. You selfish bitch. NOT FOR YOUR CHURCH. You've spent years causing division and schism in the church. You didn't care about the results for anyone else, just for yourself. Only more recently have you lamented about the outcomes -- they're not what you want. They're also not what the people who didn't go looking for your fight wanted. You didn't care about order or about anything else but yourself. You selfish anti-Christ. > for the "least of these" So long as they're *non*-human: your son and the aborted fetuses from your pro-abortion work are witnesses to that oversight on your part. Charity starts at home, Karen. Whatever you've done since abandoning your son will never speak louder than that action. That tells us what kind of person you REALLY are, and no amount of bullshit you can pile on about animals will ever cover up the sin against your own child. > and living my principles. Child-abandonment and schism aren't good principles by which to live one's life, Karen. <snip paranoid rant; you're really losing it> |
Karen Winter, self-absorbed witch
Karen Winter, not wanting to feel left out, wrote:
> >>>>Derek and Belinda: Congratulations on your first 25 years of > >>>>marriage. I wish you much happiness and joy together. > > How about wishing meeeeeeeeeee... Me, me, me, me, meeeeeeeeeee. You're the most self-absored person I've ever encountered. Not to mention the most shameless (when you *REALLY* should be ashamed). |
Derek, unrepentant terrorist
Glorfindel wrote:
> > Derek wrote: > > <snip> > >>> What's your claim to fame? > > > <snip> > > Living a life of caring for the "least of these" and > living my principles. Heck, Karen, anyone who Googles the web or newsgroups under "Rat and Swan", "Rat", "Swan", "Cynomis", "Glorfindel" or "Karen Winter" can see exactly what your principles are. > None of the garbage you claim > about me is true -- it's all lies you, and those you > masochistically suck up to, have invented to harass me, > not only on Usenet, which is fair game, but in the > real world, where you cause real damage for no reason > except spite and stupidity. Except that Google reveals that these "lies" aren't lies at all. You're a disturbed individual, one who supports NAMBLA, believes in "responsible" pedophiles, supports the bombing of animal research facilities and who doesn't approve of those of us who eat meat. > Does your "charming wife" know you and your slimy > buddies published pictures of my neighborhood and > my address so that anyone who wants -- inflamed > by your lies -- could come and kill us? Come and kill you? I have my address and photos of my home on my web page. Why would anyone want to come and kill me? What have you done that people would want to visit your home and kill you? > Such > things have happened, when idiots like you pull > such stunts. If something does happen to us, > YOU, Derek, will be to blame. It will be on your > head, and on your conscience, if that shriveled > black lump even exists. You know what you did, > you know it was wrong, you know it was evil, and > you did it anyway. Why should it worry you? According to you, you aren't Karen Winter. She told us that she was leaving the Episcopal Church newsgroup. > Shame, shame, shame. Yeah, Karen, shame! Shame on you for purporting to be one kind of person in the Episcopal Church newsgroup and for revealing yourself to be a whacko nutjob in others. > Belinda, if you are reading this, THAT is the > kind of person your husband is -- a terrorist, > inciting to violence, threatening people in the > real world, not once, but twice. All on the > basis of lies. How do you account for the fact that Google has your own words archived, from both newsgroups and web sites. How did those lies get there? Was this Derek fellow able to manipulate Google and a number of web sites to change your words or are you denying (as you've recently denied being Karen Winter) that you ever wrote the words? Your principles--pfffft. Dave Heil |
Chico chimes in for his sycophant cuckold
chico chupacabra wrote:
Lies <snip> > For whatever flaws Derek has confessed, Which you were happy to attack him for when he was on the AR side. I didn't go looking for the slime you dug up. But what goes around comes around in time. Live with it. > at the end of the day he's a guy > who loves his wife and family >and would try to move heaven and earth to > protect them. And so am I. From Derek, who has just threatened my family. Deliberately, intentionally, without apology. I forgive him writing the parishes. I think it's a pose, but maybe he really did believe what he claimed -- he's believed your lies about other ARAs and he's clearly abysmally stupid and gullible. He'd eat shit if you told him it was ice cream. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. But going to all the effort he did to find and publish my address was simply a pointless act of malice, and one he *knew* was wrong, because he tried to take it back when called on it. Only, because he *is* stupid, he screwed that up too. He's always had the mind of an Anti-ARA, and we're well rid of him. You're welcome to him. <snip> > > You should reflect on your pathetic mistake > and learn from it Derek obviously hasn't. "Pathetic" is too kind for his action -- it was deliberately evil, and he knew that when he did it. <snip> >> "Charming wife" indeed. > I've not dealt with her as others here have, but by all indication she's a very nice lady. Except for being an adulterous whore. But then, Derek and his slut fit each other -- no wonder they stay together. She tries to excuse herself by saying she was "only 18." At 18, I was a virgin and in college. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:26:05 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > > dh pointed out: > > > >> 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. > > > >How so? Provide *facts*. Until you do, my figures stand. > > > >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States . . . > __________________________________________________ _______ > FOR RELEASE: Aug. 7, 1997 > . . . > The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume > five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire > American population. > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > __________________________________________________ _______ > Since 2000, several thousand ranchers and farmers across the > United States and Canada have stopped sending their animals > to the feedlots. > > http://www.eatwild.com/basics.html > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Which would mean that unless the herd is reduced in number yet more hectares are now grazed to replace concentrated feed. Which is it? Data from verifiable sources, not commercial sites. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:38:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> 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. > > > >You cannot call something a "fact", without first providing evidence. > > You can't appreciate grass raised animal products under any conditions, > even when they contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products, and > even when they provide lives of positive value for livestock. In fact you > would be far more likely to lie and say they don't, than be able to appreciate > it out of consideration of the animals involved. I know that native species have been dispossessed of their natural habitat to make way for the grazing, and continually slaughtered since the bloody business began to protect your livestock and feed. How selfish is that? > >Can you show that the following isn't already the way it usually is? > > > >"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. > >http://tracypress.com/2006-08-04-Cattle.php > > Since only 3 out of 369 comments about the original regulation > were in favor of it: > __________________________________________________ _______ > 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. > > http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > I'd say most farmers who commented probably don't raise their cattle > that way. But even IF they so, some do raise them on pasture which > is a fact that I can appreciate for several reasons, and you "aras" > not only can NOT appreciate at all, but dishonestly want to deny. > It really is quite disgusting, and the truth about you "aras" only gets > worse and worse...never better. Your lack of appreciation for grass > raised beef, and your dishonesty regarding that and cds in rice > production have necessarily forced me to develop an even lower > opinion of you and "aras" in general, than the already very low > opinion I had of you already. It sux! Your taking over 299,000,000 hectares for your unhealthy diet is what sux! > >> >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. > > > >I am saying that that is what could happen to "ex-grazing land". > > I'm in FAVOR of grazing land for reasons you can't appreciate, > like: > > 1. it provides decent lives for livestock. Short lives, even if "decent". > 2. it provides a better place for wildlife than commercial and > residential property. Ranchers slaughter many native species. > 3. it provides a better place for wildlife than roads and parking lots. Duh! > 4. it provides a better place for wildlife than crop fields. 299 million hectares that could be natural habitat vs. 16 million needed. > I've seen lots of grazing land become something else, and it always > becomes something that supports LESS wildlife (and of course no > livestock) than when it had been grazing land. 299,000,000 hectares which should be natural habitat. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:37:41 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > >> > >> ><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. > >> >... > >> > >> No artificial moral dilemmas have been mentioned, but instead > >> real aspects of the situation that real researchers must deal with. > > > >Biomedical research using animals when 'necessary', ... or not. > > > >> In contrast to dealing with problems in realistic ways as the > >> researchers do, "aras" commit terrorist acts which always result > >> in more suffering for humans and other animals, not less. > > > >ESEC Responds > >USA Today Depicts Animal Advocates as "Lunatic Science-Hating Fringe" > > They quite obviously are, or they wouldn't commit terrorist acts > against it. --restore-- ESEC Responds USA Today Depicts Animal Advocates as "Lunatic Science-Hating Fringe" December 10, 1999 Brian Gallagher, Editorial Page Editor USA Today The editorial (Beastly behavior, 12/9/99) and Tim Friend's report (Violence escalates over animal research, 12/8/99) and countless other media coverage portray animal researchers as dedicated heroes, while depicting animal advocates as the lunatic science-hating fringe who care more about rats, chickens and dogs than about their "own kind." Such reports are inflammatory and over-simplified. There is a clear, concerted effort by the deep-pocketed medical research establishment to portray all animal activists as either terrorists or naïve "animal lovers" with no understanding of research and medicine. Fortunately, many animal advocacy organizations, including the 104-year-old Boston- based New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) are committed to finding a better way to cure human disease without relying on unsound and misleading animal models. NEAVS Board and Advisory Board include physicians, veterinarians, psychologists, professors, authors, attorneys and researchers. As professionals, we know that animal experimentation fails. Its real success lies in bringing enormous economic gains to laboratories, universities and the pharmaceutical industry. More than a decade ago, the American Medical Association's Research Action Plan stated: "The animal activist movement must be shown to be not only anti-science but also 1) responsible for violent and illegal acts that endanger life and property, and 2) a threat to the public's freedom of choice." Today, well-funded organizations such as Americans for Medical Progress, Inc., exist solely to promote and defend the use of animals in research. Your editorial stated, "Serious science truly needs research animals. The polio vaccine was developed on monkeys." However, many prominent members of the scientific community itself have spoken out against animal research and, although rarely reported in the media, have stated that cures have been delayed and overlooked based on the results of animal research. Noted polio researcher Dr. Albert Sabin, in Congressional testimony said, "the work on prevention [of polio] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading models of the disease in monkeys." The medical research community also has a long history of curing cancer in rats and mice. But, as [now former] Dr. Richard Klausner, Director of the National Cancer Institute, said in May 1998, "We have cured cancer in mice for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." As increasing numbers of scientists themselves acknowledge, animal models are not good human disease models. Witness the cigarette industry: for years, cigarettes were promoted as safe for humans - because cigarette smoking did not cause cancer in dogs. For more than a century, animal experimentation has not delivered on its promises. This, clearly, is not because of so-called terrorism or lack of financial support. The public deserves to learn that there are better ways to achieve the cures that are falsely promised through the sacrifice of millions of animals each year. What the media should portray are the major efforts of animal advocacy groups to further scientific research by supporting non-animal methods. Only when the media begin to thoroughly research the topics they seem so ready to report on, will the public truly understand the issues and the unproductive and often dangerous paths taken by using animal models for human disease and treatment. Sincerely, Theodora Capaldo, EdD President The Ethical Science and Education Coalition (ESEC) http://www.neavs.org/esec/esecrespon...y_12011999.htm --end restore-- > >The public deserves to learn that there are better ways to achieve the cures > > So far all we know about is how "ara" terrorism makes things worse by > destroying research, raising the cost of research because of stupid, useless > childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering. How has it done anything > that isn't stupid, contemptible and destructive? 'The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) ... The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths is 783,936. [US, p/a] ... At 14 percent of the Gross National Product, health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003. (15) Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease, preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However, careful and objective review shows the opposite. Because of the extraordinary narrow context of medical technology through which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the full picture. Medicine is not taking into consideration the following monumentally important aspects of a healthy human organism: (a) Stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes (b) Insufficient exercise (c) Excessive caloric intake (d) Highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil (e) Exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins. Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we actually cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being appropriated for preventing disease. .... Dr. Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions, comments that because only 5 percent of adverse drug reactions are being reported, there are, in reality, 5 million medication reactions each year.(34) ...' http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm |
"chico chupacabra" , unrepentant
"chico chupacabra" > twisted in message ...
> > Glorfindel wrote: > > > > Living a life of caring > > NOT FOR NOT FOR American troops, ', NOT FOR hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan people NOT FOR the three thousand Americans who were murdered on 9/11 NOT FOR any animals, no matter how brutally and cruelly mistreated NOT FOR anyone you disagree with (who hasn't bowed and scraped) Stop pretending to care, 'chico'. Your rants are nothing more than the rotten fruits of your own hateful, twisted, dirty, uncaring 'mind'. |
Vagan question, getting started.
"Belinda" > wrote in message ...
> > A frustrated maid wearing a tinfoil hat "pearl" > wrote: Charming! Watta gal! BTW.. your hubby thinks 9/11 was an inside job too. > > "Belinda" > wrote in message ... > > > >> A real man with a true heart "chico chupacabra" > wrote: > > > > ... There are names for people like you. Like hypocrite. Now **** off, you > > obese, self-crippled, pill-popping, shit-stirring cuckold. > > alt.food.vegan - Dec 6 2004, 8:07 am by usual suspect > > > > ... farmers for your share of animal deaths. You're a buck-passing, self-crippled, > > dole-scrounging cuckold. They're no better or worse ... > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jan 6 2005, 4:01 am by usual suspect > > > > ... While you're making introductions with Skanky Nectar, tell her what a loathsome > > arsehole you are, Nash -- a self-crippled, dole-scrounging cuckold. ... > > alt.food.vegan - Dec 12 2004, 3:38 am by usual suspect > > > > fat cuckold kept lying: THREE phases of human testing required for approval > > I've always maintained that only three are required Liar. > > talk.politics.animals - Jun 4 2004, 1:46 am by usual suspect > > > > a big FU to vegans everywhere :-) > > ... in the not too distant future." if you want my opinion, Who wants the opinion of > > a self-crippled, unemployed, undisciplined, massively obese cuckold from a ... > > alt.food.vegan - Dec 30 2004, 11:03 pm by usual suspect > > > > ... She* got it, even if you don't (no surprise there, you big fat cuckold): Or maybe > > you just said that to help in your efforts to pick me up? ... > > talk.politics.animals - Jan 6 2005, 3:52 am by usual suspect > > > > Foie Gras Bill Passes California Senate > > fat, self-crippled, lying cuckold Anecdotal, but I've seen my share of > > birds gorge themselves. Yesterday afternoon, I saw one of ... > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 24 2004, 10:58 pm by usual suspect > > > > ... Where do you -- a self-crippled, morbidly obese, unemployed, dole-scrounging, > > blue-footed, shit-stirring cuckold -- get off on correcting others? ... > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Mar 5 2005, 2:24 am by usual suspect > > > > Self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and British cuckold Derek Nash wrote: And > > what's that supposed to mean? You wrote last month that ... > > alt.food.vegan - Nov 15 2005, 12:37 am by usual suspect > > > > Dreck is a dole scrounger, after all! > > ... newsgroups. Question: Was he lying when he admitted ****ing your wife? > > Cuckold Dreck Nash: No, he wasn't. http://snipurl.com/6osh > > talk.politics.animals - Jun 13 2004, 12:34 am by usual suspect > > > > ... The irony is that you, Dreck the Self-Crippled Town Cuckold, consume liters of > > Worcestershire sauce, food from mass produced crops which kill animals, and pop ... > > alt.food.vegan - Dec 3 2004, 4:33 am by usual suspect > > > > ... No lying involved. Dreck assumes one cannot flirt or fool around if one is in a > > relationship, but he of ALL people should know better since he's a cuckold. ... > > alt.food.vegan - Oct 26 2005, 1:35 am by usual suspect > > > > Jonathan Ball: Criminally Dishonest Coward > > fat cuckold-in-queue wrote: <... He's not quite as bright as he thinks > > he is, He's never crippled himself. That alone means he'll ... > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jun 1 2004, 11:42 pm by usual suspect > > > > ... apologized. You've admitted he was being honest when he noted that he gave > > your wife the bone. END RESTORE Answer the question, cuckold. > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - May 24 2004, 5:05 am by usual suspect > > > > ... [start - Jonathan Ball to you] Digging really deep in the archives in your > > desparation to stir the shit, you blue-footed cuckold. <... > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Dec 6 2004, 3:31 am by usual suspect .... > > ... the cuckold of Eastbourne wrote: > > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Sat, Jun 17 2006 9:51 am by chico chupacabra > > Ahhh, you brought all those lovely memories of past times when > things were rough -- just for me? Thanks Lesley -- but I'm sure > Derek could find more and even better ones if he wanted to. Go > back into the archives and use a different search word other than > cuckold -- you'll find some much funnier ones. I'm sure I could. Those were just a few of the search results of such 'lovely' remarks by that "real man with a true heart" 'chico'. > >> Hugs and kisses to you Chico. .... Careful now. > >> I always knew you had a warm heart all along. > >> Derek knows it too. > > > > Amazing where an intense session of arse-sucking will get you, eh. > > Now you just leave Karen and Sylvia out of this Lesley!! They're not in it. Your Derek and his pro-animal 'diddling' mates are. What are your views on masturbating bulls and raping cows, Belinda? > > Derek learned well from his "tutor". He's got it down pat by now. > > Oh yes --- he did learn well -- and more than you can ever hope to. Why would I hope to learn anything from foul ignorant thugs?? I'll leave that to you. After all ... you are married to one. |
Chico congratulates everyone who can stay married 25 yearswithout taking a few Mulligans like Karen Winter did
Karen Winter, self-destructive witch, wrote:
Lies and perversions. > <snip> > > > For whatever flaws Derek has confessed, > > Which you were happy to attack him for when he > was on the AR side. He still is on the AR side; I'm still on the pro-AW/anti-AR side. Why do you have a problem with people being civil with one another when it comes to a matter which has nothing to do with AR? I only congratulated Derek and Belinda for celebrating 25 years together. You and loony Lesley are so imbalanced you can't separate issues or treat your fellow man civilly unless you have 100% goose-stepping agreement. The two of you are ****ed off that he called you out for molesting an animal and Lesley for selling horses like chattel. > > at the end of the day he's a guy > > who loves his wife and family > >and would try to move heaven and earth to > > protect them. > > And so am I. No, Karen, you abandoned your family and went through two failed marriages before you decided to give the old sushi bar a shot. You didn't move heaven and earth to raise your son. You didn't move it to save your marriages. You walked away from responsibility and seeing things out through hardships. Derek and Belinda embraced responsibility and worked through the strains in their relationship. > From Derek, who has just threatened my > family. Deliberately, intentionally, without > apology. He's not threatened you in any way, shape, or form. > I forgive him writing the parishes. I think it's > a pose He did the right thing. Your clergy and fellow congregants deserve to know your public opinions about those matters. If you're ashamed for others to know what you believe, why do you publicly discuss those matters and advocate for bestiality and groups like NAMBLA? > but maybe he really did believe what he > claimed I realize Derek enjoys stirring up shit, but I believe he's acting on his convictions with respect to your and Sylvia's public posts over the years showing contempt and disregard for the welfare of children. Neither of you should be around children given your statements in support of pedophilia and Sylvia's hate-filled rants against children. > - he's believed your lies about other > ARAs I haven't lied about ARAs. > and he's clearly abysmally stupid and gullible. Are you talking about Lesley, who believes the earth is hollow and inhabited by little green men and who wears a tinfoil hat to protect her from "chemtrails" and who believes she can heal dread disease and even brain trauma by rubbing feet? Or about Derek, who's whipped your ass in every single boorish hair-splitting encounter the two of you have had about AR? > But going to all the effort he did to find and > publish my address All what effort? It was a public website with public information. There are lots of sites like that. > was simply a pointless act of malice, I don't accept your premise that it was malicious. How many of your neighbors would embrace your worldview if they knew it? I suspect not too many, especially among parents -- you know, the kind who raise their own kids instead of passing them off to relatives while they pursue self-marginalizing activities because they're too self-absorbed to realize that saving the world starts at home (not in SF or LA). > and one he *knew* was wrong, because he > tried to take it back when called on it. Only, > because he *is* stupid, he screwed that up too. He initially didn't want to cancel his post, and cancelling it only works at Google. The rest of us who use newsreaders could still get it. > He's always had the mind of an Anti-ARA, No, you cannot say that. He's very pro-AR. > and > we're well rid of him. You're welcome to him. The old "us versus them" raises its absolutist head. My congratulations had nothing to do with AR views or politics -- just sincere regards and wishes for him and Belinda as fellow human beings. Why does that bother you and loony Lesley so much? > <snip> > > > > You should reflect on your pathetic mistake > > and learn from it > > Derek obviously hasn't. Your mistakes aren't for Derek's edification, though he probably wouldn't make the same ones you continue repeating. You should reflect on your own mistakes, Karen, and stop passing the buck. > "Pathetic" is too > kind for his action -- it was deliberately > evil, and he knew that when he did it. Father Dale didn't think it was evil, neither did the congregation at St Bede. Quite the contrary -- they know you at least have some very serious issues, if you're not entirely evil yourself. I'm increasingly inclined to believe the latter. > <snip> > > >> "Charming wife" indeed. > > > I've not dealt with her as others here have, but by all indication > > she's a very nice lady. > > Except for being an adulterous whore. And just what the hell do you call yourself, Karen? Thrice married (counting your sham ******* "marriage" -- not recognized by any state), child abandoner, and you admittedly experimented with a variety of sexual "lifestyles." To my knowledge, Belinda's been with two men. To my knowledge, you've been with at least two men and at least one woman. No doubt you've ****ed a lot more than that (and than her), you adulterous slut. So let's take a look at the sco Belinda 2 Karen 3 That makes you at least a 50% bigger whore than she is. That's not counting Tweety the cockatiel, and I doubt she's dabbled in *******ism and S&M like you have, fruitcake. How many slave-master relationships have you had? How many crotches did you lick before you settled on Sylvia's? How many other animals did you experiment with? |
"chico chupacabra" , unrepentant
~~pearl~~ stopped misleading customers at her factory farm long
enough to adjust her tinfoil hat and write: > "chico chupacabra" > twisted in message > ... > > > > Karen Winter wrote: > > > > > > Living a life of caring > > > > NOT FOR > > NOT FOR American troops, ', I do support them, Lesley. I support them materially with the things they've asked for (energy bars, energy drinks, toiletries, etc.) and with respect to their mission. > NOT FOR hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan people Exaggeration. Thousands of those "innocents" were terrorists. I'm all for dead terrorists, I'm all against dead innocents. > NOT FOR the three thousand Americans who were murdered on 9/11 I'm especially for them, which is why I oppose you and your crackpot conspiracy theories about remote-control jumbo jets and rigged explosives planted by the Skull and Bones society. How many layers of tinfoil is your hat made of? > NOT FOR any animals, no matter how brutally and cruelly mistreated I'm for animals, but I'm also for humans -- including the ones you've duped in your shady horse trading scheme. Why would you mislead people about how much a horse has been ridden, you little con? > NOT FOR anyone you disagree with (who hasn't bowed and scraped) I would've gladly commended you for sticking it out had you and your slimy skinhead husband's marriage lasted longer than three years. Derek and Belind have been married a quarter-century and all you can do is hurl insults. Talk about PROJECTION. |
Chico congratulates everyone who can stay married 25 years without taking a few Mulligans like Karen Winter did
"chico chupacabra" self-destructive > lied in message ...
[...] 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 > chemtrails From the July 2006 Idaho Observer: Chemtrails:GAO report admits "chaff" Lab report reveals much more Last May a family in Iowa contacted the office of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to report the constant criss-crossing of "chemtrails" in the sky above their neighborhood. They received back from the senator's office a General Accounting Office (GAO) report on "military chaff" and the material safety data sheet for aluminum-coated fiberglass fibers being spread-seven days a week for several hours each day-in the skies above their home. The chaff is spread by pilots learning how to mask planes or send false radar images. It was reported that the military also has lead-based chaff, but that it is not being used at this time. Chaff was used by the military in Europe in WWII and, according to the GAO, had been used in training here at home since the 50s. Once chaff reaches the ground, it breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Though military spokespeople insist that chaff is not harmful, the GAO report concluded that health effects are unknown and more studies are needed. Regardless, some members of this family are very sick. On May 23, after a hard rain the day before, they a noticed glittering substance and a pinkish- colored powder substance on the roof of their house. They then noticed the glittering substance on many surfaces, even the dashboard of the family car. Both substances were collected and sent to a lab for analysis. Among the substances found to be in the samples were several that should simply not be the 6 bacteria, including anthrax and pneumonia 9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride 26 heavy metals including arsenic, gold, lead,mercury, silver, uranium and zinc 4 molds and fungi 7 viruses 2 cancers 2 vaccines 2 sedatives Over the last several months, The IO has received a significant increase in chemtrail-related calls and letters. Most report a dramatic increase in chemtrail "spraying" activity in their areas; some are reporting the development of chronic flu-like symptoms, chronic fatigue and body aches that they have never before experienced. We intend to expound upon this subject in greater detail-hopefully next month. If you are seeing the relationship between accelerated chemtrail spraying in your area and symptoms among friends, family and members of your community, begin writing it down and send the information to us by mail or email. Note times, dates and specific symptoms. If you live near a military installation, expect that you are being "sprayed." You may want to contact your senator or rep and, politely (that is how you get the information you are seeking) request the forwarding of any information that may be available on the military chaff being used in your area. After obtaining relevant documents from your rep or senator, consider using it to obtain epidemiological data from your local health department. http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060704.htm |
"chico chupacabra" , unrepentant
"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
> ~~pearl~~ stopped misleading customers at her factory farm long > enough to adjust her tinfoil hat and write: > > > "chico chupacabra" > twisted in message > > ... > > > > > > Karen Winter wrote: > > > > > > > > Living a life of caring > > > > > > NOT FOR > > > > NOT FOR American troops, ', > > I do support them You supported sending them to Iraq. > > NOT FOR hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan people > > Exaggeration. Thousands of those "innocents" were terrorists. I'm all > for dead terrorists, I'm all against dead innocents. You supported an illegal war of aggression based on lies. > > NOT FOR the three thousand Americans who were murdered on 9/11 > > I'm especially for them, You are not. You refuse to examine the evidence in an honest manner. > > NOT FOR any animals, no matter how brutally and cruelly mistreated > > I'm for animals, but I'm also for humans Neither. > -- including the ones > you've duped in your shady horse trading scheme. Why would you mislead > people about how much a horse has been ridden, you little con? No surprise that you will repeat the lies of someone who has already admitted to lying if it suits your purposes to do so. > > NOT FOR anyone you disagree with (who hasn't bowed and scraped) > > I would've gladly commended you for sticking it out had you and your > slimy skinhead husband's marriage lasted longer than three years. Derek > and Belind have been married a quarter-century and all you can do is > hurl insults. Talk about PROJECTION. She's left him at least once. Can't survive without him, I guess. |
"chico chupacabra" , unrepentant
chico chupacabra wrote:
<snip> >>NOT (caring) FOR American troops, ', > I do support them Then help bring them home. Don't let more of them die in an illegal, aggressive war for oil company profits and Bush's insane megalomania. <snip> >>NOT FOR hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan people > Exaggeration. Fact. <snip> >>NOT FOR the three thousand Americans who were murdered on 9/11 By our own government. More and more, it has become clear that if the Bush administration did not actually cause 9/11, it "let it happen". The evidence is overwhelming. <snip> >>NOT FOR any animals, no matter how brutally and cruelly mistreated True. >>NOT FOR anyone you disagree with (who hasn't bowed and scraped) Also true. > I would've gladly commended you for sticking it out had you and your > slimy skinhead husband's marriage lasted longer than three years. Yes, indeed, that's your typical approach. Something is good if your sycophants do it, and bad if those who oppose you do it. You have no principles, only pique. You praise and condemn the exact same thing, depending on who does it. You lie, twist, and exaggerate about anyone who doesn't grovel to you, and excuse everything if someone rolls over belly-up and licks your feet. You attack and insult for years, then hypocritically play holier-than-thou when slimy little weasel Derek turns his coat and becomes a lying traitor against his own side. > Derek > and Belind have been married a quarter-century and all you can do is > hurl insults. Inertia and apathy are not virtues, Chico. Sometimes it is better to get out of a bad situation, rather than dig oneself deeper into the dungheap and try to hold one's breath against the stench. |
Derek, unrepentant terrorist
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:09:03 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>None of the garbage you claim about me is true Everything I've said about you and forwarded to your church officials is true and backed by evidence from your own quotes found in Google archives. You do promote sex between children and adults, insisting that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely with children on a one-to-one basis (alone). "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them, enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual partners and as companions. A child-hating pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions where they come in contact with children, and are excellent in those fields because they understand and like children, and can relate to them well on a one-to-one basis." http://tinyurl.com/2l79z You would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible paedophiles" access to children, including your own son.. "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate with the responsible pedophiles I met." http://snipurl.com/4aej You believe society should stop making a big deal out of protecting vulnerable children and allow "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they can then practice oral sex on them. "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer. And sometimes that love is provided by caring and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles. OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out of it, it wouldn't be significant at all." http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o You and Sylvia actively seek out positions within church communities where you can come into contact with children, even though Sylvia hates them. "Do I hate kids? Yes!" Swan, Date: 2000/04/09 http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?!" Swan, Date: 2000/02/12 http://snipurl.com/4ae8 Those comments are of real concern to me and your church officials, and as a result you've been expelled from one parish only to then flee to another which specialises in child care. Compounding my concerns are your efforts to hide from your real identity by openly lying like a common predator. > -- it's all lies you Clearly, they are not. |
Karen Winter, unrepentant schismatic child-abandoningbird-diddler
Karen Winter, anti-Christ, wrote:
> chico chupacabra wrote: > > <snip> > > >>NOT (caring) FOR American troops, ', > > > I do support them > > Then help bring them home. I support their mission. > Don't let more of them die More people were murdered in the state of California last year than soldiers have been killed in the six years of the war on terror. > in an illegal The war was not illegal. It's fully legal under the conditions set forth in (a) the terms of Saddam's surrender in the Gulf War, (b) the seventeen or so UN Security Council resolutions warning Saddam of repercussions for violations of (a), and (c) the UN Charter itself which allows member nations to act in their own security interests. > aggressive war for oil company profits The war wasn't for oil companies or their profits. You'd still be paying what you are for gasoline due to supply and demand: the Chinese and Indian economies have expanded faster than the rate of fuel supplies. > and Bush's insane megalomania. He's neither insane (you are, though) nor megalomaniacal. You write below that he's complicit for 9/11 (though he'd been on the job eight months following several years of threats from al-Qaeda and the previous administration did even less). Had President Bush not acted on the intelligence estimates at the time and the worst-case scenarios proved true, and more Americans were to be killed as a result, you would have grounds for your Monday-morning quarterbacking. You can't have it both ways, Karen, but you're wrong both ways -- he's been neither derelict in his sworn duties nor has he been criminal in manipulating oil prices through warfare. He made a decision without regard to polls and stuck with it. That decision was based on ALL the scenarios presented on the basis of intelligence estimates -- much of which has panned true since the time of his decision. Iraq was seeking to revamp their nuclear program. Iraq continued to possess WMDs and work on those programs despite the weapons inspection protocols put in place following the Gulf War. > <snip> > > >>NOT FOR hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan people > > > Exaggeration. > > Fact. That estimate is one pulled out of the asses of anti-war zealots -- the one who even opposed displacing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan despite their role in harboring al-Qaeda. > <snip> > > >>NOT FOR the three thousand Americans who were murdered on 9/11 > > By our own government. More and more, it has become clear > that if the Bush administration did not actually cause > 9/11, Have you forgotten that the terrorists tried back in 1993 to do the same thing they accomplished in 2001? Guess that was President Bush's fault, too, even though at the time he was running his baseball team. You ****ing idiot. > it "let it happen". The evidence is overwhelming. Is it so goddamn overwhelming that you can't figure out which scenario is valid?! Yeah, right. I didn't realize you were also wearing tinfoil hats, but I shouldn't be surprised. BTW, stay away from the Kool-Aid. > <snip> > > >>NOT FOR any animals, no matter how brutally and cruelly mistreated > > True. No, that's wrong. I've told you many times before that I would like to see stricter enforcement of the anti-cruelty laws we already have on the books. If you want stricter laws and codified "rights" for animals, you have to figure out a more convincing argument that more people will accept. Right now, your arguments are very unconvincing -- and lest we forget, you subscribe to the pro-terrorism views of AR. You have a lot of ****ing nerve casting aspersions at an eight month-old administration for a crime that took years of planning. > >>NOT FOR anyone you disagree with (who hasn't bowed and scraped) > > Also true. I've offered olive branches to plenty of people, including you. The funny part of this is, all I did was wish Derek and Belinda a happy anniversary. You and Lesley sure do get wound up easily. > > I would've gladly commended you for sticking it out had you and your > > slimy skinhead husband's marriage lasted longer than three years. > > Yes, indeed Same goes for you. You want credit for your Mulligans. Derek never took one. > You lie, twist, and exaggerate about > anyone who doesn't grovel to you When did either of the Nashes grovel to me? Last I saw, Derek was expressing his disfavor over Lesley's horse trading and your hair-splitting positions of Regan vs Singer. > and excuse everything if > someone rolls over belly-up and licks your feet. When has Derek done that to anyone? > You attack and insult for years, then hypocritically play What's hypocritical about wishing the Nashes a happy anniversary? What's hypocritical about pointing out your own odd sexual history and views after you take the occasion of their anniversary to attack them? > holier-than-thou when slimy little weasel Derek turns his > coat and becomes a lying traitor against his own side. When did he become anti-AR? He assailed Lesley -- rightly -- for her hypocrisy in treating animals like chattel and for being semi-vegetarian. <snip un-Christian rant> |
Derek, unrepentant terrorist
Derek wrote:
I see you've taken it upon yourself to do Leif/Jon/Chico's little assassination projects for them now. Did Leif bribe you, or is he threatening you too? Note the header. Is this set of lies any justification for searching out and publishing my address here? I know you'd like to see someone kill me. You are a terrorist, Derek. You have no credibility with the AR community any longer at all. > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:09:03 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote: >>None of the garbage you claim about me is true > > Everything I've said about you and forwarded to your > church officials is true and backed by evidence from > your own quotes found in Google archives. No -- it's based on Jon's twisting of things I wrote *MANY* years ago, about events which are now 25 years ago or more. >You do > promote sex between children and adults No, I do not. I believe that teen-agers can consent to many things. To deny that, of course, would mean you raped your slut, since she was a teen when you "married" her. Are you admitting you are a child-molester, Derek? If you say I promote sex between "children" and adults, then you are. I have written that penetrative intercourse with any young person below puberty is rape. But you never mention that. I have *NEVER* PROMOTED sex with anyone below the age of consent. You will never find any place where I said it was good in and of itself. Not once. > insisting > that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely > with children on a one-to-one basis (alone). No, I have not. I never said pedophiles *should* work closely with children of any age. I said pedophiles and ephebophiles do not hate children, and often work well with them because they like and understand them as people. That is not saying I promote SEX between adults and children. Heterosexual men who like women often work well with women. That does not mean any straight man who likes women and relates well to them should have sex with any woman he works with. I said nothing about "alone" either, anywhere. Search as much as you like -- that I never said. A priest may work well with female parishoners, because he likes and understands them, without raping every woman in his parish. You have a filthy mind. > > "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them, > enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual > partners and as companions. A child-hating > pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many > pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions > where they come in contact with children, and are > excellent in those fields because they understand > and like children, and can relate to them well on a > one-to-one basis." > http://tinyurl.com/2l79z Which says nothing about having SEX with children, or being ALONE with them, does it? Liar. > You would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible > paedophiles" access to children, including your own > son.. > "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son > associate with the responsible pedophiles I met." > http://snipurl.com/4aej Right, My son was a teenager when I wrote that, the the pedophiles I was referring to were celibate ones *I KNEW PERSONALLY*. This does not apply 1) to other people's children (if any) intrusted to me, or 2) people I do not know *PERSONALLY*. I know no one who is interestedf in underage kids, and HAVEN'T known any such person for OVER 20 YEARS. If anyone I know is a pedophile now, I don't know any more about it than anyone else among his casual acquaintances. This is all stuff way out of date, not even remotely relevant to my life today, or anyone I knew in church. I am not the person I was in 1980, any more than you are the 19-year-old who was cuckolded by his slut wife. Get over it. Times change; people change. > You believe society should stop making a big deal > out of protecting vulnerable children and allow > "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they > can then practice oral sex on them. > "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer. > And sometimes that love is provided by caring > and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles. > OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or > blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out > of it, it wouldn't be significant at all." > http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o So -- you never had sex before you were 20 years old? You were so retarded you couldn't decide whether you wanted a blow-job or not until you were over 21? Well, in your case, I can believe it. > You and Sylvia actively seek out positions within > church communities where you can come into > contact with children, No, neither of us do. If we did, we ( or I ) would have tried to work with the Sunday School or Youth Group. I avoided that, because I, personally, am not interested in working with kids in any capacity. You wouldn't know, because you're in England, and never attended our church, or even met me. I've never worked with any group which included underage kids. I've never been responsible for underage kids, in ANY capacity. I don't want to work with kids. even though Sylvia hates > them. > "Do I hate kids? Yes!" > Swan, Date: 2000/04/09 > http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx This was on a group called alt.support.childfree. It was a personna, an exaggerated personna. It was SWAN ( a personna) not Sylvia ( a person). In any case, a person who dislikes kids tries to get away from them, not work with them. That is what Sylvia did -- NOT WORK WITH CHILDREN. <snip> > Those comments are of real concern to me and > your church officials, and as a result you've been > expelled from one parish only to then flee to another > which specialises in child care. I have not been "expelled" from any parish. I would be welcome back at St. Bede's if I wanted to go back (I'm still getting the parish newsletter). I left Holy Faith before your little poison bomb, and I'm still getting *their* newsletter. Holy Faith runs a day care, but I've never even been inside it -- it's in a separate building from the church. I never attended the "family" Eucharist, I knew not one person at Holy Faith who even had a child, and, as I told you -- and as the priest can confirm -- I never worked with any church group which had anything to do with children. Just as with your misinterpretation of Regan and your weird meltdown about the cockatiel, you have swallowed the bullshit of Leif and the Antis hook, line, and sinker. I would have hoped that you would be willing to give a fellow ARA the benefit of the doubt, but you take the Antis' twisting and lies as Gospel. You are no ARA; you are utterly in the Anti camp now, having lied about and attacked every real ARA here. Twist in the wind, Derek. Twist in the wind. The Antis despise you, with good reason, and those you stabbed in the back on what was your own side now despise you too. You belong nowhere, now, and *no one* respects you. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter