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?

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>

<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.

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.>

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.

<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.

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.>

<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.

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.>

<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.

<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.

"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.

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.

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.>
>
>

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.

"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.>
>>
>>

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?

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.

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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

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 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>

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, 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, 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, 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).

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 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.

<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.

<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.

<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" > 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'.

"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.

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?

~~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 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" > 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 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.

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, 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 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.