On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:25:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><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
om...
>>>>>> 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?

Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.

I factor in both the good and the bad. You "aras" only factor in the
bad, because the good supports decent AW and works against "ar".

>> 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.

Yet you have no clue how or why, and have no clue why anyone
would consider it to be significant. LOL...what a moron!

>>>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.

You insist it's irrelevant.

>>>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.

How could they possibly have gratitude for something they're unaware
of?

>> 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,

I know it doesn't.

> it's a debt you think they owe us.

You're an idiot. They don't owe us anything, and I'm aware of it.

>>>> Your selfishness is
>>>> too pure to allow you to consider the animals, as I keep pointing
>>>> out because you keep proving it and insisting that it's true.
>>>
>>>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.

In an accidentally honest moment you pasted the following quote that
you found somewhere, but could never comprehend:

"We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a mutually
beneficial contract"

It's only true for some of them because for some of them it's not, but it's
as close to the truth as you "aras" will ever get. Idiots!

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>dh asked:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> >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)

How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
make anything better?

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:51:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><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.

Good.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><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?

As selfish as all things which survive where something else could instead,
which is everything including you.

.. . .

>> 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.

Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:50:44 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>He's always had the mind of an Anti-ARA, and
>we're well rid of him. You're welcome to him.

Goo and 2goo are both "aras", and you
are stuck with them. If they're shitting
the bed, too bad for the bunch of you.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:25:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:10:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:52:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:a9t6f2h20fvnqvgtdn608q6rgljr5mketd@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:45:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:su1se2hngrgq2hu8n22aef1b0is1g27578@4a x.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?
>
> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.

That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those details? I
recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in response
to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food, water,
shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details, so
what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those things
for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The Logic
of the Larder.

> I factor in both the good and the bad.

How do you factor in the bad? How do you factor in the good?

You don't, you're just mouthing words.

>You "aras"

I'm not an "ara", I consume animal products, including meat, and I defend
our right to do so.

only factor in the
> bad, because the good supports decent AW

No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.

> and works against "ar".

You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your gund with this idiotic
Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition to
"ar".

>
>>> 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.
>
> Yet you have no clue how or why,

Sure I do, see above.

> and have no clue why anyone
> would consider it to be significant

Sure I do. If all livestock led horrible lives as most ARAs believe, and if
there was no hope that those lives could improve, then they would have a
valid argument against farming of animals. Therefore it is significant to
believe that all farm animals do NOT all live awful lives.

That is NOT the same as believing that their lives per se are a credit to
the people who raise them.

.. LOL...what a moron!

Yes, you are.

>
>>>>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.
>
> You insist it's irrelevant.

It is irrelevant in this context. The details lead us to know how to treat
animals better, they are not a reason to raise animals.
>
>>>>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.
>
> How could they possibly have gratitude for something they're unaware
> of?

They can't, that's just another irrational implication of your ideas. You,
via the LoL, think that people should feel a sense of generosity and
benevolence when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
[good] life", that is the essence of the self-serving tripe that you are
pushing.

>
>>> 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,
>
> I know it doesn't.

You don't know shit.

>> it's a debt you think they owe us.
>
> You're an idiot. They don't owe us anything, and I'm aware of it.

You're not aware of it, shit-for-brains. You think they owe us their lives,
you think that *if* they were capable of gratitude, they ought to be
grateful for the taste of life we provided for them. You think you can pose
as some kind of god that bestows life and deserves but is denied worship by
these stupid beings.

>>>>> 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.
>
> In an accidentally honest moment you pasted the following quote that
> you found somewhere, but could never comprehend:
>
> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a
> mutually
> beneficial contract"

I don't believe that any more. I was trying that idea out to see how it felt
to say it, it felt dirty, I retract it and reject it categorically.

> It's only true for some of them because for some of them it's not, but
> it's
> as close to the truth as you "aras" will ever get. Idiots!

It's not true at all, it was an abominable thing to say.

alt.religion.christian.episcopal restored, being that Karen included it in the first place.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:46:31 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> 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

No, it's based solely on your quotes easily found in
Google archives, so stop lying.

>>You do
>> promote sex between children and adults
>
>No, I do not.

Yes, you do, as shown by your quotes from Google
archives, so stop lying.

>> insisting
>> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
>> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>
>No, I have not.

Yes, you do, as your quote below this line shows
very clearly.

>> "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.

Note the term "on a one-to-one basis." You advocate
that paedophiles should "work in professions where
they come into contact with children" "on a one-to-one
basis."

>> 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

Exactly, and that's why your church officials refused
to take the risk in allowing you or Sylvia near children
under their roof.

>> 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?

I was married at 19, don't forget. That little effort at
trivialising your comment aside, your above quote
shows that you clearly believe society's laws which
protect children from paedophiles are wrong, and that
society should turn a blind eye while paedophiles be
allowed to give them oral sex.

>> You and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
>> church communities where you can come into
>> contact with children,
>
>No, neither of us do.

Yes, you do, but I've seen to it that you were expelled
from one and forced to flee from your most recent one
which specialises in child care.

>> 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.

I don't care where she posted her views.

><snip>

<restore>
"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
<end restore>

>> 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.

"Derek made a threat against me and carried it out. I
made no response to his action, and will not. I want
only to be left alone. He's correct that he drove me
out of my former parish. "
Karen as Cynomis Jan 27 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bhp9y

<restore>
Compounding my concerns are your efforts to hide
from your real identity by openly lying like a common
predator.
<end restore>

Karen Winter, who doesn't like her son as a person (or her fellow
Episcopal, either), wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
> I see you've taken it upon yourself

He notified clergy in your hometown of your PUBLIC posts in defense of
child molestation and bestiality and of Sylvia's contempt for children
and those who have them.

> Note the header. Is this set of lies

Derek didn't lie.

> I know you'd like to see someone kill me.

Doubtful since you're a "moral" (ha) agent.

> You are a terrorist, Derek.

No, he only alerted clergy about what kind of person you are when
you're not sitting in the pews. On the other hand, you've openly
condoned and approved of domestic terrorism in the name of animal
liberation. That makes you a terrorist sympathizer, Karen, and only you
know if you're worthy of a more sinister appelation befitting someone
who'd actually and wantonly destroy the property of others.

> You have no credibility with the
> AR community any longer at all.

Just because he ratted (pardon the pun) you out to your clergy?

> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:09:03 -0600, Karen C Winter
> > > 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

Nobody twisted anything. Your quotes speak for themselves. You endorse
pedophilia and bestiality. In Karen's world, it wouldn't be a crime for
a priest to groom and molest children. In Karen's world, it's perfectly
normal to jack off pet birds at the breakfast table.

> >You do
> > promote sex between children and adults
>
> No, I do not.

Yes, you do.

> I believe that teen-agers can
> consent to many things.

You set the mark a lot lower than teen years, Karen. Anyone who's
interested can read your posts in defense of NAMBLA under the pseudonym
"rat" at google. You've attended their meetings and received their
newsletters, by your OWN voluntary admission, FOR YEARS.

> .... I have *NEVER*
> PROMOTED sex with anyone below the age of consent.

Liar! You've argued vehemently against age of consent laws and deferred
to the "expertise" of NAMBLA on the matter. They're not a civil rights
organization, Karen. Their sole purpose is to make it legal for older
men to molest younger boys.

> You will never find any place where I said it was
> good in and of itself. Not once.

Liar. You wrote repeatedly that people "just don't get it," that young
boys are capable of making the decision to perform oral sex on older
men, get hand jobs, etc.

<snip rest of your lame attempt to spin your reckless and weird past>

"chico chupacabra" anti-Christ > wrote in message ...

> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> > <snip>

pearl wrote:

> > >>NOT (caring) FOR American troops, ',
> >
> > > I do support them
> >
> > Then help bring them home.
>
> I support their mission.

What 'mission' is it today?

> > 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.

'According to The Harring Report as of 2006-08-15, 158,000 U.S. military
were shipped to Iraq, 5,500 deserted, 12,000 were killed and 25,000 seriously
wounded according to DoD unpublished lists. The official total is 2,791 killed.

As of 2005-12-07, .... military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill,
all now out of Iraq, 49,500; .... ~ McLaughlin Group
...
Bush does not count soldiers who die en route to hospital or in hospital in
Germany as deaths. This means the true death count of American soldiers
is over five times higher than Bush is reporting.
...
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqbodycounts.html

Something else you deny:

'U.S. Soldiers Are Sick of It [DU]
http://www.wired.com/news/wireservic...=wn_politics_6

> > 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.

'International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment
yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that
the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines,
Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal
either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also
the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence
permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises
the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law
.... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", ..
...'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

'Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security
council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview
with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright
if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity
with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point
of view it was illegal."
....'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...305709,00.html

'Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated
that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in
conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the
US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law.
Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and
violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their
responsibilities as an occupying power.
...
British Attorney General's Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War
(March 7, 2003)
In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality
of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime
change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's
alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law.
Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot
be the objective of military action."

2006
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg
Prosecutor (August 25, 2006)
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz,
believes US President George W. Bush's aggressive war in Iraq
constitutes a "supreme international crime" capable of prosecution
in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war
were "highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which
unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without
UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due
to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military,
Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein.
(OneWorld)
....'
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...k/lawindex.htm

> > 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.

The Internally Stated US Goal of Securing the Flow of Oil from the
Middle East ... http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

> > and Bush's insane megalomania.
>
> He's neither insane ... nor megalomaniacal.

'Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush
stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions
about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

"Keep those mother****ers away from me," he screamed at an aide
backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can."

Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers
in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about
increasing concern among White House aides over the President's
wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.

Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda,
the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington
University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch:
Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as
a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong
streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to
explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions
and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad"
showcase Bush's instabilities.

"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything
he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape.
I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former
drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated."

Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent
psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA
Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at
Stanford University Medical School.

The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful
anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical
dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never
sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his
cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas
governor and his first campaign for President.

"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and
megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.
.....'
http://www.libertythink.com/2005/07/...pressants.html

> 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.

'Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector
....
The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason
cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item
of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have
followed the declared end of hostilities.
...'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm

> > <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.

'The most reliable statistic of the Iraq war. Lancet the medical journal
states that 100,000 civilians had died as a result of the American
invasion of Iraq as of 2004-10. This did not include Fallujah. This
includes those who died of disease, thirst and starvation as a result of
destroying hospitals, water supplies, sewage treatment plants and
electric plants. The articles are not longer available on Lancet, but
you can read a summary. Read the original paper. <link>
...
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqbodycounts.html

That does not include the hundreds of thousands injured, sick
from DU, and the grieving families and friends of all the above.

> > <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.

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

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change,
is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event
-- like a new Pearl Harbor" (2000) - Project for a New American Century

> > 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.

'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

> > <snip>
> >
> > >>NOT FOR any animals, no matter how brutally and cruelly mistreated
> >
> > True.
>
> No, that's wrong.

It's true. From foie gras, to veal crates, to burning chickens alive., .....

> > >>NOT FOR anyone you disagree with (who hasn't bowed and scraped)
> >
> > Also true.
.....
> > 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

He lied, just like he's lied about me (and others) in the past.

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

> and for being semi-vegetarian.

He had to admit that he 'got it wrong'.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:15:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:25:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:10:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:52:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:a9t6f2h20fvnqvgtdn608q6rgljr5mketd@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:45:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:su1se2hngrgq2hu8n22aef1b0is1g27578@4 ax.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?
>>
>> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
>> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
>> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.
>
>That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those details?

They're significant in regards to considering human influence on animals.

>I recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in response
>to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food, water,
>shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details, so
>what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those things
>for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The Logic
>of the Larder.
>
> > I factor in both the good and the bad.
>
>How do you factor in the bad?

By considering it as well as the good. Do you?

>How do you factor in the good?

By considering it as well as the bad. You don't.

>You don't, you're just mouthing words.
>
>>You "aras"
>
>I'm not an "ara",

You're lying.

>I consume animal products,

But you try not to.

>including meat,

You're lying.

>and I defend our right to do so.

You're just mouthing words.

> only factor in the
>> bad, because the good supports decent AW
>
>No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.
>
>> and works against "ar".
>
>You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your gund with this idiotic
>Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition to
>"ar".

You're lying.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yet you have no clue how or why,
>
>Sure I do,

You're lying
.. . .
>>>> 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.
>>
>> You insist it's irrelevant.
>
>It is irrelevant in this context.

You're lying.

>The details lead us to know how to treat
>animals better, they are not a reason to raise animals.
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>> How could they possibly have gratitude for something they're unaware
>> of?
>
>They can't, that's just another irrational implication of your ideas.

It could only be such an "implication" to an idiot. DUH! You are
admittedly such an idiot.

>You, via the LoL, think that people should feel a sense of generosity and
>benevolence when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
>[good] life", that is the essence of the self-serving tripe that you are
>pushing.

You, via the LoTP, think that people should feel a sense of shame and
guilt when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
[good] life", that is the essence of the selfish "ar" tripe that you "aras"
are pushing.

>>>> 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,
>>
>> I know it doesn't.
>
>You don't know shit.

You're lying.

>>> it's a debt you think they owe us.
>>
>> You're an idiot. They don't owe us anything, and I'm aware of it.
>
>You're not aware of it,

You're lying.

>shit-for-brains. You think they owe us their lives,
>you think that *if* they were capable of gratitude, they ought to be
>grateful for the taste of life we provided for them. You think you can pose
>as some kind of god that bestows life and deserves but is denied worship by
>these stupid beings.

You're lying.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> In an accidentally honest moment you pasted the following quote that
>> you found somewhere, but could never comprehend:
>>
>> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a
>> mutually
>> beneficial contract"
>
>I don't believe that any more.

LOL!!!!!! You never did!

>I was trying that idea out to see how it felt
>to say it, it felt dirty,

Of course it would necessarily feel dirty to an "ara". DUH!

>I retract it and reject it categorically.
>
>> It's only true for some of them because for some of them it's not, but
>> it's
>> as close to the truth as you "aras" will ever get. Idiots!
>
>It's not true at all,

You're lying.

> it was an abominable thing to say.

You're lying.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:15:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]

>>>>It's irrelevant PERIOD. What use are those details?
>>>
>>> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
>>> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
>>> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.
>>
>>That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those details?
>
> They're significant in regards to considering human influence on
> animals.

Except for knowing how to treat animals well, why?

>>I recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in
>>response
>>to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food,
>>water,
>>shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details, so
>>what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those
>>things
>>for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The
>>Logic
>>of the Larder.
>>
>> > I factor in both the good and the bad.
>>
>>How do you factor in the bad?
>
> By considering it as well as the good.

What do you mean by "consider it"? Nobody cares what goes on between your
ears.

> Do you?

I asked you first, and you haven't answered.

>>How do you factor in the good?
>
> By considering it as well as the bad. You don't.

You're just talking, your "considering" is meaningless.

>>You don't, you're just mouthing words.
>>
>>>You "aras"
>>
>>I'm not an "ara",
>
> You're lying.

No, you're an idiot.

>>I consume animal products,
>
> But you try not to.

I limit my meat intake for health reasons, but I eat it almost every day.

>>including meat,
>
> You're lying.

You're pathetic.

>>and I defend our right to do so.
>
> You're just mouthing words.

No, I defend YOUR right to consume animal products, that is a clear,
categorical opinion.

>> only factor in the
>>> bad, because the good supports decent AW
>>
>>No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.
>>
>>> and works against "ar".
>>
>>You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your guns with this
>>idiotic
>>Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition to
>>"ar".
>
> You're lying.

I am telling you the truth. The LoL is an embarrassment to anti-AR.

>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yet you have no clue how or why,
>>
>>Sure I do,
>
> You're lying

Now you're just being desperate.

> . . .
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You insist it's irrelevant.
>>
>>It is irrelevant in this context.
>
> You're lying.

No, again, the plain truth.

>>The details lead us to know how to treat
>>animals better, they are not a reason to raise animals.

And that is why.

>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>> How could they possibly have gratitude for something they're unaware
>>> of?
>>
>>They can't, that's just another irrational implication of your ideas.
>
> It could only be such an "implication" to an idiot. DUH! You are
> admittedly such an idiot.

It's a fact.

>>You, via the LoL, think that people should feel a sense of generosity and
>>benevolence when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
>>[good] life", that is the essence of the self-serving tripe that you are
>>pushing.
>
> You, via the LoTP, think that people should feel a sense of shame and
> guilt when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
> [good] life", that is the essence of the selfish "ar" tripe that you
> "aras"
> are pushing.

Clearly false, I do NOT think anyone should feel shame about causing
livestock animals to experience life, provided they are well treated. I have
never said that. It's also not a cause for pride. Causing livestock animals
to experience life in and of itself is morally neutral.

>
>>>>> 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,
>>>
>>> I know it doesn't.
>>
>>You don't know shit.
>
> You're lying.

Weak.

>>>> it's a debt you think they owe us.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot. They don't owe us anything, and I'm aware of it.
>>
>>You're not aware of it,
>
> You're lying.

Weaker

>>shit-for-brains. You think they owe us their lives,
>>you think that *if* they were capable of gratitude, they ought to be
>>grateful for the taste of life we provided for them. You think you can
>>pose
>>as some kind of god that bestows life and deserves but is denied worship
>>by
>>these stupid beings.
>
> You're lying.

Like an arrow through your Howdy Doody head.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> In an accidentally honest moment you pasted the following quote that
>>> you found somewhere, but could never comprehend:
>>>
>>> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a
>>> mutually
>>> beneficial contract"
>>
>>I don't believe that any more.
>
> LOL!!!!!! You never did!

Well, I believed it long enough to say it..

>>I was trying that idea out to see how it felt
>>to say it, it felt dirty,
>
> Of course it would necessarily feel dirty to an "ara". DUH!
>
>>I retract it and reject it categorically.
>>
>>> It's only true for some of them because for some of them it's not, but
>>> it's
>>> as close to the truth as you "aras" will ever get. Idiots!
>>
>>It's not true at all,
>
> You're lying.

Pitiful

>> it was an abominable thing to say.
>
> You're lying.

Get some sleep or snort some meth or whatever it is you do to jumpstart your
brain.

<dh@.> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >dh asked:
> >
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >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)
>
> How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
> because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
> make anything better?

Your so-called 'research' contributes to the injury and deaths of
*millions* of
people, as well as animals. How many 'researchers have been hurt or
killed?

<dh@.> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:51:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><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.
>
> Good.

Yet more natural habitat taken over for grazing is "good"? Riiiiiight..

<dh@.> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><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?
>
> As selfish as all things which survive where something else could instead,
> which is everything including you.

I look to be a caretaker of God's green Earth, not a thief and
destroyer.

> . . .
>
> >> 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.
>
> Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
> habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
> Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?

I am surrounded by natural habitat. I plant trees and encourage
wildlife.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:15:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>>>It's irrelevant PERIOD. What use are those details?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
>>>> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
>>>> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.
>>>
>>>That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those details?
>>
>> They're significant in regards to considering human influence on
>> animals.
>
>Except for knowing how to treat animals well, why?
>
>>>I recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in
>>>response
>>>to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food,
>>>water,
>>>shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details, so
>>>what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those
>>>things
>>>for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The
>>>Logic
>>>of the Larder.
>>>
>>> > I factor in both the good and the bad.
>>>
>>>How do you factor in the bad?
>>
>> By considering it as well as the good.
>
>What do you mean by "consider it"? Nobody cares what goes on between your
>ears.
>
>> Do you?
>
>I asked you first, and you haven't answered.

Consideration is something you're capable of or you're not. If you're
not capable of considering the bad either, then consideration is just
beyond your ability and that's all there is to it. You trying to understand
consideration for animals is apparently like a monkey trying to understand
what a helicopter is.

>>>How do you factor in the good?
>>
>> By considering it as well as the bad. You don't.
>
>You're just talking, your "considering" is meaningless.

Meaningless to you yes, so we agree.

>>>You don't, you're just mouthing words.
>>>
>>>>You "aras"
>>>
>>>I'm not an "ara",
>>
>> You're lying.
>
>No, you're an idiot.
>
>>>I consume animal products,
>>
>> But you try not to.
>
>I limit my meat intake for health reasons, but I eat it almost every day.
>
>>>including meat,
>>
>> You're lying.
>
>You're pathetic.
>
>>>and I defend our right to do so.
>>
>> You're just mouthing words.
>
>No, I defend YOUR right to consume animal products,

LOL! I mean: Try to.

>that is a clear, categorical opinion.
>
>>> only factor in the
>>>> bad, because the good supports decent AW
>>>
>>>No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>> and works against "ar".
>>>
>>>You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your guns with this
>>>idiotic
>>>Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition to
>>>"ar".
>>
>> You're lying.
>
>I am telling you the truth. The LoL is an embarrassment to anti-AR.

It's just an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras"
necessarily cannot comprehend.

>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you have no clue how or why,
>>>
>>>Sure I do,
>>
>> You're lying
>
>Now you're just being desperate.
>
>> . . .
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You insist it's irrelevant.
>>>
>>>It is irrelevant in this context.
>>
>> You're lying.
>
>No, again, the plain truth.
>
>>>The details lead us to know how to treat
>>>animals better, they are not a reason to raise animals.
>
>And that is why.

"That" was a confused jumbling of unrelated ideas.

>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> How could they possibly have gratitude for something they're unaware
>>>> of?
>>>
>>>They can't, that's just another irrational implication of your ideas.
>>
>> It could only be such an "implication" to an idiot. DUH! You are
>> admittedly such an idiot.
>
>It's a fact.

What I pointed out was a fact yes, so we agree on that too.

>>>You, via the LoL, think that people should feel a sense of generosity and
>>>benevolence when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
>>>[good] life", that is the essence of the self-serving tripe that you are
>>>pushing.
>>
>> You, via the LoTP, think that people should feel a sense of shame and
>> guilt when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
>> [good] life", that is the essence of the selfish "ar" tripe that you
>> "aras"
>> are pushing.
>
>Clearly false, I do NOT think anyone should feel shame about causing
>livestock animals to experience life, provided they are well treated.
>I have never said that.

You have said that "it *is* pure exploitation", so why don't you think
it should cause us to feel shame?

.. . .
>>>> In an accidentally honest moment you pasted the following quote that
>>>> you found somewhere, but could never comprehend:
>>>>
>>>> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's a
>>>> mutually
>>>> beneficial contract"
>>>
>>>I don't believe that any more.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!! You never did!
>
>Well, I believed it long enough to say it..

You never believed it, and obviously never understood it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:15:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>>>It's irrelevant PERIOD. What use are those details?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
>>>>> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
>>>>> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.
>>>>
>>>>That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those
>>>>details?
>>>
>>> They're significant in regards to considering human influence on
>>> animals.
>>
>>Except for knowing how to treat animals well, why?
>>
>>>>I recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in
>>>>response
>>>>to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food,
>>>>water,
>>>>shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details,
>>>>so
>>>>what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those
>>>>things
>>>>for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The
>>>>Logic
>>>>of the Larder.
>>>>
>>>> > I factor in both the good and the bad.
>>>>
>>>>How do you factor in the bad?
>>>
>>> By considering it as well as the good.
>>
>>What do you mean by "consider it"? Nobody cares what goes on between your
>>ears.
>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>>I asked you first, and you haven't answered.
>
> Consideration is something you're capable of or you're not.

That doesn't say what it is. You're hiding what you mean by "consider"
behind equivocations and evasive remarks.

> If you're
> not capable of considering the bad either, then consideration is just
> beyond your ability and that's all there is to it. You trying to
> understand
> consideration for animals is apparently like a monkey trying to understand
> what a helicopter is.

In other words you are either incapable or unwilling to explain what you
mean by "consider". *I* know what you mean by it, but you either don't know,
can't articulate it, or deliberately refuse to say it.

>>>>How do you factor in the good?
>>>
>>> By considering it as well as the bad. You don't.
>>
>>You're just talking, your "considering" is meaningless.
>
> Meaningless to you yes, so we agree.

It's meaningless, period. "Considering" does not say or describe anything. I
am "considering" children, what am I doing? Am I doing something good, bad,
neutral, what? You don't know, because the statement is too vague. You're
hiding behind vague rhetoric, evasions and equivocations.

>>>>You don't, you're just mouthing words.
>>>>
>>>>>You "aras"
>>>>
>>>>I'm not an "ara",
>>>
>>> You're lying.
>>
>>No, you're an idiot.
>>
>>>>I consume animal products,
>>>
>>> But you try not to.
>>
>>I limit my meat intake for health reasons, but I eat it almost every day.
>>
>>>>including meat,
>>>
>>> You're lying.
>>
>>You're pathetic.
>>
>>>>and I defend our right to do so.
>>>
>>> You're just mouthing words.
>>
>>No, I defend YOUR right to consume animal products,
>
> LOL! I mean: Try to.

I just did, I made a clear and categorical statement in support of your
right to consume animal products. What did you expect?

>>that is a clear, categorical opinion.
>>
>>>> only factor in the
>>>>> bad, because the good supports decent AW
>>>>
>>>>No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.
>>>>
>>>>> and works against "ar".
>>>>
>>>>You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your guns with this
>>>>idiotic
>>>>Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition to
>>>>"ar".
>>>
>>> You're lying.
>>
>>I am telling you the truth. The LoL is an embarrassment to anti-AR.
>
> It's just an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras"
> necessarily cannot comprehend.

I comprehend it perfectly, it is self-defeating sophistry. You arrange the
birth of animals, then kill them, then when some critic says that it is
wrong to kill them, you argue that if you didn't arrange their birth in the
first place they would not have existed at all, as if that somehow excuses
killing them. That argument is a tacit concession that your critic has a
point, that it was wrong to kill the animal. I realize that you are unable
to see this, but it's true. The correct response to this critic is that it
is not per se wrong to kill an animal for legitimate reasons, that includes
animals we raise for food, animals in the wild used for food, or animals we
kill collaterally in the course of our lives. The last two categories are
not "arranged" births of animals yet they are right per se for the same
reasons that it is right to kill animals we farm.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you have no clue how or why,
>>>>
>>>>Sure I do,
>>>
>>> You're lying
>>
>>Now you're just being desperate.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You insist it's irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>It is irrelevant in this context.
>>>
>>> You're lying.
>>
>>No, again, the plain truth.
>>
>>>>The details lead us to know how to treat
>>>>animals better, they are not a reason to raise animals.
>>
>>And that is why.
>
> "That" was a confused jumbling of unrelated ideas.

No, it was a simple point of fact. The only reason we study the "details" of
what makes the lives of animals good is so we can provide and promote the
conditions that support them. It has nothing to do with your circular
justification for breeding livestock.

>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>> How could they possibly have gratitude for something they're unaware
>>>>> of?
>>>>
>>>>They can't, that's just another irrational implication of your ideas.
>>>
>>> It could only be such an "implication" to an idiot. DUH! You are
>>> admittedly such an idiot.
>>
>>It's a fact.
>
> What I pointed out was a fact yes, so we agree on that too.

Weak..

>>>>You, via the LoL, think that people should feel a sense of generosity
>>>>and
>>>>benevolence when their consumption leads to animals "getting to
>>>>experience
>>>>[good] life", that is the essence of the self-serving tripe that you are
>>>>pushing.
>>>
>>> You, via the LoTP, think that people should feel a sense of shame and
>>> guilt when their consumption leads to animals "getting to experience
>>> [good] life", that is the essence of the selfish "ar" tripe that you
>>> "aras"
>>> are pushing.
>>
>>Clearly false, I do NOT think anyone should feel shame about causing
>>livestock animals to experience life, provided they are well treated.
>>I have never said that.
>
> You have said that "it *is* pure exploitation", so why don't you think
> it should cause us to feel shame?

Because we're animals, and all animals exploit their environment including
other animals in the best way they are able in order to survive and thrive.
You are taking the word exploitation as a pjorative, I am not. Exploitation,
like discrimination, is a word which has a legitimate, positive meaning and
it also has a common pjorative context where the adjective "unfair or
unjust" is implied. Exploitation of animals for food where they are treated
properly is not unfair or unjust in my opinion. The Logic of the Larder
implies that it *is* unjust, but that it is counterbalanced by the animal
"getting to experience life".

> . . .
>>>>> In an accidentally honest moment you pasted the following quote
>>>>> that
>>>>> you found somewhere, but could never comprehend:
>>>>>
>>>>> "We give them life. They give us their lives, and our lifestyles. It's
>>>>> a
>>>>> mutually
>>>>> beneficial contract"
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe that any more.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!!! You never did!
>>
>>Well, I believed it long enough to say it..
>
> You never believed it, and obviously never understood it.

I understood it perfectly, which is why I rejected it then and reject it
now.

pearl wrote:

> <dh@.> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:51:49 +0100, "pearl" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > ><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.
> >
> > Good.
>
> Yet more natural habitat taken over for grazing is "good"?
> Riiiiiight..

Why did you decide to settle down on a muddy little island that had long
ago been razed for agricultural use -- like grazing sheep and cattle?

pearl wrote:

> <dh@.> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > ><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?
> >
> > As selfish as all things which survive where something else
> > could instead,
> > which is everything including you.
>
> I look to be a caretaker of God's green Earth, not a thief and
> destroyer.
>
> > . . .
> >
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
> > habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
> > Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?
>
> I am surrounded by natural habitat.

The typical "habitat" of Ireland isn't "natural."

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> muddy little island

'Houston & Texas
Spectators look on at the Lockhart cattle auction Thursday.
Bill Hyman, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's
Association of Texas, calls it "sort of a depressing scene for
a lot of these folks."
Chris Carson: For The Chronicle

Aug. 18, 2006, 11:56PM
'IT'S GETTING WORSE AND WORSE'
An extreme drought is taking a heavy toll on Texas ranchers,
who are often forced to sell at a loss when they go to auction

LEAN TIMES IN CATTLE COUNTRY
By LISA FALKENBERG

LOCKHART - The drought was everywhere at this week's
cattle auction.

It was in the rows of trailers that swamped the parking lot like a
super Wal-Mart. It was in the protruding ribs of skinny cows
being sold after months of too little to eat. It was on the tongue
of every rancher who'd lost his bet with Mother Nature and was
forced to sell long before his cows were ready - at a hefty loss.

And despite his joking demeanor, it was in the worried blue eyes
of Bodey Langford, 55, who was at his third auction this week,
selling off the last of his calves so he can afford to keep feeding
their mothers.

"Every week, they keep talking about a chance of rain and you
hold on and it doesn't rain. Sooner or later you just got to throw
in the towel," said Langford, of the nearby Central Texas town
of Fentress. "It's emotionally pretty tough. My wife says I'm
pretty hard to get along with these days."

The scene in Lockhart on Thursday is a common one these days
as an extreme drought threatens the No. 1 cattle-producing state
in the nation, baking pastureland, draining stock tanks and forcing
ranchers to either sell off their herds or keep pouring profits into
keeping them alive.

As hay becomes increasingly rare, the price for a bale has
doubled in Central Texas, from about $40 last year to $70-$80
now, ranchers say. The government hasn't offered the ranchers
any livestock assistance this year.

Cow slaughter was up 32 percent from January to June in Texas
and surrounding states, compared with last year, according to the
Texas Agricultural Statistics Service. The number of cows and
calves being auctioned was up 13 percent from last year, the
service reported.

Lockhart's auction ran about 2,300 head this week, twice as
many as usual, said the auction's co-owner Tim Von Dohlen.

Ascending rows of ranchers and buyers in straw hats and plaid
shirts settled into their seats, some preparing to stay till midnight,
as one cow after another barreled through a semi-circular cage
to the rhythm of the auctioneer, his microphoned voice belting out
a steady waltz of breed names, bids and occasional commentary.

"There's still a little something to eat where she come from," the
auctioneer bellowed, enticing offers for a beefy brown cow.

Buyers shook their bidding cards, touched their noses or raised
a hand to signal their bid.
Many cows were strong, young ones being sold only because
the rancher had already culled his oldest, least valuable.

Despite the relatively strong cow and calf markets, many cows,
thinned by the drought, went for hundreds less than they would
otherwise. One of the main buyers was a San Antonio packing
plant.

"This is sort of a depressing scene for a lot of these folks because
they're watching some pretty good cows sell and there's nobody
buying them (for breeding). They're all going to slaughter,"
Bill Hyman, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's
Association of Texas, said as he watched the auction.

'It's not the first time'

"For every one of those cows that were sold today, that's
a calf that will not be sold next year," he said.

After a half century of ranching, the scene wasn't anything
new to Charles Krause.

The Elgin rancher got his start during one of the worst
droughts Texas has ever known and doesn't agonize too
much over selling nearly half his herd.

"When it gets bad, you just got to dump them. It's painful
but it's just part of what you got to do," said Krause, working
on a lip of Levi Garrett tobacco. "It's not the first time it's
happened. It won't be the last if we live long enough."

But it's the worst 51-year-old Regina Durrett has seen.
Having already sold half her herd, she's hoping an unexpected
rain will save the rest, which are growing thinner, but not so
thin they can't walk off a trailer.

Water is also a concern for the cows Durrett keeps in Gonzales,
where the Guadalupe River is so low, thirsty cows are walking
across it.

She's watering her cows with a hose that runs from an outside
faucet to troughs in the pasture.

"It's getting worse and worse, to where we may have to sell
them all," she said.

Ranchers like Langford wouldn't do anything else. A fourth-
generation rancher, he's got cow manure on his jeans and
cattle in his blood.

"The world needs us," said Langford, who owns three ranches,
including one in West Texas. "We keep a lot of people alive
and there's some satisfaction in that."

Prospects grim

Still, he knows that the calves he sold mean his cash flow for
next year is virtually depleted: "It means a lot more time in the
banker's office," he says.

He sold his "product" to keep the "factory" - the cows - going.
He's feeding them with corn, maize, anything farmers will sell them
from their failed crops. It's a low-quality hay, but it keeps their
stomachs full, he says.

After 27 years of ranching, Langford is also realistic. Without
rain or government assistance, his prospects are grim.

"If this goes on like this for six or seven more months, I'll be out
of business," he says, then smiles slightly. "I don't know what I'll
do. I'll go to work at McDonald's or something."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4127562.html

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:

> > I am surrounded by natural habitat. I plant trees and encourage wildlife.
>
> The typical "habitat" of Ireland isn't "natural."

So? Don't fish for descriptions of where I live, chico.

On 2 Sep 2006 11:44:56 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> >dh asked:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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)
>>
>> How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
>> because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
>> make anything better?
>
>Your so-called 'research' contributes to the injury and deaths of
>*millions* of
>people, as well as animals. How many 'researchers have been hurt or
>killed?

"ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better or you would
have pointed out how you think it has by now. All we're left with is the fact that
it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.

On 2 Sep 2006 11:59:04 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:51:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><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.
>>
>> Good.
>
>Yet more natural habitat taken over for grazing is "good"? Riiiiiight..

Those of us who understand that there are cds involved with
crop production can understand why. Those of you who deny
that there are can not.

On 2 Sep 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><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?
>>
>> As selfish as all things which survive where something else could instead,
>> which is everything including you.
>
>I look to be a caretaker of God's green Earth, not a thief and
>destroyer.

You are a thief and destroyer, but you lie about it saying you're not.
Most people are more honest.

>> . . .
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
>> habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
>> Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?
>
>I am surrounded by natural habitat. I plant trees and encourage
>wildlife.

Grazing is areas are just as good or better and therefore okay. You
dishonestly only mentioned your opinion about where you live, and not
where your food is produced and places where you shop.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:20:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:15:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>>>It's irrelevant PERIOD. What use are those details?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
>>>>>> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
>>>>>> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those
>>>>>details?
>>>>
>>>> They're significant in regards to considering human influence on
>>>> animals.
>>>
>>>Except for knowing how to treat animals well, why?
>>>
>>>>>I recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in
>>>>>response
>>>>>to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food,
>>>>>water,
>>>>>shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details,
>>>>>so
>>>>>what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those
>>>>>things
>>>>>for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The
>>>>>Logic
>>>>>of the Larder.
>>>>>
>>>>> > I factor in both the good and the bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you factor in the bad?
>>>>
>>>> By considering it as well as the good.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "consider it"? Nobody cares what goes on between your
>>>ears.
>>>
>>>> Do you?
>>>
>>>I asked you first, and you haven't answered.
>>
>> Consideration is something you're capable of or you're not.
>
>That doesn't say what it is. You're hiding what you mean by "consider"
>behind equivocations and evasive remarks.
>
>> If you're
>> not capable of considering the bad either, then consideration is just
>> beyond your ability and that's all there is to it. You trying to
>> understand
>> consideration for animals is apparently like a monkey trying to understand
>> what a helicopter is.
>
>In other words you are either incapable or unwilling to explain what you
>mean by "consider".

IF you are capable of consideration of anything in regards to animals,
explain what and how. If not then you just can't.
.. . .
>>>I defend YOUR right to consume animal products,
>>
>> LOL! I mean: Try to.
>
>I just did, I made a clear and categorical statement in support of your
>right to consume animal products.

Try pasting what you think you're trying to talk about then:

>What did you expect?

I expected you to try, which apparently you can't do. Saying
you've done it is simply lying. Presenting what you think you've
done so people can see what you think you're talking about
could be considered as an attempt, but obviously you can't
even do that much meaning that you're lying and you know it.

>>>that is a clear, categorical opinion.
>>>
>>>>> only factor in the
>>>>>> bad, because the good supports decent AW
>>>>>
>>>>>No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and works against "ar".
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your guns with this
>>>>>idiotic
>>>>>Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition to
>>>>>"ar".
>>>>
>>>> You're lying.
>>>
>>>I am telling you the truth. The LoL is an embarrassment to anti-AR.
>>
>> It's just an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras"
>> necessarily cannot comprehend.
>
>I comprehend it perfectly, it is self-defeating sophistry. You arrange the
>birth of animals, then kill them, then when some critic says that it is
>wrong to kill them, you argue that if you didn't arrange their birth in the
>first place they would not have existed at all,

That much is fact.

>as if that somehow excuses killing them.

Some people consider lives of positive value for animals to be
a good thing. Others of you don't think it should be taken into
consideration when we think about human influence on animals.

>That argument is a tacit concession that your critic has a
>point, that it was wrong to kill the animal. I realize that you are unable
>to see this, but it's true.

I do see it and take it farther than you "aras" by also factoring
in the animals' lives as well as their deaths. Taking their lives into
consideration includes a factor which can change a person's
opinion regarding the killing...depending on quality of life. That
consideration is necessarily something to be avoided for people
in favor of "ar", but is very significant for people who are willing
to consider all aspects of human influence on animals. Duh.

>The correct response to this critic is that it
>is not per se wrong to kill an animal for legitimate reasons,

That would require a person to accept YOUR opinion as
some sort of authority or deciding factor, without taking the
animals' interests into consideration at all. The very idea
itself is absurd, and even more so when we take into account
that you're "position" changes any time it suites you to change it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:20:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:04:16 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:15:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's irrelevant PERIOD. What use are those details?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously none to you, which shows that you were lying when you
>>>>>>> said you understand. How could you possibly understand without
>>>>>>> knowing any details about it? Answer: You necessarily could not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's an evasion, I asked a simple question.. What use are those
>>>>>>details?
>>>>>
>>>>> They're significant in regards to considering human influence on
>>>>> animals.
>>>>
>>>>Except for knowing how to treat animals well, why?
>>>>
>>>>>>I recently listed a number of positive circumstances for livestock in
>>>>>>response
>>>>>>to a question from you, including space, association, adequate food,
>>>>>>water,
>>>>>>shelter, surroundings that do not enduce stress. There's some details,
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>what? The only use those details have is to lead us to provide those
>>>>>>things
>>>>>>for animals, improve Animal Welfare, they do nothing to reinforce The
>>>>>>Logic
>>>>>>of the Larder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I factor in both the good and the bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you factor in the bad?
>>>>>
>>>>> By considering it as well as the good.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "consider it"? Nobody cares what goes on between
>>>>your
>>>>ears.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you?
>>>>
>>>>I asked you first, and you haven't answered.
>>>
>>> Consideration is something you're capable of or you're not.
>>
>>That doesn't say what it is. You're hiding what you mean by "consider"
>>behind equivocations and evasive remarks.

Because you're a lying sophist.

>>> If you're
>>> not capable of considering the bad either, then consideration is just
>>> beyond your ability and that's all there is to it. You trying to
>>> understand
>>> consideration for animals is apparently like a monkey trying to
>>> understand
>>> what a helicopter is.
>>
>>In other words you are either incapable or unwilling to explain what you
>>mean by "consider".
>
> IF you are capable of consideration of anything in regards to animals,
> explain what and how. If not then you just can't.

Another lying evasive remark, I described above and in recent posts
precisely what I "consider" regarding livestock. You still refuse to do so.

. . .
>>>>I defend YOUR right to consume animal products,
>>>
>>> LOL! I mean: Try to.
>>
>>I just did, I made a clear and categorical statement in support of your
>>right to consume animal products.
>
> Try pasting what you think you're trying to talk about then:

WTF are talking about you obtuse prick? *I defend YOUR RIGHT to consume
animal products*

>>What did you expect?
>
> I expected you to try, which apparently you can't do. Saying
> you've done it is simply lying. Presenting what you think you've
> done so people can see what you think you're talking about
> could be considered as an attempt, but obviously you can't
> even do that much meaning that you're lying and you know it.

I just defended your right to use animal products, do you want me to buy you
a hamburger to prove it?

>>>>that is a clear, categorical opinion.
>>>>
>>>>>> only factor in the
>>>>>>> bad, because the good supports decent AW
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No stupid, decent AW supports the good, not the other way around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and works against "ar".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're not working against "ar", but sticking to your guns with this
>>>>>>idiotic
>>>>>>Logic of the Larder you're making a mockery of legitimate opposition
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>"ar".
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying.
>>>>
>>>>I am telling you the truth. The LoL is an embarrassment to anti-AR.
>>>
>>> It's just an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras"
>>> necessarily cannot comprehend.
>>
>>I comprehend it perfectly, it is self-defeating sophistry. You arrange the
>>birth of animals, then kill them, then when some critic says that it is
>>wrong to kill them, you argue that if you didn't arrange their birth in
>>the
>>first place they would not have existed at all,
>
> That much is fact.

Yes it is, but it doesn't answer the critic, at all. If you were criticized
for beating your children would you respond that they "get to experience
life"? It's true, but it's a non-sequitur, not admissable as an argument.

>>as if that somehow excuses killing them.
>
> Some people consider lives of positive value for animals to be
> a good thing.

It is a good thing.

> Others of you don't think it should be taken into
> consideration when we think about human influence on animals.

I think it should be taken into consideration, in this way; if we make an
effort to make animal's lives positive then it is moral to use them, if we
don't it isn't.

>>That argument is a tacit concession that your critic has a
>>point, that it was wrong to kill the animal. I realize that you are unable
>>to see this, but it's true.
>
> I do see it and take it farther than you "aras" by also factoring
> in the animals' lives as well as their deaths.

You are not morally permitted to "factor in their lives" in the way you
propose.

>Taking their lives into
> consideration includes a factor which can change a person's
> opinion regarding the killing...depending on quality of life.

That is factoring in the "conditions" of their lives, not their lives per
se. You're equivocating AGAIN.

>That
> consideration is necessarily something to be avoided for people
> in favor of "ar",

The "consideration" you advocate is to be avoided by everyone, it's
inadmissable.

> but is very significant for people who are willing
> to consider all aspects of human influence on animals. Duh.

It's significant to cheap sophists.

You're equivocating. The consideration of the treatment of animals is called
"Animal Welfare", it means that we are morally obliged to treat the animals
we use humanely. It does not allow for us to take credit for causing animals
to "experience life" or to attack vegetarians for failing to "support lives
for animals".

>>The correct response to this critic is that it
>>is not per se wrong to kill an animal for legitimate reasons,
>
> That would require a person to accept YOUR opinion as
> some sort of authority or deciding factor,

It's not only MY opinion, society has dictated that "promotion of life" is
not an arguable point when answering for treatment of a sentient being. This
is intuitively obvious to almost everyone.

> without taking the
> animals' interests into consideration at all.

False, the animal's interest is critical, that consideration is dealt with
under AW, not LoL, which is nothing but a circular and illegitimate ruse to
justify the use of animals.

> The very idea
> itself is absurd, and even more so when we take into account
> that you're "position" changes any time it suites you to change it.

What is absurd is the notion that we can answer our critics by stating that
livestock "get to experience life". That is never a valid response under any
circumstances.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 2 Sep 2006 11:59:04 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:51:49 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><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.
> >>
> >> Good.
> >
> >Yet more natural habitat taken over for grazing is "good"? Riiiiiight..
>
> Those of us who understand that there are cds involved with
> crop production can understand why. Those of you who deny
> that there are can not.

You STILL understand NOTHING. You're a waste of space.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 2 Sep 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><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?
> >>
> >> As selfish as all things which survive where something else could instead,
> >> which is everything including you.
> >
> >I look to be a caretaker of God's green Earth, not a thief and
> >destroyer.
>
> You are a thief and destroyer, but you lie about it saying you're not.
> Most people are more honest.

You're the liar, the thief and destroyer.

> >> . . .
> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
> >> habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
> >> Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?
> >
> >I am surrounded by natural habitat. I plant trees and encourage
> >wildlife.
>
> Grazing is areas are just as good or better and therefore okay.

FALSE. See other posts.

> You
> dishonestly only mentioned your opinion about where you live, and not
> where your food is produced and places where you shop.

I have a vegetable and fruit garden. What I have to buy, I buy organic.

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 2 Sep 2006 11:44:56 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >dh asked:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >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)
> >>
> >> How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
> >> because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
> >> make anything better?
> >
> >Your so-called 'research' contributes to the injury and deaths of *millions* of
> >people, as well as animals. How many 'researchers have been hurt or killed?
>
> "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better or you would
> have pointed out how you think it has by now. All we're left with is the fact that
> it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.

Your so-called 'research' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
humans and other animals. How many 'researchers' have been hurt or killed?

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:28:15 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 2 Sep 2006 11:44:56 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >dh asked:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >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)
>> >>
>> >> How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
>> >> because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
>> >> make anything better?
>> >
>> >Your so-called 'research' contributes to the injury and deaths of *millions* of
>> >people, as well as animals. How many 'researchers have been hurt or killed?
>>
>> "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better or you would
>> have pointed out how you think it has by now. All we're left with is the fact that
>> it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.
>
>Your so-called 'research' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
>humans and other animals. How many 'researchers' have been hurt or killed?

One is too many. "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better,
though it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:24:09 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 2 Sep 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><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?
>> >>
>> >> As selfish as all things which survive where something else could instead,
>> >> which is everything including you.
>> >
>> >I look to be a caretaker of God's green Earth, not a thief and
>> >destroyer.
>>
>> You are a thief and destroyer, but you lie about it saying you're not.
>> Most people are more honest.
>
>You're the liar,

No.

>the thief and destroyer.

So are you.

>> >> . . .
>> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
>> >> habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
>> >> Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?
>> >
>> >I am surrounded by natural habitat. I plant trees and encourage
>> >wildlife.
>>
>> Grazing is areas are just as good or better and therefore okay.
>
>FALSE. See other posts.

Everything supports what I pointed out.

>> You
>> dishonestly only mentioned your opinion about where you live, and not
>> where your food is produced and places where you shop.
>
>I have a vegetable and fruit garden. What I have to buy, I buy organic.
>
>'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
>greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
>organic farms, as outlined below:
>- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
>species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
>only on organic farms.
>- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
>autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
>skylark breeding rates.
>- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
>bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
>one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
>many spider species.
>- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
>numbers of pest butterflies.
>- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
>had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
>in the cropped areas of the fields.
>- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
>were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
>had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
>..'
>http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

LOL! But you don't believe there are a significant number of
frogs in rice fields.

This thread is 90% garbage.

Lol.

To the original question - you want to become vegan, then give it a go.

Don't be put off by people with less conviction.

To me eating meat and dairy products today is at best due to ignorance,
and at worst due to delusional gluttony.

Love,

Blueshark ,)


dh@. wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2006 20:29:47 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
>
> >Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.
>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
> Here we see plowing:
> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>
> and here harrowing:
> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>
> both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
> and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
> kills in similar ways:
> http://tinyurl.com/k6sku
>
> and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
> kept in mind:
> http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5
>
> Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
> it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
> them to predators:
> http://tinyurl.com/otp5l
>
> In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
> by flooding:
> http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3
>
> and later by draining and destroying the environment which
> developed as the result of the flooding:
> http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3
>
> Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
> as much suffering and death. ·
> http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:03:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>dh pointed out:
>
>> IF you are capable of consideration of anything in regards to animals,
>> explain what and how. If not then you just can't.
>
>Another lying evasive remark, I described above and in recent posts
>precisely what I "consider" regarding livestock.

We've narrowed it down to the fact that you think you would lose
imaginary moral points of whatever type if you consider the animals'
lives as well as their deaths, but since you can't explain how or why
that so far can only be viewed as incredible inconsideration and
selfishness on your part.

>You still refuse to do so.

I consider their lives as well as their deaths. If you could consider
either, you should at least be able to comprehend how a person
could consider both even though you "aras" necessarily are in
no position to do so. If you can't, then it's just beyond your ability
as I keep pointing out.

> . . .
>>>>>I defend YOUR right to consume animal products,
>>>>
>>>> LOL! I mean: Try to.
>>>
>>>I just did, I made a clear and categorical statement in support of your
>>>right to consume animal products.
>>
>> Try pasting what you think you're trying to talk about then:
>
>WTF are talking about you obtuse prick? *I defend YOUR RIGHT to consume
>animal products*

LOL! You haven't defended anything. All you've done is claimed that
you have without actually doing it.

.. . .
>> Some people consider lives of positive value for animals to be
>> a good thing.
>
>It is a good thing.
>
>> Others of you don't think it should be taken into
>> consideration when we think about human influence on animals.
>
>I think it should be taken into consideration, in this way; if we make an
>effort to make animal's lives positive then it is moral to use them, if we
>don't it isn't.
>
>>>That argument is a tacit concession that your critic has a
>>>point, that it was wrong to kill the animal. I realize that you are unable
>>>to see this, but it's true.
>>
>> I do see it and take it farther than you "aras" by also factoring
>> in the animals' lives as well as their deaths.
>
>You are not morally permitted to "factor in their lives" in the way you
>propose.
>
>>Taking their lives into
>> consideration includes a factor which can change a person's
>> opinion regarding the killing...depending on quality of life.
>
>That is factoring in the "conditions" of their lives, not their lives per
>se.

It's factoring in both, which you admittedly can not do.

>You're equivocating AGAIN.

You're trying to discuss something that I understood
from personal experience for years BEFORE I even started
posting about it, but you have never understood, apparently
never will, and have even changed your own views about
significantly just during the time we've been arguing about it
the past couple of years. You're so far behind I doubt you
ever COULD catch up if you tried, and you never will make
the attempt.

On 6 Sep 2006 01:19:00 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:

>This thread is 90% garbage.

What I present are facts. Yes they are facts which veg*ns hate
and don't want people to take into consideration, but we've known
for years the reason for that is because veg*ns care more about
promoting veg*nism and their own imaginary moral browny points
than they care about human influence on animals. Anyone interested
more in human influence on animals needs to take the facts I point
out into consideration, ESPECIALLY because "aras" do NOT want
anyone to do so. People who are truly interested in human influence
on animals need to consider facts that "aras" hate as well as the
ones they love.

.. . .
>To me eating meat and dairy products today is at best due to ignorance,
>and at worst due to delusional gluttony.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

<dh@.> evaded as usual..

> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:03:27 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>dh pointed out:
>>
>>> IF you are capable of consideration of anything in regards to
>>> animals,
>>> explain what and how. If not then you just can't.
>>
>>Another lying evasive remark, I described above and in recent posts
>>precisely what I "consider" regarding livestock.
>
> We've narrowed it down to the fact that you think you would lose
> imaginary moral points of whatever type if you consider the animals'
> lives as well as their deaths, but since you can't explain how or why
> that so far can only be viewed as incredible inconsideration and
> selfishness on your part.

That paragraph contained several equivocations. You equivocated on the word
"life" between "coming into existence" and "the content and quality of that
existence" and you equivocated on the word "consideration" between "to think
about something" and "to be generous towards" it. Are you aware that you do
this, or is just a reflex?

>>You still refuse to do so.
>
> I consider their lives as well as their deaths.

You are equivocating again.

> If you could consider
> either, you should at least be able to comprehend how a person
> could consider both

I know how you "could", I am telling you that you "shouldn't".

even though you "aras" necessarily are in
> no position to do so. If you can't, then it's just beyond your ability
> as I keep pointing out.

A child molester "considers" that they are giving children valuable lessons
in sex. Does that mean they have enhanced powers of "consideration" like
you? People "consider" illegitimately to suit their own agendas, and that is
what you are doing.

>> . . .
>>>>>>I defend YOUR right to consume animal products,
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! I mean: Try to.
>>>>
>>>>I just did, I made a clear and categorical statement in support of your
>>>>right to consume animal products.
>>>
>>> Try pasting what you think you're trying to talk about then:
>>
>>WTF are talking about you obtuse prick? *I defend YOUR RIGHT to consume
>>animal products*
>
> LOL! You haven't defended anything. All you've done is claimed that
> you have without actually doing it.

Do I need to hire a private security force to protect you so you aren't
attacked by vegans in the meat aisle of the grocery store? Do you want me to
lobby the government in ****witland to prevent them from making the
consumption of animal products illegal? There is nothing to do but stand up
and take the position. Do you think promoting bullshit like the LoL is
helping your right to consume animal products? Do you think I should defend
your stupidity to prove I defend your rights?

> . . .
>>> Some people consider lives of positive value for animals to be
>>> a good thing.
>>
>>It is a good thing.
>>
>>> Others of you don't think it should be taken into
>>> consideration when we think about human influence on animals.
>>
>>I think it should be taken into consideration, in this way; if we make an
>>effort to make animal's lives positive then it is moral to use them, if we
>>don't it isn't.
>>
>>>>That argument is a tacit concession that your critic has a
>>>>point, that it was wrong to kill the animal. I realize that you are
>>>>unable
>>>>to see this, but it's true.
>>>
>>> I do see it and take it farther than you "aras" by also factoring
>>> in the animals' lives as well as their deaths.
>>
>>You are not morally permitted to "factor in their lives" in the way you
>>propose.
>>
>>>Taking their lives into
>>> consideration includes a factor which can change a person's
>>> opinion regarding the killing...depending on quality of life.
>>
>>That is factoring in the "conditions" of their lives, not their lives per
>>se.
>
> It's factoring in both, which you admittedly can not do.

Stop equivocating. The fact that livestock "get to experience life" is of no
relevance.

>>You're equivocating AGAIN.
>
> You're trying to discuss something that I understood
> from personal experience for years BEFORE I even started
> posting about it, but you have never understood, apparently
> never will,

Personal experience has nothing to do with this. It is illogical and
inadmissible to "consider" the lives (existence) of livestock, or of any
other creature when answering the question if it is moral to act in a
specific way towards them. The act must be defended and stand on it's own
merits or be judged as wrong. Nothing you do to or with your children, or
your pets, or livestock, can be judged right or wrong based on their
"experiencing life". You're simply begging the question.

and have even changed your own views about
> significantly just during the time we've been arguing about it
> the past couple of years. You're so far behind I doubt you
> ever COULD catch up if you tried, and you never will make
> the attempt.

It is apparent from this that you have held this delusion since you were a
stupid kid, that explains why you can't let go of it as a stupid adult.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On 6 Sep 2006 01:19:00 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>
>>This thread is 90% garbage.
>
> What I present are facts.

You present facts, but you draw illogical and inadmissible conclusions from
some of them. Some of the points you make are valid, but your insistence
that animals "getting to experience life" has a place in the debate destroys
your credibility.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:28:15 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:44:56 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >dh asked:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >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)
> >> >>
> >> >> How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
> >> >> because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
> >> >> make anything better?
> >> >
> >> >Your so-called 'research' contributes to the injury and deaths of *millions* of
> >> >people, as well as animals. How many 'researchers have been hurt or killed?
> >>
> >> "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better or you would
> >> have pointed out how you think it has by now. All we're left with is the fact that
> >> it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.
> >
> >Your so-called 'research' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
> >humans and other animals. How many 'researchers' have been hurt or killed?
>
> One is too many. "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better,
> though it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.

Show us evidence that --one-- researcher has been harmed or killed. Meanwhile,
your so-called 'research' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
humans and other animals. "One is too many". A few act in "extreme" ways to
stop it. By rights, those responsible should be held to account in a court of law,
the medical/healthcare system overhauled from top to bottom, with emphasis on
prevention and maintaining good health with a healthy diet and lifestyle, naturally.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:24:09 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On 2 Sep 2006 12:01:22 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:12:21 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><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?
> >> >>
> >> >> As selfish as all things which survive where something else could instead,
> >> >> which is everything including you.
> >> >
> >> >I look to be a caretaker of God's green Earth, not a thief and
> >> >destroyer.
> >>
> >> You are a thief and destroyer, but you lie about it saying you're not.
> >> Most people are more honest.
> >
> >You're the liar,
>
> No.

Yes. It's been absolutely established.

> >the thief and destroyer.
>
> So are you.

No, I am not.

> >> >> . . .
> >> >>
> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why shouldn't the places where YOUR food is produced be natural
> >> >> habitat? Why shouldn't the place where YOU live be natural habitat?
> >> >> Why shouldn't the places where YOU shop be natural habitat?
> >> >
> >> >I am surrounded by natural habitat. I plant trees and encourage
> >> >wildlife.
> >>
> >> Grazing is areas are just as good or better and therefore okay.
> >
> >FALSE. See other posts.
>
> Everything supports what I pointed out.

Absolutely not. You have to be completely delusional to think that.

> >> You
> >> dishonestly only mentioned your opinion about where you live, and not
> >> where your food is produced and places where you shop.
> >
> >I have a vegetable and fruit garden. What I have to buy, I buy organic.
> >
> >'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
> >greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
> >organic farms, as outlined below:
> >- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
> >species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
> >only on organic farms.
> >- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
> >autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
> >skylark breeding rates.
> >- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
> >bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
> >one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
> >many spider species.
> >- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
> >numbers of pest butterflies.
> >- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
> >had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
> >in the cropped areas of the fields.
> >- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
> >were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
> >had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
> >..'
> >http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm
>
> LOL! But you don't believe there are a significant number of
> frogs in rice fields.

Those rice fields are left to dry. Any frogs would go back to their
nearby established habitat - from where they come into the fields.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 00:22:07 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:28:15 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:44:56 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message
>> >> .. .
>> >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:34:06 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >dh asked:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >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)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How does "ara" terrorism destroying research, raising the cost of research
>> >> >> because of stupid, useless childish "ar" destruction, and causing more suffering
>> >> >> make anything better?
>> >> >
>> >> >Your so-called 'research' contributes to the injury and deaths of *millions* of
>> >> >people, as well as animals. How many 'researchers have been hurt or killed?
>> >>
>> >> "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better or you would
>> >> have pointed out how you think it has by now. All we're left with is the fact that
>> >> it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.
>> >
>> >Your so-called 'research' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
>> >humans and other animals. How many 'researchers' have been hurt or killed?
>>
>> One is too many. "ar" terrorism has done nothing to make anything any better,
>> though it's responsible for more suffering for countless humans and other animals.
>
>Show us evidence that --one-- researcher has been harmed or killed.

Fortunately normal people are well aware of you freaks terrorist activities, and
for that reason only few have been injured. Here's a list of some of the actions you
love, so I'll leave it to you to explain which ones you love the most and why:
__________________________________________________ _______
April 4, 2005 Burton, UK:
In letters to the media, a group calling itself the Animal Rights Militia
offered to return “one-sixth” of the remains of the 82 year old
mother-in-law of a part-owner of Darley Oakes Farm, which raises guinea
pigs for biomedical research. The woman’s body was stolen from her grave
in October. . .

February 19, 2005 Chino Hills, CA:
Animal rights activists vandalized the home of the chief veterinarian for the
city of Los Angeles. They threw rocks through windows, and left behind fliers
with the veterinarian’s photo, accusing her of animal cruelty. ALF is
suspected in this incident as well as prior threats against the veterinarian
and other employees of the LA City Animal Shelter.

January 12, 2005 Auburn, CA:
Five incendiary devices were found in an office building under construction.
Devices of the same type were discovered in an upscale subdivision in near-by
Lincoln on December 27. Official stated the firebombs were capable of extensive
damage. Graffiti found on the Lincoln homes included “U will pay” and “Enjoy the
world as it is - as long as you can.” In a letter sent to the Auburn Journal on
January 18, ELF claimed responsibility, and warned of more terrorist attempts to
come - "We are setting a new precedent, where there will be at least one or more
actions every few weeks," it read. The Joint Terrorism Task Force is investigating.

December 26, 2004 Sylmar, CA:
The home of the public information officer of the Los Angeles city Animal Services
Department was spray-painted with slogans, including “ALF has eyes on you” and
“Resign (expletive).” Her photo and office location and phone number were posted
on a website affiliated with ALF, along with those of other Animal Services
employees. They are listed under the heading “Players/Targets” which includes
images of a target, bullet holes, and ammunition for rifles. The apartment of
another Animal Services employee was also vandalized recently.

October 17, 2004 Burton, Staffordshire, England:
Animal rights fanatics have threatened to dig up the remains of a second person
connected to Darley Oaks guinea pig farm. A letter to an elderly cleaner, who has
worked at the farm, contained threats to desecrate the grave of her husband. . .

September 12, 2004 London, England: The (London) Times obtained a five
page "hit list", dated July 2004, that was circulated among animal rights
extremists against the use of animals in biomedical research. More than 150
named individuals, including 21 children, are targeted for violent attacks,
harassment, and intimidation. The list includes home addresses and phone
numbers of 87 employees of Huntington Life Sciences and companies
connected to it, 47 employees’ wives, and 21 children. The document gives
concrete suggestions for many kinds of attacks, and further gives advice
on avoiding detection for extremists seeking more violent forms of protest.
against the people listed. The document states "Whatever you do, just do
it and show them no mercy . . . make these perverts suffer . . . You can be
as extreme as you like . . . the possibilities are endless . . ."

September 5, 2004: East Peckham, England: Animal Rights activists vowed
to launch ten "terror attacks" a night across Britain. An ALF spokesman at
a "training camp" for AR activists to learn "direct action" said "Ten attacks
a night would be an absolute minimum "Think of the number of butcher
shops: at least a couple of windows are already being broken every night
and then you have people spraying graffiti on cars to those targeting
employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences." There have been reports of at
least six serious incidents in the last ten days, including attacks on cars
and other property of people connection with GlaxoSmithKline, HLS, and
a farm raising guinea pigs for research.

August 11, 2002:
Arson by the ELF caused $700,000 worth of damage at a Forest Service lab
in Irvine, PA, and destroyed 70 years of research focused on maintaining a
healthy forest ecosystem. An e-mail from Elf's office said "While innocent
life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary,
we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and
provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles,
pleading protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to
achieve." It further stated that all Forest Service stations were targeted,
and, if rebuilt, the Pennsylvania station would be targeted for complete
destruction.

September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals over
a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite detention in
mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that Harding will
not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to
the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and one
child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At trial, evidence
indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.

August 16, 2001 UK:
One of the three men who assaulted Brian Cass, managing director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, at his home, received a sentence of three years in
jail for his part in the attack. David Blenkinsop and two others donned ski
masks and ambushed Cass as he arrived home, bludgeoning him with wooden
staves and pickaxe handles. DNA on the handles and Blenkinsop’s clothing
helped convict him of the offense.

June 12, 2001 MO:
A 30-year-old animal rights activist attacked a
"Survivor" series cast member at a workplace safety promotion, pepper
spraying him in the face and hitting several onlookers, including children, as
well. Police arrested the attacker. Michael Skupin, who lasted six weeks on
"Survivor," attributed the attack to his killing of a pig for food on the series.

May 31, 2001 Canada:
In a raid late this month, Toronto police arrested
two men and put out an appeal for apprehension of a third in connection
with animal cruelty charges stemming from the videotaped skinning of live
animals. The video showed a cat being tortured and killed allegedly by a
self-styled artist and vegan protesting animal cruelty. Anthony Ryan
Wenneker, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers, 21 were arrested. The raid
turned up a headless, skinned cat in the refrigerator, along with other
animal skeletons, including a dog, some mice and rats, and the videos.
Police are searching for the third person seen in the videos.

May 23, 2001 UK:
Three men, ages 34, 31 and 34, were arrested for the
attack on Brian Cass, Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The baseball bat
brandishing attackers split Cass' scalp and bruised him and sprayed a
would-be rescuer with CS gas on February 22, 2001. One of the men was
arrested at an animal sanctuary run by TV script writer Carla Lane.

May 9, 2001 Israel:
Shraga Segal, an immunologist and former dean of the
Ben-Gurion University medical school, resigned his post as chairman of the
government body that supervises research involving animals. Segal received
a faxed death threat and threats of violence against his family.

April 27, 2001 WA:
Governor Gary Locke signed into law this week a
measure that would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly interfere with or
recklessly injure a guide dog, or to allow one's dog to obstruct or intimidate
a guide dog. Repeat offenses could net up to one year in jail and a $5,000
fine. The measure sailed through the legislature in record time after reports
of blind people being harassed by animal rights fanatics, both verbally and
by looking for opportunities to separate the guide dogs from their owners.

April 19, 2001 UK:
In the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the US subsidiary of Huntingdon Life Sciences joined in the filing of an
amended complaint against SHAC, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense
League, In Defense of Animals, and certain individuals. The amended filing
asserts claims under the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Statute (RICO) and cited physical attacks on individual employees, death
threats, bomb threats, destruction of property, burglary, harassment and
intimidation; and also asserts claims for interference with contractual
relations and economic advantage. The original plaintiffs in the action were
the Stephens Group and its wholly owned investment-banking subsidiary,
Stephens, Inc.

February 23, 2001 UK:
In a major public escalation of animal rights terrorist violence, the managing
director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked as he arrived home by
three masked goons wielding baseball bats or ax handles. Brian Cass, 53,
bludgeoned with head and body wounds and bruises, including a 3-inch
scalp gash, was saved from further injury by his girl friend's screams and
the aid of two passersby. One of the Good Samaritans chased the
attackers, but was debilitated by CS gas from one of the attackers. Cass,
stitched up and back at work the next day, vowed to continue the work of
HLS, which includes government mandated tests seeking cures for
dementia, diabetes, AIDS, asthma and other diseases. In reaction to the
attack, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder who is no longer with the group, condoned
the attack and expressed surprise that it didn't happen more often,
declaring that Cass got off "lightly." Other animal rights groups publicly
backed off condoning the act, but expressed "understanding" of how it
could occur. In calendar year 2000, 11 Huntingdon employees' cars were
firebombed.

February 21, 2001 UK:
Two men ages 26 and 36, and one 31 year-old woman were arrested in
connection with letter bombing attacks against at least eleven agricultural
businesses. Since December 10, 2000, three bombs were intercepted, but 5
of 10 others exploded, causing serious eye and facial injury to two adults,
and leg wounds to a 6-year old daughter of one of the intended victims.
Authorities considered all of the bombs potentially lethal. The businesses
included pet supply, pest control, farming, agricultural supply, and a
livestock auction agency.

February 13, 2001 Scotland:
A letter bomb was sent to an agricultural entity in the Borders. Army
experts were called out to defuse the bomb.

February 12, 2001 UK:
An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb which was
defused without incident by army experts.

February 4, 2001 UK:
In an attack near Nantwich, Cheshire Beagles master George Murray, his
wife and five other hunt members were assaulted by masked animal rights
activists. At least five hunt members were injured by the stick- and
whip-wielding attackers. Murray was beaten, kicked in the head and face
and his wife was punched in the face. They were threatened with death as
retribution for the death 10 years ago of hunt saboteur Michael Hill.

January 31, 2001 UK:
A letter bomb exploded in Cumbria in a charity shop owned by the British
Heart Foundation. The woman who opened the package was not injured.

January 30, 2001 UK:
Two nail bombs, sent to an agricultural supplier in Sheffield and a cancer
research campaign shop in Lancashire, were detected and defused by
authorities before being opened by the recipients. Both bomb attacks were
linked to letter bomb mailings that started in mid-December.

January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by letter
bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
explosion.

January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter
bomb.

December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded, injuring
the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the mail.
The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.

October 23, 2000 UK:
Two hunt members received death threats and car bombs. Both were on a
publicized list of seven huntsmen considered to be "legitimate targets" by
the Hunt Retribution Squad." All seven had received threatening letters on
September 4, 2000. Amateur whip David Pitfield's van was destroyed by one
bomb in South Nutfield, Surrey. The bomb under a woman hunt member's
vehicle in East Sussex, discovered five hours later, did not detonate and
was removed by army bomb experts. Both bombs were considered lethal.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Meanwhile,
>your so-called 'research' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless
>humans and other animals. "One is too many". A few act in "extreme" ways to
>stop it.

They don't stop it. They cause MORE of it by causing things to have
to be repeated when if it weren't for their selfish childish indulgence
in vandalism, there would be no need for it to be. DUH!

>By rights, those responsible should be held to account in a court of law
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In a war that is fought on on all fronts, as
thousands of actions occur every year
around the world there is bound to be
prisoners. Prisoner support is essential and
important aspect of our movement.
[...]
http://www.animalliberation.net/people/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
All jailed political prisoners need our help through phone
calls ,letter writing, and faxes. We all must send prisoners
letters and information of different events to keep their
resolve strong (it get's lonely in jail!). Please, if you are not
a regular letter writer, make sure to send these activists mail
every once in a while. They will surely appreciate it.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/veganresist/pow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Intersting PeTA facts

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.

PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:

-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;

-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;

-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive

http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 00:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh pointed out:
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:24:09 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> >the thief and destroyer.
>>
>> So are you.
>
>No, I am not.

Your inconsideration is disgusting, and should be even to you.
.. . .
>> LOL! But you don't believe there are a significant number of
>> frogs in rice fields.
>
>Those rice fields are left to dry. Any frogs would go back to their
>nearby established habitat - from where they come into the fields.

Your inconsideration is disgusting, and should be even to you.

Blueshark wrote:

> This thread is 90% garbage.
>
> Lol.
>
> To the original question - you want to become vegan, then give it a
> go.
>
> Don't be put off by people with less conviction.

Conviction is the purview of religion, not of science. Veganism is among
the most dogmatic pseudo-religions. It's hardly surprising you embrace
it with such vigor.

> To me

After a bit of navel-gazing and delving into AR propaganda, not from
reviewing the evidence of science or of agriculture.

> eating meat and dairy products today is at best due to
> ignorance,

Embracing veganism is an act of willful ignorance.

> and at worst due to delusional gluttony.

You're the one who's deluded him/her/itself into believing some kind of
immunity from high serum cholesterol simply because you abstain from
meat and dairy, the facts of what causes high cholesterol in the first
place completely notwithstanding. No doubt you engage in your own forms
of gluttony -- you just give homage to your ignorance and delusions when
you overeat and convince yourself that you're a better person simply for
not eating meat.