Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-08-2006, 11:13 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.


If you're going to tell lies about me, Derek, you might have
the courtesy to do so in a newsgroup where I will read
them, not behind my back.

I don't know what Leif/Jon has on you, but it must be
serious. You are afraid to do anything except lick
his ass any more. Not that you ever were very good at
opposing any anti-AR writers, but you used to try at
least. Now you just attack AR posters and kiss Leif's
feet. Exactly what is he using to hold over your head?
What has he threatened to do if you say anything?

Derek wrote:

snip

What I do admire about him is his intelligence,


Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.


Correct. He has never actually presented a good
argument against AR. He does nothing but invent crude
sexual slurs and baseless attacks. You two make a
perfect pair.

snip

[Glorfindel to Jon]
"You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
and you quote them when it suits you to use them
against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl


Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
about rights than ANYONE on this forum,


No, Derek Dimwit. He knows nothing about rights.
He's been here long enough to read what real
pro-AR writers have written about rights, and,
like you, he has learned to parrot authorities
second-hand. He *knows* nothing, because he does
not understand what the arguments he quotes
*mean* either as they were written, or as they
apply to situations in the real world.

and only
a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
back!


Why not learn from real AR supporters, not someone who
twists every argument?


He knows the words, but not the song.


Very true.

snip

Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Glorfindel..


Glorfindel openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;


That is a lie, and you know it, because Feralpower, Pearl,
and I have told you so. Zoophilia, or bestiality, as all
of us informed you, requires a human who gets sexual
pleasure from interactions with non-human animals. That
is the *definition* of zoophilia, you idiot. The antis
at least understand that getting bull ejaculate to sell
is not zoophilia because it is done for profit ( and is
utterly opposed to AR ethics). Feral explained all this
to you, as did I, as did SN and Pearl. You are too
pig-headed and malicious to understand it. I have
*NEVER* promoted zoophilia as a positive good in itself,
and I have *NEVER* participated in "zoophile sexual
activity" with any animal. I have no sexual interest in
non-humans.

Glorfindel opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.


Of course. I oppose conditioning in ALL areas of human
interaction with animals, which is a basic AR position.

snip

"I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
my hand."
Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4


She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
- rightly or wrongly.


As Feral noted, when an animal is not neutered, and is
imprinted on humans ( which was a basic wrong done
to the bird by OTHERS ) some form of sexual release
(not involving self-mutilation on hard objects, or
unsafe soft toys ) is necessary for the *ANIMAL'S*
welfare. It has nothing to do with zoophilis. It
has to do with a real AR person's concern for the
welfare of an old animal crippled in both mind and
body by what humans had done to him. You suggested
things which would either have hurt him physically or
hurt him even worse mentally. That's because you don't
know about real animals, and you don't really care
about real animals. And you evidently are too stupid
to learn from those who do.

snip

It might just as easily have been a dog and something
more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
NOT take place in an AR-based society.


I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.


As things exist now, yes. Mammals can be made sexually
neuter, which is itself a violation of their basic
nature, but that can be defended on utilitarian grounds in our
current society. BIRDS CAN'T as Feral and I told you.
Surgery on birds, especially small ones, is very serious,
potentially lethal. Medicine for companion birds is now
where medicine for companion mammals was in the early 20th
century. Until non-specialist vets are better trained,
neutering companion birds is too dangerous. We have to live
with intact birds, and deal with the issues of bonding,
aggression, and sexual needs this creates. READ, Derek, you
incompetent idiot. Learn about real animals before trying
to spout off about things you know nothing about.

snip

"Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
would take place between free, wild animals and
humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
there."
Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc


How that can be seen as "promoting zoophilia" is beyond
any rational person.

snip

You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
AR supporters


That's true. He does not understand what he parrots,
any more that Leif does. So he basically misinterprets
what AR supporters who really know AR and really care
about real animals -- the real animals AR is ABOUT --
say.

Derek has a sick, cruel mind and an evil, malicious
heart, which makes him both incompetent and dangerous.

snip


Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
claims to be.


We must make some use of utilitarian calculation in the
real world in order to help real animals. If you would
actually READ some real AR writers such as Regan and
Francione, Sapontzis and Rollin, you might ( if you
could understand as well as read them ) see what Rupert
is getting at. Francione in _Rain Without Thunder_ and
_Introduction to Animal Rights_ gives examples of how
real AR people can promotive *incremental* changes
which improve the welfare of animals in the real world
AND fit with AR theory at the same time. "Deontological"
is not the same as "absolutist" as you seem to think.
The idea is to make small changes which agree with AR
theory by not replacing one evil with another, but which
can be presented to the public as welfare issues, as well
as AR issues, and will have a good chance of being passed
as law on welfare grounds. Where Francione objects is that
he believes some "AR" groups have turned this around by
supporting welfare measures as AR, even when they make no
fundamental change.

snip


Why don't YOU
challenge him if you can?


She has, and so have I, and both of us have driven
him to a standstill at times. I recently did so
on TPA. You have never done any real good in
trying to oppose Leif, and now you are a part of
his fan-club. You are clearly not an AR supporter,
if you ever were.

snip




  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-08-2006, 11:36 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Vagan question, getting started.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:40:47 +0100, Derek wrote:

Why don't YOU challenge him if you can?


I challenge you, Goo, or anyone else to provide
any decent argument(s) Goo has presented
opposing "AR".

While we wait (and wait, and wait, and wait...),
let's look at some of his "arguments" attempting
to promote acceptance of it:
_________________________________________________
"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

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

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

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

"Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

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

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

"It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical absurdity of the
belief that causing animals to "get to experience life" somehow
offsets any moral harm that is done in killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 06:45 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Vagan question, getting started.


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out of
it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
animals, what more can possibly benefit them?


As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.


No I'm not, watch... Life can have a positive value for them.

By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
animals as moral bonus points

You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.

False, I can think of the animals also.

There is absolutely no evidence of that, and there probably
never will be.


There is plenty of evidence of it.


There is none


Yes there is, 6 years of Google archives.

which is why no one can present any.


We have presented countless arguments that Just as you
don't have the dozens of arguments you claim to have, you have
no evidence that you can think of the animals. None. I don't either,
so there won't be any. I was able to help you out with your last
complete failing and at least got you up to 3 out of your dishonest
claim of dozens, but this time there's just no evidence at all. Now
if you want evidence that you can NOT, that's easier. In fact you
just got through saying doing so "comes across as very creepy" to
you, and now your amusingly trying to boast that there's plenty of
evidence of you doing it. You're such a confused fool I often end
up feeling sorry for you, even though your bewilderment appears
to be entirely caused by the purity of your own selfishness.


All bullshit. You get no credit for livestock getting to experience life
****wit.

Since we're on this, let's test your honesty...unfortunately only
to see you fail of course. Even though you'll fail though, try to
explain why it is that you want to create the impression that there
"is plenty of evidence of" you considering the animals, when you
also claim to feel that doing so "comes across as very creepy".


I consider the treatment of the animals to be important, I consider it to be
important that they not be made to suffer. The Logic of Larder points to the
animals as if to say "Look what I am doing by consuming animal products, all
those animal getting to enjoy eating and shitting."

From you otoh the evidence is that you
are mainly interested in how their very existence reflects on how YOU are
judged.


No,


Yes! It is the essence of your position.

again you're so completely unable get over your selfishness


Wrong, I won't let you pretend and hide your selfishness.

that you can't even think about it. Here's an example that will be
wasted of course, but here is one anyway:


It'll be wasted because it's bound to be bullshit, no other reason.

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?

That same type of thinking also applies to the billions of other
animals who live because they're raised for food but I never
contribute to the lives of, because they are part of different
farming and marketing systems than what I make my insignificant
contributions to. You are necessarily completely lost now due to
your selfish obesession with imaginary browny points which don't
apply in these examples, but you can consider nothing else.


You're a liar or a fool, probably both. When you refer to "animals who live
because they're raised for food" you are implying that is a justification
for raising them. You are trying to extract moral brownie points where none
are due.


for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
really
is wrong.

The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.

The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly.

There is no evidence that you understand it at all.


I understand it perfectly.

There is only
evidence that you're worried about some imaginary moral reward
system that you feel could somehow benefit you,


Exactly wrong, I feel the lives of livestock do NOT benefit me,


I hope no one is stupid enough to believe you're not lying
about that.


Speak English you dolt.

and that no
moral rewards are applicable, contrary to what the LoL says.

while remaining
incapable of considering any benefit to the animals.


Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?


Everything.


Not good enough. Bullshitter, Equivocator.

But as we can see you are capable of nothing, and
you admittedly find it "creepy" to consider the animals.


It's not creepy at to consider the welfare of those animals, it's creepy as
hell to think about how great it is that they get to experience life just
because we consume them. YOU are creepy as hell.


You are looking at the lives of livestock animals and making that
into a justification for raising them. It's a flawed, circular
sophistry.

It's an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras" don't
want taken into consideration,


It has no business being taking into consideration the way The LoL
suggests.

because it suggests that providing
decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could
be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".


Wrong again, as usual. That is NOT the reason I oppose the LoL,


Yes it is. It is the ONLY reason you support the LoTP over the LoL.


I'll go farther than that. I hereby state categorically that I AGREE "that
providing decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW-- *IS*
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

Can it get any clearer than that? I personally, in my own life, support
providing decent lives and humane deaths for livestock.

Now, how can you say that this is the reason I oppose the LoL?

and it does NOT suggest anything of the sort anyway.


LOL. It suggests that and nothing else.


From your point of view maybe, but your point of view is all messed up.

You're
OBVIOUSLY afraid of "ar" losing moral browny points, gold stars,


No moral gold stars are available for causing livestock to exist. The LoL
is
failed sophistry.

or whatever, to decent AW in your imaginary moral reward system.
Duh!


Duh! YOUR imaginary moral reward system. "Considering what the animals get
out of it"


Is beyond your ability to appreciate, even though you amusingly,
dishonestly and by now very contemptibly have boasted that "there
is plenty of evidence" of you being able to do it.


I regret that you are this confused, but it's not my fault.

when deciding if it's right to raise and kill animals for food *IS*

proposing a
moral reward system, i.e. *if* the animals get something out of it that
implies that
it's a good thing to do. The fact that animals get "life" out of our use
of them as
products is not a factor when deciding if it's right or wrong.


It is for anyone who's willing to consider the animals,


No it's not. Ethical "consideration" of the animals involves caring about
the quality of their lives, for their sake, not thinking about "what they
get out of it" in some kind of implied deal with consumers. THAT is creepy,
and pointless.

which you
are not. If you were, you would have to factor it in and would not
find it creepy to do so.


It's creepy as hell, YOU are creepy as hell.



  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 10:47 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:13:38 -0600, Glorfindel wrote:

If you're going to tell lies about me, Derek, you might have
the courtesy to do so in a newsgroup where I will read
them, not behind my back.


I've not lied about you, and the newsgroup[s] I've
been posting to are frequented by both of us, so
stop lying.

I don't know what Leif/Jon has on you


If he had anything on me you can be sure he'd
use it, so no, try something else.

[..]
Why not learn from real AR supporters


Since Bob Farrell and Michael Cerkowski left years
ago there are no genuine AR types here apart from
myself. All that's left here are the antis, zoophiles,
zoophile apologists, a mixed-up utilitarian who thinks
he's a deontologist, and liars like Lesley who trades
horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.

Let's take you, for example. Do you REALLY think
I can learn anything worthwhile from a zoophile who
also promotes sex between children and "responsible
paedophiles", who got thrown out of her parish for
being a threat to the children there, and who now can't
go back to her new parish for those same reasons?
No, the only AR tutors left here are those against the
proposition who reveal the flaws in those who think
they're genuine proponents. Like you say, Jon "knows
what the ethical arguments for AR" are and "could
write a book defending AR if [he] wanted to do it."

[..]
Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
claims to be.


We must make some use of utilitarian calculation in the
real world in order to help real animals.


Then you have no argument against Mercer who uses
that same utilitarian thinking while vivisecting animals
to help "real animals" (whatever they are) and people.
You see, you're not a deontological rightist like you
claim to be; you're a mixed-up utilitarian who believes
that it is morally permissible to kill rights-holding beings
in the hope that it will prevent large-scale harms to
others. You're completely lost, and so you hop from
one philosophy to the other without even realising it.
Stop kidding yourself, Karen; you aren't the clear-
thinking rightist you want to be - you're a utilitarian,
a pervert who debases animals by availing yourself as
their sexual partner, and a liar.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 11:04 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Vagan question, getting started.

"chico chupacabra" lied in message ...

[snip]

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

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


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








  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 11:37 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Vagan question, getting started.

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:36:02 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] 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, allowing N. American native species / ecosystems to recover.


Read that a few times before replying dh. Try to understand it..




  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 11:47 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Vagan question, getting started.

"Derek" wrote in message news
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message news
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
[..]

You haven't challenged him for *ages*.

Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
allow them the valuable experience of challenging
him themselves unaided by me?

There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
one takes him seriously.

If you believe that why are you whining about my
leaving him unchallenged?


"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
your ?"whine":


Is this something you learned from your "tutor"? Snip away
your opponent's rebuttal and just pretend it doesn't exist?

--restore--
"And as for admiring his "brutal display of 'force'",
I've been on the receiving end of that for over 5 years,
and on a daily basis, so no, I don't admire that."

You haven't been on the "receiving end" of anything
for quite a while, because you have been ingratiating
yourself to him - staying out of his way, or agreeing.
--end--


No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.


No. You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.




  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 11:56 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Vagan question, getting started.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:29:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:15:26 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:45:23 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:24:14 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek wrote:
. . .

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.
. . .

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot.

You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
steer found in the feedlot.

The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
feedlot.

I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,

You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.

I can, but I said I don't this time...yet.


You never will,


LOL!!!
_________________________________________________ ________
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses

By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
received were in general support of the standard as originally
proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
follow.

Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage

Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
source.
. . .
AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
lifetime of the animal.
. . .
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Those are the comments and criticisms put forward, but,
as we can see by your material above, those suggestions
aren't being implemented. So-called grass-fed beef carries
a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 % of the feed were grass, and those
grain-fed animals accrue collateral deaths. So-called grass-
fed beef isn't a viable alternative, so stop pretending it is
while trying to push meat onto vegans. Apart from the
grains they are fed while being finished at the feedlot, so-
called grass-fed beef accrues collateral deaths when
slaughtered in mechanised abattoirs, while being stored in
refrigerated buildings, when being transported to customers.
To keep insisting that so-called grass-fed beef has no
association with collateral deaths is a desperate lie which
no one believes, so give it up.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 12:09 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Vagan question, getting started.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:47:05 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Derek" wrote in message news
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message news On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
[..]

You haven't challenged him for *ages*.

Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
allow them the valuable experience of challenging
him themselves unaided by me?

There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
one takes him seriously.

If you believe that why are you whining about my
leaving him unchallenged?

"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
your ?"whine":


restore
No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.

Serves him!

On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!

Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.


Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
my leaving him unchallenged?


See above.


You always write that when you have nothing
to offer in retaliation.

What I do admire about him is his intelligence,

Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.

I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
manner he gave it rather than waste it.

Nope - you've lost me.


No, you know exactly what I mean.


No, I really really REALLY don't.


Good.

the knowledge he holds,

About WHAT??????

Rights.

He doesn't believe in rights.


Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.


bucket please


You may not like the fact, but it cannot be denied.

[Karen to Jon]
"You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
and you quote them when it suits you to use them
against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl

Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
back!


He knows the words, but not the song.


No, he knows it all, exactly as Karen correctly wrote.
You, on the other hand, know nothing and rely solely
on copying and pasting other people's material instead
of writing your own thoughts and views.

and yes, believe it or not, his patience
with me while I learn all I can from him as his
adversarial student.

Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
NASTY.

NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.

Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..


Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;


Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.


No, she promotes and participates in sexual activities
with animals, and you haven't the guts to challenge
her about it.

"I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
my hand."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4


She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
- rightly or wrongly.


Her beliefs and participation regarding zoophilia are well
documented, so stop trying to defend the animal abuser.

It might just as easily have been a dog and something
more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
NOT take place in an AR-based society.


I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.


No, you have no reason for assuming that. She actively
promotes zoophilia and avails herself as a sexual partner
to her pets.

"Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
would take place between free, wild animals and
humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
there."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc

That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
same position as Karen.


You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
AR supporters


No. Her quotes are there for all to read, and they show
that she actively promotes zoophilia and avails herself
as a sexual partner for her pets. You enable that
zoophilia by trying to defend her, and that puts you in
the same boat as frlpwr.

Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
suffering.

"Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7


He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.


That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
of animals.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally
justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering
of a greater number of them. Priceless!

There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
deontological rightist. Pah!


Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.


No, they are not. They are zoophiles, apologists for and
enablers of zoophilia, and a utilitarian who really doesn't
have the slightest idea about rights.

[..]
You argued with me.

Of course, and why not?

You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.


You're lying now.


I don't lie.


Yes, you did by asserting I support meat-eating after I
made it perfectly clear to you that I don't in my first
sentence, liar.

I made it clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.

"Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
"Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
to zero."
Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8

You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.


You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:


I snipped your copy and past away and told you that
even Campbell can't reject the laws of physics to
make his point, so stop lying.

You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.


No.


Look just above where you wrote, "You resorted to
snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.", even
though I made it perfectly clear to you in my opening
sentence that I would never promote meat, you inept
liar.

and the result is
you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.

Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
being myself - warts-n-all.

Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.

I don't want to be if I can't be myself.

Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.


I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
it with your own words rather than your usual copy
and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.


NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.


You're an incompetent liar and defender of zoophiles.
end restore

There's some very important matters in what you
snipped away which you ought to try dealing with
instead of running away from them.

No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.


No.


This thread shows that you did, you horse-trading
liar. Tell me, how can your horse-trading be
reconciled with animal rights? Oh, and don't try
to pretend you don't trade rights-holding horses
for money; you wrote and told me all about those
potential buyers you lied to while trying to sell one
that hadn't been ridden for a long time.

You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.


Well, I'm not done with you, so buckle up.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 12:22 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.

"Derek" wrote in message ...

liars like Lesley who trades
horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.


"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.

I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.


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

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" wrote:

[..]
Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.


I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
my own accord.

OK, I've read
those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.


Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
regrets.

And yes, you regret it and
blame yourself. Too late!


That's unfortunately true.

Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?


Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.

...

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

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra wrote:

[..]
They weren't baseless accusations


That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
and lies.


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


You've done the same to many other AR supporters here, and still are.

What the hell's the matter with you?







  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 12:26 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

liars like Lesley who trades
horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.


Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
yourself as a vegan. Why?

[..]
You've done the same to many other AR supporters
here, and still are.


I've chased off a few AR pretenders while they
promote vivisection, if that's what you mean.

What the hell's the matter with you?


I'm fine, thank you.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 12:27 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Vagan question, getting started.

"Derek" wrote in message ...

froth

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.

I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.


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

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" wrote:

[..]
Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.


I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
my own accord.

OK, I've read
those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.


Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
regrets.

And yes, you regret it and
blame yourself. Too late!


That's unfortunately true.

Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?


Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.

...

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

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra wrote:

[..]
They weren't baseless accusations


That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
and lies.


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


You've done the same to many other AR supporters here, and still are.

What the hell's the matter with you?




  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 12:29 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default Vagan question, getting started.


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"chico chupacabra" lied in message
...

[snip]

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

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



snip...


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 12:31 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Vagan question, getting started.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:27:36 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

froth


restore

"Derek" wrote in message news
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:30:06 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message news On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:34:44 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:57:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
[..]

You haven't challenged him for *ages*.

Must I, so that others can idly sit back and enjoy the
show watching us do battle again and again, or do I
allow them the valuable experience of challenging
him themselves unaided by me?

There is no value in talking with a raving mad halfwit. If
you hadn't noticed, he's the laughing-stock of Usenet. No
one takes him seriously.

If you believe that why are you whining about my
leaving him unchallenged?

"whining"? I don't whine, Derek, and I don't "believe"
that - it's a fact of record. I wrote that in response to
your ?"whine":


restore
No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.

Serves him!

On the contrary. Left unchallenged by me serves them!

Nobody wants to talk to him. He has nothing of value.

Again, if you believe that why are you whining about
my leaving him unchallenged?


See above.


You always write that when you have nothing
to offer in retaliation.

What I do admire about him is his intelligence,

Woah! He is *devious*. That's not real intelligence.

I agree that he IS devious, but I'm also aware that he's
the most intelligent tutor available to me here on Usenet,
and I chose to take full advantage of that tutelage in the
manner he gave it rather than waste it.

Nope - you've lost me.

No, you know exactly what I mean.


No, I really really REALLY don't.


Good.

the knowledge he holds,

About WHAT??????

Rights.

He doesn't believe in rights.

Though he rejects the proposition of animal rights he is
no less a very knowledgeable tutor on the subject.


bucket please


You may not like the fact, but it cannot be denied.

[Karen to Jon]
"You know what the ethical arguments for AR are,
and you quote them when it suits you to use them
against a poster you disagree with. Then you pretend
to have convenient amnesia when it suits you to attack
pro-AR supporters in turn. You could write a book
defending AR if you wanted to do it .."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 10 2006 http://tinyurl.com/j89zl

Satisfied yet? There's no doubt that he knows more
about rights than ANYONE on this forum, and only
a fool would waste the opportunity to take full
advantage of any tutelage from him and in whatever
manner he was prepared to give it, so get off my
back!


He knows the words, but not the song.


No, he knows it all, exactly as Karen correctly wrote.
You, on the other hand, know nothing and rely solely
on copying and pasting other people's material instead
of writing your own thoughts and views.

and yes, believe it or not, his patience
with me while I learn all I can from him as his
adversarial student.

Oh .. my .. gosh. The only thing you learn from it is
NASTY.

NO, he taught me to *learn* and think about my position
clearly so I could then benefit from it. Learning how to
think clearly is a discipline unlike any other. Memorising
mathematical equations and using them to solve problems
in physics and electronics is mundane by comparison.

Too bad you've alienated the real AR experts here, from
whom you/we could have learned - frlpwr, Rupert, Karen..

Karen openly promotes zoophilia and regularly participated
in "zoophile sexual activity" with her pet;


Karen opposes all conditioning, which rules out zoophilia.


No, she promotes and participates in sexual activities
with animals, and you haven't the guts to challenge
her about it.

"I lived with a cockatiel who regularly masturbated on
my hand."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 8 2006 http://tinyurl.com/rwxc4


She believed she was doing the right thing by the bird,
- rightly or wrongly.


Her beliefs and participation regarding zoophilia are well
documented, so stop trying to defend the animal abuser.

It might just as easily have been a dog and something
more than just a wank on her hand if she deluded herself
into thinking a dog wanted to be sucked off, and she
readily acknowledges that her aberrant activity would
NOT take place in an AR-based society.


I think she may subscribe to the view that dogs who aren't
allowed to mate with their own species should be altered.


No, you have no reason for assuming that. She actively
promotes zoophilia and avails herself as a sexual partner
to her pets.

"Yes, zoophile sexual interaction with animals is an
aberrant activity which is a result of humans' basic
wrong in keeping domestic animals, especially as
pets and property. I highly, HIGHLY doubt zoophilia
would take place between free, wild animals and
humans, or in an AR-based society. You are right
there."
Karen as Glorfindel Aug 7 2006 http://tinyurl.com/jacmc

That's and acknowledgment from her that her beliefs
and aberrant activities put her well outside the AR
tent, and frlpwr condones it, which puts her in the
same position as Karen.


You are doing the same thing you've been doing since
you got here -- misinterpreting the positions of various
AR supporters


No. Her quotes are there for all to read, and they show
that she actively promotes zoophilia and avails herself
as a sexual partner for her pets. You enable that
zoophilia by trying to defend her, and that puts you in
the same boat as frlpwr.

Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he
claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified
in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial
agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious
suffering.

"Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve
imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as
abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of
serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it."
Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7


He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options
available to him, and doing what he believes is the best.


That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it
is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope
that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group
of animals.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally
justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering
of a greater number of them. Priceless!

There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2
zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a
deontological rightist. Pah!


Those three people are well-educated serious AR supporters.


No, they are not. They are zoophiles, apologists for and
enablers of zoophilia, and a utilitarian who really doesn't
have the slightest idea about rights.

[..]
You argued with me.

Of course, and why not?

You resorted to snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.

You're lying now.


I don't lie.


Yes, you did by asserting I support meat-eating after I
made it perfectly clear to you that I don't in my first
sentence, liar.

I made it clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.

"Though I would never promote meat there's no doubt that
everyone can eat it and still maintain excellent health as
well as lose excess weight. As per the subject title of this
thread, a "vegetarian diet is good for obese people", but
then so is a meat-centric diet. Leif is correct when saying,
"Weight gain or loss follows a very simple arithmetic rule",
and that rule can be paraphrased using Kirchoff's first
law; the sum of currents (calories in this case) entering a
node (body) plus the sum of currents leaving a node sum
to zero."
Me Aug 12 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ln8f8

You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.


You ignored and snipped my response to that as well:


I snipped your copy and past away and told you that
even Campbell can't reject the laws of physics to
make his point, so stop lying.

You lied about me by trying to imply that I support meat-
eating when I made it very clear to you from the start
that I would never promote meat.


No.


Look just above where you wrote, "You resorted to
snipping studies in order to support meat-eating.", even
though I made it perfectly clear to you in my opening
sentence that I would never promote meat, you inept
liar.

and the result is
you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.

Yes, that's very true, but consequences and regrets
be damned, Pearl; I act according to the principles
I hold, and if my actions make me unpopular, then
so be it. I'm not here to win anyone's favour; I'm just
being myself - warts-n-all.

Warts may become malignant. You could be brilliant.

I don't want to be if I can't be myself.

Sleep with dogs and get up stinking. It's your choice.

I was just about to say the same to you, Pearl, but I
wasn't going to start being rude. Why don't YOU
challenge him if you can? And if you do, try doing
it with your own words rather than your usual copy
and paste jobs. That'll make a nice change.


NASTY. Yep... you sure munched up those droppings.


You're an incompetent liar and defender of zoophiles.
end restore

There's some very important matters in what you
snipped away which you ought to try dealing with
instead of running away from them.

No, you whined in response to my comment on
Ron's, that Leif was a good guy, so stop lying.
You complained that I don't challenge him, and
that's whining.


No.


This thread shows that you did, you horse-trading
liar. Tell me, how can your horse-trading be
reconciled with animal rights? Oh, and don't try
to pretend you don't trade rights-holding horses
for money; you wrote and told me all about those
potential buyers you lied to while trying to sell one
that hadn't been ridden for a long time.

You are lying, and therefore I'm done with you.


Well, I'm not done with you, so buckle up.


end re-restore

Deal with the material in that post you keep snipping away
and then expalin how your horse-trading can be reconciled
with animal rights, Lesley.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2006, 01:01 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:22:53 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

liars like Lesley who trades
horses and promotes herself as a vegan while at the
same time following a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet.


Why don't you address those two points, Lesley?
You trade rights-holding horses for personal gain
and you follow a lacto-ovo diet while describing
yourself as a vegan. Why?


The small moneys received were no more than partial
recompense for material costs incurred raising them.
I DO NOT believe in ownership of sentient beings.
I knew that the ponies were going on to a great life.

I have never described myself as vegan. You lie.

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:31:33 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:32:48 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
May I have a copy of that too please, Derek. Cheers.

I'm sorry Pearl, I just can't do that, but please rest assured
knowing that I've not criticised you in any way. William will
now be aware of my unwarranted attacks on you, and I'm sure
that he will see them (links provided) as I describe: "cowardly",
"wrong", "vicious" and "done in temper and very much regretted."
William will also see that, instead of trying to excuse myself in
any way I take all the deserved criticism upon myself and won't
let anything like it happen again. Also, I've told/warned him that
I've reproduced our private emails before now, and that it is in
HIS interest to know this before replying to me in private email
himself.


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

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:43:58 +0100, "William" wrote:

[..]
Derek, thank you for your email but it wasn't necessary. I'm a bit surprised to know
you actually went along with these guys and got all aggressive though.


I didn't "[go] along with these guys .." I went for her on
my own accord.

OK, I've read
those posts but you haven't told me why you attacked her.


Read my email again and note where I say, "I offer no reason
for those attacks because they were without reason, full of bad
intention and wrong ...." All I offered in that email are my
regrets.

And yes, you regret it and
blame yourself. Too late!


That's unfortunately true.

Do you argue with everyone that disagrees with you?


Mostly, if they're in the mood for an argument.

...

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

"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:18:25 GMT, chico chupacabra wrote:

[..]
They weren't baseless accusations


That's exactly what they were, thico chumpy: baseless accusations
and lies.


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

[..]


restored.

You've done the same to many other AR supporters
here, and still are.


I've chased off a few AR pretenders while they
promote vivisection, if that's what you mean.


A good example of your clinging to your misinterpretations
in order to harass ("chase off", bully) other AR supporters.

Zakhar wrote:
"for example if one rabbit would save 1000 humans, then
I could accept that the rabbit should die".'

I emphasised then, in an effort to explain the meaning:
"for example *if* one rabbit *would* save 1000 humans,
then I could accept that the rabbit should die.

If = A hypothetical situation. Would = 100% certainty.

If one rabbit would save you from dying of starvation,
you (similarly) would accept that the rabbit should die.

"Eating meat for survival is perfectly ethical and correct. "
Dec 18 2003, 11:26 pm by ipse dixit (Derek)

What the hell's the matter with you?


I'm fine, thank you.


No, you are most definitely not "fine".






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
It has started{:-( graham[_4_] General Cooking 257 20-11-2015 12:18 AM
Getting started George Shirley[_3_] Preserving 4 20-07-2013 12:58 PM
it's started lainie General Cooking 2 28-11-2010 10:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017