|
Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:38:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><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" No. That paragraph didn't consider quality. Considering quality would be step two, but since you can't even get to step one it's all just one big confusion for you. As I continue to point out, your selfishness is so pure that you can't consider the animals' lives in any way. When you pretended to try you said it made you feel dirty or whatever, because trying to consider the animals made you feel like you were cheating on yourself. Sick, but quite obviously that's you as we keep seeing over and over and over... >and you equivocated on the word "consideration" between "to think >about something" and "to be generous towards" it. There's no way you could understand because you can't even get to step one. In fact you don't even understand what the consideration means...or at least you didn't a few days ago when you asked what it is or how I consider them or whatever. >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. You are clueless still. >> 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". I should unless I want to become purely selfish like you. I only "shouldn't" if I did want to become purely selfish like you, which I certainly do NOT!!! >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. LOL!!!!! I don't believe that shit. If they say they do, they're lying. Just as you can't care about the animals, they OBVIOUSLY can't care about the children they molest. DUH!!!!! .. . . >>>>>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 No. Just try supporting your claim. It's especially amusing--and of course VERY strong support of the fact you're an "ara"--that you can't even begin to attempt supporting your hollow boast regarding this particular issue. .. . . >>>>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. Necessarily not to you "aras", but it necessarily IS to anyone capable of considering human influence on animals. Duh. >>>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. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obviously not in your case, nor in the case of any other "aras" or they wouldn't BE "aras". >It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives (existence) >of livestock, or of any other creature I will certainly save that quote. Before you start crying because I have no intention of including the rest of the bullshit, I'm now giving you an oportunity to explain WHEN you would allow us to consider animals' lives IF you ever would. If not, then you are on record as exposing your belief that we should ALWAYS be completely inconsiderate toward the lives of ANY and ALL beings. > 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, I've understood that the lives of all animals should be given as much consideration as their deaths for over 20 years, and have understood that some livestock have lives of positive value and some don't for about 35 years. >that explains why you can't let go of it The fact that I have LEARNED those things is why I "can't let go of it". The fact that you can't even understand the concept that some animals have lives of positive value is why you never will be able to. The purity of your selfishness is what prevents all "aras" from understanding that some livestock have lives of positive value, though I don't believe ALL the rest of them are quite as selfish as you are since some of them attempt to consider the lives of wildlife, Dutchy. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:41:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> 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. ONLY to people who can't appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, which all "aras" necessarily can not or they wouldn't be "aras". Duh! |
Vagan question, getting started.
****wit wrote:
> >> 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. > > ONLY to people who can't appreciate the fact that some livestock Which livestock would those be, ****wit? > have lives of positive value What "positive value" would that be, ****wit? Ending up as pot roast? |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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. Still, none actually 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. > Here's a list of some of the actions you love, I do NOT love them. > so I'll leave it to you to explain which ones you love the most and why: I think that YOU love them, because they give you an excuse to attack AR. > __________________________________________________ _______ > 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. . . 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. > 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. Not the right way to go about things, imo. > 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. ELF. > 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. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. > 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. . . 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. > 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 . . ." Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. ELF. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. > 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. 'Animal-rights activists were outraged today after a man convicted of skinning and torturing a live cat was freed from jail and his accomplice was sentenced to what they considered a "grounding." http://www.infoshop.org/inews/articl.../04/19/4206293 Clearly unhinged. No person with a heart could do such a thing, > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. 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. > 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. I think that there's a place for guide dogs, as long as they're treated very well. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may, endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called lifestyle 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. > 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. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called lifestyle 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. > February 12, 2001 UK: > An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb which was > defused without incident by army experts. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called lifestyle 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. > 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. Read that last sentence again. I do not condone violence. Do you? Meanwhile, your so-called 'hunting' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless animals. "One is too many". A few act in extreme ways to stop it. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. 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. > 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. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called lifestyle 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. > January 5, 2001 UK: > A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter > bomb. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called lifestyle 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. > 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. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called lifestyle 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. > 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. Any action that may endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called 'hunting' is responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless animals. "One is too many". A few act in "extreme" ways to stop it. > http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...s/arterror.htm > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >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! That's their motivation though. They want something done NOW. > >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/ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ I mean those responsible for the injury and deaths of millions of people. Comment? __________________________________________________ ___ > 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 > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > __________________________________________________ _______ > 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 > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > __________________________________________________ _______ > 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 > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ Any action that may injure, or endanger life is WRONG. Meanwhile, your so-called 'lifestyle' 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. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:38:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>since you were a stupid kid I'll also point out you and Goo's supposed deep think about the possibility that life is never better than non-existence, which you have recently learned about from "ar" Salt, is nothing new to me. I've been familiar with that concept for as long as I can remember...even as a kid. It's probably something my Dad mentioned to me when I was in grade school, so it's not a new concept to me as it is to you and Goo, and certainly can't do anything to change my pov about things I've known for over 20 or 30 years. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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. What "inconsideration"? You're projecting. 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. 'In one case, following drying of a pond, 154 frogs moved about 250 m upstream to a pond that did not dry, while 4 frogs moved 900 m downstream (Sredl, 1996). http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_qu...s=yavapaiensis |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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. What "inconsideration"? You're projecting. 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. 'In one case, following drying of a pond, 154 frogs moved about 250 m upstream to a pond that did not dry, while 4 frogs moved 900 m downstream (Sredl, 1996). http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_qu...s=yavapaiensis |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:18:39 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh offered: > >> Here's a list of some of the actions you love, > >I do NOT love them. Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish "ara" would certainly love the hell out of them. >> so I'll leave it to you to explain which ones you love the most and why: > >I think that YOU love them, because they give you an excuse to attack AR. They give me another reason not to like it. If it weren't for your buddies, I'm sure many things having to do with medicine would be significantly cheaper than they are because of your terrorist friends. .. . . >> 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! > >That's their motivation though. You pretend not to like it, but I feel certain you support them. >They want something done NOW. Well they do something NOW....they make things worse. And what they do NOW will make things worse in the future too. 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/ >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ > >I mean those responsible for the injury and deaths of millions of people. > >Comment? Researchers continue to get better at understanding life on Earth and how to make things better for humans and other animals. "ara" terrorists make things worse for all of that. If people don't trust medical research they should simply REFUSE MEDICAL CARE THEMSELVES, not **** up everybody else's chances of being helped. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:42:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> 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. > >What "inconsideration"? You are a theif and destroyer too. We all are. >You're projecting. > >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. > >'In one case, following drying of a pond, 154 frogs moved about >250 m upstream to a pond that did not dry, while 4 frogs moved >900 m downstream (Sredl, 1996). >http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_qu...s=yavapaiensis I don't doubt that some of them manage to get back to water. But I also believe many many more of them don't. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Goo wrote:
>dh pointed out: > >> >> 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. >> >> ONLY to people who can't appreciate the fact that some livestock > >Which livestock would those be, ****wit? Those which have lives of positive value, Goo. >> have lives of positive value > >What "positive value" would that be, Having a life experience which isn't so restrictive or abusive that it has negative value for the animal, Goo. |
Vagan question, getting started.
Derek wrote: > > >> Rupert is a utilitarian, not the deontological rightist he > >> claims to be. He wrongly believes he is morally justified > >> in causing the deaths of SOME animals in commercial > >> agriculture to prevent LARGER amounts of serious > >> suffering. > >> > >> "Since boycotting commercial agriculture would involve > >> imposing very serious costs on myself, as well as > >> abandoning opportunities to prevent large amounts of > >> serious suffering, I am morally justified in not doing it." > >> Rupert Jun 1 2006 http://tinyurl.com/s2cq7 > > > >He is balancing the relative harms/benefits in the options > >available to him, and doing what he believes is the best. > > That's utilitarianism, not deontology. He believes that it > is morally permissible to kill SOME animals in the hope > that it will prevent the suffering of a LARGER group > of animals. > No, I do not. I hold that in an ideal society, we would inflict no more harm on nonhuman animals than we must to survive. Inflicting any more harm would violate a constraint. Unfortunately, those constraints are currently being violated. But the constraint on me as an individual living in this society is only that I make every reasonable effort to avoid financially supporting it, not every possible effort. And considerations of good which I could otherwise achieve is relevant to what counts as a reasonable effort. All deontologists hold that sometimes consequences are relevant. Since I hold that there are constraints on how we can pursue the good, I am a deontologist. If I were a utilitarian I would hold that there are no constraints. What other conceivable excuse could there be for financially supporting agriculture in its present form? If you don't agree with my position, what's your excuse for not dropping out of society and joining a commune? > >That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. > > Then I take it you're a utilitarian as well and will morally > justify the killing of a few animals to prevent the suffering > of a greater number of them. Priceless! > > >> There are your 3 so-called "real AR experts", Pearl; 2 > >> zoophile apologists and a utilitarian who thinks he's a > >> deontological rightist. Pah! > > You really shouldn't listen to what your disgusting pal Leif Erikson says so much. |
Vagan question, getting started.
****wit rambled incoherently in circles, as usual:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Goo wrote: > > >****wit wrote: > > > >> >> 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. > >> > >> ONLY to people who can't appreciate the fact that some > >livestock > > > >Which livestock would those be, ****wit? > > Those which have lives of positive value Quit being so circular, ****wit. WHICH ones specifically would those be, ****wit? The ones that end up as pot roasts? > >> have lives of positive value > > > >What "positive value" would that be, ****wit? > > Having a life experience What's the positive value of being prepared to be killed so you can be cut into chops and made into hotdogs, ****wit? |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote >>Your inconsideration is disgusting, and should be even to you. There's that equivocation again. "consider" - to ponder and reach a conclusion "be considerate" - to treat kindly If anyone "considers", ponders and reaches a different conclusion from ****wit, they are then [switch] "not being considerate", therefore they are selfish and unkind. Are you doing this deliberately? Do you think we can't see through it? |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:42:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> 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. > > > >What "inconsideration"? > > You are a theif and destroyer too. We all are. No I am not. You are. > >You're projecting. > > > >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. > > > >'In one case, following drying of a pond, 154 frogs moved about > >250 m upstream to a pond that did not dry, while 4 frogs moved > >900 m downstream (Sredl, 1996). > >http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_qu...s=yavapaiensis > > I don't doubt that some of them manage to get back to water. Very good! > But I also believe many many more of them don't. Some may have been taken by predators. Maybe none. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish "ara"
would > certainly love the hell out of them. I thought you were unbiased? You judgmental ****. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:28:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:42:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >> 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. >> > >> >What "inconsideration"? >> >> You are a theif and destroyer too. We all are. > >No I am not. We all are. >You are. We all are. >> >You're projecting. >> > >> >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. >> > >> >'In one case, following drying of a pond, 154 frogs moved about >> >250 m upstream to a pond that did not dry, while 4 frogs moved >> >900 m downstream (Sredl, 1996). >> >http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_qu...s=yavapaiensis >> >> I don't doubt that some of them manage to get back to water. > >Very good! I can be glad for them too, but I can do that for livestock. So then some of them go on downstream, and some of them lay eggs which will contribute to thousands of frogs on the next rice farm downstream... strange that you can't grasp cycles like that... >> But I also believe many many more of them don't. > >Some may have been taken by predators. Maybe none. The rest either die of dehydration, die in the harvest, or are killed by predators after harvest. Duh! Really I doubt that many of them are dug into the dry dirt by the time the plows/harrows come back around. Anything left would almost certainly be cleaned out by birds when the field is flooded for them after harvest, imo. "rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. we flood in mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. in february and march, the land is disced and planed. " |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:06:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>Are you doing this deliberately? You claim that to consider their lives makes you feel dirty, yet you're obviously ashamed of that lack of consideration which you should be PROUD of, you moron. You just can't agree with yourself about anything. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:03:42 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote:
>> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish "ara" >would >> certainly love the hell out of them. > > >I thought you were unbiased? I've thought of terrorism when I've thought of Ireland for as long as I can remember, because of terrorism I've heard about in Ireland. >You judgmental ****. It's not my fault that I've heard about terrorism in Ireland. It's the fault of terrorists in Ireland. I don't even know why they do it...just that I've heard about it a number of times. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:06:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>Are you doing this deliberately? > > You claim that to consider their lives makes you feel dirty, > yet you're obviously ashamed of that lack of consideration > which you should be PROUD of, you moron. You just can't > agree with yourself about anything. Are you aware that you are equivocating on "consideration"? Yes or no. Is it unconscious? Do you understand what equivocation is? Don't get some dictionary definition and paste it in here, just answer from your own knowledge. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:03:42 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote: > > >> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish "ara" > >would > >> certainly love the hell out of them. > > > > > >I thought you were unbiased? > > I've thought of terrorism when I've thought of Ireland for > as long as I can remember, because of terrorism I've heard > about in Ireland. > > >You judgmental ****. > > It's not my fault that I've heard about terrorism in Ireland. > It's the fault of terrorists in Ireland. I don't even know why > they do it...just that I've heard about it a number of times. Oh my. You know what I heard about Japanese? You know what they say about South Africans? Etc etc? David, YOU of all people. I did NOT expect this from you. No matter how much I dislike you, even THIS is a new low for you. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, gettingstarted.
Misterina wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message > ... > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:03:42 +0200, "Misterina" > > > > wrote: > > > > >> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish > > >"ara" would > > >> certainly love the hell out of them. > > > > > > > > >I thought you were unbiased? > > > > I've thought of terrorism when I've thought of Ireland for > > as long as I can remember, because of terrorism I've heard > > about in Ireland. > > > > >You judgmental ****. > > > > It's not my fault that I've heard about terrorism in Ireland. > > It's the fault of terrorists in Ireland. I don't even know why > > they do it...just that I've heard about it a number of times. Harrison is just a middle-aged redneck cocktail server living on a houseboat, trying to hook up with other guys on the lake. He doesn't understand the geography (e.g., Ireland or Northern Ireland) or the politics (e.g., whether the British or the Irish should rule Northern Ireland) or the religious issues underlying the questions at hand. > Oh my. You know what I heard about Japanese? You know what they say > about South Africans? Etc etc? David, YOU of all people. I did NOT > expect this from you. Why not? He's not exactly the first person you'd go running to with a question about global politics -- he should be about the last. > No matter how much I dislike you, even THIS is a new low for you. No, it isn't. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:18:39 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: <..> > >I mean those responsible for the injury and deaths of millions of people. > > > >Comment? > > Researchers continue to get better at understanding life on > Earth and how to make things better for humans and other > animals'. 'The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) .... The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths is 783,936. [US, p/a] ... At 14 percent of the Gross National Product, health care spending reached $1.6 trillion in 2003. (15) Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease, preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However, careful and objective review shows the opposite. Because of the extraordinary narrow context of medical technology through which contemporary medicine examines the human condition, we are completely missing the full picture. Medicine is not taking into consideration the following monumentally important aspects of a healthy human organism: (a) Stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes (b) Insufficient exercise (c) Excessive caloric intake (d) Highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil (e) Exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins. Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we actually cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being appropriated for preventing disease. .... Dr. Jay Cohen, who has extensively researched adverse drug reactions, comments that because only 5 percent of adverse drug reactions are being reported, there are, in reality, 5 million medication reactions each year.(34) ...' http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm Yet, still ... diseases of the circulatory system account for 41% of deaths in the EU (with the same pharma' 'medication', etc..). Not doing too well, are you? That's where you are - where decades of experimenting on animals 'trying to find medicines' has led you. 'Animal experimentation is a methodological error. And a science that is based on a false methodology can only be a false science. The abolition of vivisection would allow a true health service to focus attention on the many valid healing therapies which are harmonious, non-invasive and compatible with other life-forms. Briefly they incorporate: * A search for patterns and causes of dis-ease and dis-harmony; * Integration and concern with the patient as a whole; * Focus on caring as a component of healing; * Minimal intervention with technology; * The adaptation of totally non-invasive techniques including psychotherapies, diet and exercise; * Study of the individual and family patterns; * Provision of substantial, thorough and comprehensive therapeutic programmes and surveys; * Investigation and rectification of pollution points; * Education of self-esteem and responsibility. A focus on clinical research and prevention, together with the abolition of vivisection, is the only way to turn the present sickness service into a health service. http://www.nzavs.org.nz/print/alternatives.html Read up... 'Mad Cow Disease and Alzheimer's Is there a connection? .... Alzheimer's cases diagnosed in North America these days may actually be cases of CJD. .... Regardless, nutritionists hardly need more evidence about the potentially negative health effects of eating red meat. For starters, the saturated animal fat in red meat contributes to heart disease and atherosclerosis. Recent research also shows that frequent red meat eaters face twice the risk of colon cancer as those who indulge less often. Red meat is also thought to increase the risks of rheumatoid arthritis and endometriosis. Meanwhile, according to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarian diets can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease, colon cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, obesity and other debilitating medical conditions. While red meat is a key source of protein and vitamin B12 in North American diets, nutritionists explain that properly planned meat-free diets easily provide these important nutrients while keeping you healthier in the long run. -- full story: http://blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?id=1843 Do you care about people? Tell us if you are going to continue promoting vivisection, or going to start promoting a vegan diet. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, gettingstarted.
pearl wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message > ... > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:18:39 +0100, "pearl" > > > wrote: > <..> > > >I mean those responsible for the injury and deaths of millions of > > >people. > > > > > >Comment? > > > > Researchers continue to get better at understanding life on > > Earth and how to make things better for humans and other > > animals'. > > 'The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions > (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) > ... > The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician > or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths > is 783,936. [US, p/a] > .. > At 14 percent of the Gross National Product, health care spending > reached $1.6 trillion in 2003. (15) Considering this enormous > expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. That falsely presumes all $1.6 trillion goes to legitimate direct medical care. It doesn't. Far too much of it goes to quacks like you: chiropractors, reflexologists, etc. Even more of it goes to paying malpractice insurance premiums and awards as well as unnecessary tests doctors MUST order to protect them from malpractice claims. The AMA estimates that over $15 billion is spent yearly on "defensive medicine," that is, the unnecessary tests and procedures ordered by physicians to protect themselves from malpractice suits. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...19/ai_14984114 (1999 article, so the figure is no doubt higher now) > Do you care about people? Tell us if you are going to continue > promoting vivisection, or going to start promoting a vegan diet. Veganism isn't a diet, it's an extremist political bent centered on animal rights. Promoting animal rights won't heal people, dummy. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, gettingstarted.
Misterina wrote:
<...> > David, YOU of all people. I did NOT > expect this from you... It's not like he's Henry Kissinger. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:51:11 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:18:39 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: ><..> >> >I mean those responsible for the injury and deaths of millions of people. >> > >> >Comment? >> >> Researchers continue to get better at understanding life on >> Earth and how to make things better for humans and other >> animals'. > >'The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions >(ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) >... >The abolition of vivisection would allow a true health service to >focus attention on the many valid healing therapies which are >harmonious, non-invasive and compatible with other life-forms. No, you poor fool, it would not. If the things you've been persuaded to believe were really so superior, then we would KNOW IT BY NOW because people would be using them succefully. IF what you're going on about was so damn wonderful, then it would have already made vivisection a thing of the past since no one would have any use for it any more. Duh! Instead, it has NOT taken over because it is NOT the wonder that you've been led to believe. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:33:41 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>pearl wrote: > >> <dh@.> wrote in message >> ... >> > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:18:39 +0100, "pearl" > >> > wrote: >> <..> >> > >I mean those responsible for the injury and deaths of millions of >> > >people. >> > > >> > >Comment? >> > >> > Researchers continue to get better at understanding life on >> > Earth and how to make things better for humans and other >> > animals'. >> >> 'The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions >> (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) >> ... >> The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician >> or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths >> is 783,936. [US, p/a] >> .. >> At 14 percent of the Gross National Product, health care spending >> reached $1.6 trillion in 2003. (15) Considering this enormous >> expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. > >That falsely presumes all $1.6 trillion goes to legitimate direct >medical care. It doesn't. Far too much of it goes to quacks like you: >chiropractors, reflexologists, etc. Even more of it goes to paying >malpractice insurance premiums and awards as well as unnecessary tests >doctors MUST order to protect them from malpractice claims. > > The AMA estimates that over $15 billion is spent yearly on "defensive > medicine," that is, the unnecessary tests and procedures ordered by > physicians to protect themselves from malpractice suits. > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...19/ai_14984114 > (1999 article, so the figure is no doubt higher now) I wonder what percentage of the money involved with research is used for protection against the useless, childish indulgence of "ara" terrorism and destruction. There is money being completely wasted, other than to protect knowledge from a bunch of violent, selfish morons. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:26:57 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:
>Misterina wrote: > >> >> <dh@.> wrote in message >> ... >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:03:42 +0200, "Misterina" >> > > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish >> > >"ara" would >> > >> certainly love the hell out of them. >> > > >> > > >> > >I thought you were unbiased? >> > >> > I've thought of terrorism when I've thought of Ireland for >> > as long as I can remember, because of terrorism I've heard >> > about in Ireland. >> > >> > >You judgmental ****. >> > >> > It's not my fault that I've heard about terrorism in Ireland. >> > It's the fault of terrorists in Ireland. I don't even know why >> > they do it...just that I've heard about it a number of times. > >Harrison is just a middle-aged redneck cocktail server living on a >houseboat, trying to hook up with other guys on the lake. He doesn't >understand the geography (e.g., Ireland or Northern Ireland) or the >politics (e.g., whether the British or the Irish should rule Northern >Ireland) or the religious issues underlying the questions at hand. You're right. I have no idea, and have never even been curious enough to look into it. I just remember hearing a lot about terrorism in Ireland. >> Oh my. You know what I heard about Japanese? You know what they say >> about South Africans? Etc etc? David, YOU of all people. I did NOT >> expect this from you. > >Why not? He's not exactly the first person you'd go running to with a >question about global politics -- he should be about the last. Agreed. >> No matter how much I dislike you, even THIS is a new low for you. > >No, it isn't. Usually I don't say anything much about human issues like that Goo. In fact I'm more likely to try changing the subject back to animals, after "aras" have changed it to something about humans. Really I was just trying to annoy "pear" with that shit. |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:42:28 +0200, "Misterina" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:03:42 +0200, "Misterina" > >wrote: >> >> >> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an Irish "ara" >> >would >> >> certainly love the hell out of them. >> > >> > >> >I thought you were unbiased? >> >> I've thought of terrorism when I've thought of Ireland for >> as long as I can remember, because of terrorism I've heard >> about in Ireland. >> >> >You judgmental ****. >> >> It's not my fault that I've heard about terrorism in Ireland. >> It's the fault of terrorists in Ireland. I don't even know why >> they do it...just that I've heard about it a number of times. > > >Oh my. You know what I heard about Japanese? You know what they say about >South Africans? Etc etc? David, YOU of all people. I did NOT expect this >from you. No matter how much I dislike you, even THIS is a new low for you. Really I was trying to needle "pearl" and get her irritated. I was trying to set her up, and then I'd lay on something really absurd... I was going to say she must respect and accept my position because: 1. men are inherently superior to women. 2. omnivores are inherently superior to vegetarians. 3. Americans are inherently superior to Irish Not that I really believe all that, but was hoping it would result in an amusing reaction from "pearl". |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:08:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:06:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>Are you doing this deliberately? >> >> You claim that to consider their lives makes you feel dirty, >> yet you're obviously ashamed of that lack of consideration >> which you should be PROUD of, you moron. You just can't >> agree with yourself about anything. > >Are you aware that you are equivocating on "consideration"? Yes or no. Is it >unconscious? Do you understand what equivocation is? Don't get some >dictionary definition and paste it in here, just answer from your own >knowledge. In this case, it's another desperate attempt for you "aras" to persuade people that the lives of livestock should never be given any consideration, so you're trying to pretend that consideration for the lives of livestock, is somehow NOT consideration for the lives of livestcok. You have failed completely though, Dutchy. While we're on the subject, let's you prove that again you have no idea what you think, or why you disagree with yourself. In the past you've said that considering the lives of livestock makes you feel dirty. Does it still, or do you now claim to have consideration for their lives, have you any idea? |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:08:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:06:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>Are you doing this deliberately? >>> >>> You claim that to consider their lives makes you feel dirty, >>> yet you're obviously ashamed of that lack of consideration >>> which you should be PROUD of, you moron. You just can't >>> agree with yourself about anything. >> >>Are you aware that you are equivocating on "consideration"? Yes or no. Is >>it >>unconscious? Do you understand what equivocation is? Don't get some >>dictionary definition and paste it in here, just answer from your own >>knowledge. > > In this case, it's another desperate attempt for you "aras" > to persuade people that the lives of livestock should never > be given any consideration, so you're trying to pretend that > consideration for the lives of livestock, is somehow NOT > consideration for the lives of livestcok. You have failed > completely though, Dutchy. Which meaning? > > While we're on the subject, let's you prove that again > you have no idea what you think, or why you disagree > with yourself. In the past you've said that considering the > lives of livestock makes you feel dirty. Does it still, or do > you now claim to have consideration for their lives, have > you any idea? That answers my question, I don't think you know you're doing it. Consideration 1. thinking about and forming an opinion on something Yes, I have considered the issue and formed an opinion, I don't agree with your approach. "Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into it. Consideration 2. acting in an unselfish manner towards another Yes, I try to act in an unselfish manner towards animals as much as possible. "Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into it. The unselfish consideration is "What we can do to improve their lives". |
Conversations in the other room: was Vagan question, gettingstarted.
dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:26:57 GMT, chico chupacabra > > wrote: > > >Misterina wrote: > > > >> > >> <dh@.> wrote in message > >> ... > >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:03:42 +0200, "Misterina" > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> Oh bullshit. Irish love terrorism to begin with, so an > >Irish > > >"ara" would > >> > >> certainly love the hell out of them. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >I thought you were unbiased? > >> > > >> > I've thought of terrorism when I've thought of Ireland for > >> > as long as I can remember, because of terrorism I've heard > >> > about in Ireland. > >> > > >> > >You judgmental ****. > >> > > >> > It's not my fault that I've heard about terrorism in Ireland. > >> > It's the fault of terrorists in Ireland. I don't even know why > >> > they do it...just that I've heard about it a number of times. > > > >Harrison is just a middle-aged redneck cocktail server living on a > >houseboat, trying to hook up with other guys on the lake. He doesn't > >understand the geography (e.g., Ireland or Northern Ireland) or the > >politics (e.g., whether the British or the Irish should rule Northern > >Ireland) or the religious issues underlying the questions at hand. > > You're right. I have no idea, No kidding. > and have never even been curious > enough to look into it. I just remember hearing a lot about terrorism > in Ireland. In Northern Ireland, ****wit. > >> Oh my. You know what I heard about Japanese? You know what they say > >> about South Africans? Etc etc? David, YOU of all people. I did NOT > >> expect this from you. > > > >Why not? He's not exactly the first person you'd go running to with a > >question about global politics -- he should be about the last. > > Agreed. > > >> No matter how much I dislike you, even THIS is a new low for you. > > > >No, it isn't. > > Usually I don't say anything much about human issues like that > Goo. In fact I'm more likely to try changing the subject back to > animals, after "aras" have changed it to something about humans. > Really I was just trying to annoy "pear" with that shit. And you've come off looking like a complete jackass in the process, as usual. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:06:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> dh challenged Dutchy: > >> While we're on the subject, let's you prove that again >> you have no idea what you think, or why you disagree >> with yourself. In the past you've said that considering the >> lives of livestock makes you feel dirty. Does it still, or do >> you now claim to have consideration for their lives, have >> you any idea? > >That answers my question, And that answers mine. You have proven again that you have no idea what you think. Even though you claim that considering the animals' lives makes you feel dirty, you still want to claim having consideration for their lives, but you have no clue why you want to and we can clearly see that doing so should make you ashamed. Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >I don't think My point exactly. You're afraid to, because it challenges the ethical superiority of "ar". Duh! >you know you're doing it. > >Consideration 1. thinking about and forming an opinion on something > >Yes, I have considered the issue and formed an opinion, I don't agree with >your approach. "Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into >it. That's because the purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering anything that works against what you consider to be the most ethical possible approach, ie, "ar". >Consideration 2. acting in an unselfish manner towards another > >Yes, I try to act in an unselfish manner towards animals as much as >possible. The purity of your selfishness prevents you from having the slightest clue how to begin trying to, as I continue to point out because you continue to demonstrate... >"Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into it. ....like that. >The unselfish consideration is "What we can do to improve their lives". There's more than one thing to consider, but the purity of your selfishness prevents you and all "aras" from considering anything you're afraid would cost you imaginary moral browny points, REGARDLESS of human influence on animals. That's why you won't accept the cds involved with rice production, and that's why you won't consider the lives of billions of livestock when they are of positive value. Note to the retarded - the above refers to meaning 2 a: __________________________________________________ _______ 1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings 2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:06:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> dh challenged Dutchy: >> >>> While we're on the subject, let's you prove that again >>> you have no idea what you think, or why you disagree >>> with yourself. In the past you've said that considering the >>> lives of livestock makes you feel dirty. Does it still, or do >>> you now claim to have consideration for their lives, have >>> you any idea? >> >>That answers my question, > > And that answers mine. You have proven again that you have > no idea what you think. Even though you claim that considering > the animals' lives makes you feel dirty, you still want to claim having > consideration for their lives, but you have no clue why you want to > and we can clearly see that doing so should make you ashamed. > Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously > should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? Yep, there's that equivocation, the preceding paragraph is loaded with it. You're a mess. >>I don't think you know you're doing it. >> > > My point exactly. You're afraid to, because it challenges the ethical > superiority of "ar". Duh! Do you know you're equivocating or not? >>Consideration 1. thinking about and forming an opinion on something >> >>Yes, I have considered the issue and formed an opinion, I don't agree with >>your approach. "Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into >>it. > > That's because the purity of your selfishness prevents you from > considering anything that works against what you consider to be > the most ethical possible approach, ie, "ar". Considering what the animals get out of it is not unselfishness, it's the opposite. >>Consideration 2. acting in an unselfish manner towards another >> >>Yes, I try to act in an unselfish manner towards animals as much as >>possible. > > The purity of your selfishness prevents you from having the slightest > clue how to begin trying to, as I continue to point out because you > continue to demonstrate... > >>"Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into it. > > ...like that. Considering what the animals get out of it is not unselfishness, it's the opposite. >>The unselfish consideration is "What we can do to improve their lives". Right > There's more than one thing to consider There is NO decent reason to "consider what they get out of it". Doing so only makes YOU feel better, it doesn't help any animal. "What we can do to improve their lives" leads to providing better lives for animals. |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:06:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> dh challenged Dutchy: >>> >>>> While we're on the subject, let's you prove that again >>>> you have no idea what you think, or why you disagree >>>> with yourself. In the past you've said that considering the >>>> lives of livestock makes you feel dirty. Does it still, or do >>>> you now claim to have consideration for their lives, have >>>> you any idea? >>> >>>That answers my question, >> >> And that answers mine. You have proven again that you have >> no idea what you think. Even though you claim that considering >> the animals' lives makes you feel dirty, you still want to claim having >> consideration for their lives, but you have no clue why you want to >> and we can clearly see that doing so should make you ashamed. >> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? > >Yep, No evidence of that yet, but if you really think you do, just try to explain why Dutchy. .. . . >> The purity of your selfishness prevents you from having the slightest >> clue how to begin trying to, as I continue to point out because you >> continue to demonstrate... >> >>>"Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into it. >> >> ...like that. > >Considering what the animals get out of it is not unselfishness, it's the >opposite. You could have no clue, because you can't do it at all BECAUSE OF the purity of your selfishness. LOL...if you don't think it's because of the purity of your selfishness that you can't consider what the animals gain, why in the hell do YOU think you can't do it? >>>The unselfish consideration is "What we can do to improve their lives". > >Right > >> There's more than one thing to consider > >There is NO decent reason to "consider what they get out of it". Doing so >only makes YOU feel better, it doesn't help any animal. "What we can do to >improve their lives" leads to providing better lives for animals. We can't do that without considering the animals' lives as I continue to point out, meaning that YOU can't do it Dutchy. The idea that someone like you would pay MORE money for cage free eggs in order to contribute to decent lives for laying hens, when you can't consider their lives or what they get out of it, is completely absurd. ONLY considerate consumers would do that, not people like you. People like you at "best" would only lie and say you do because you've heard that will get you extra browny points, but a person as inconsiderate as you claim to be would never cough up any EXTRA money to contribute to something you won't even consider because you think it's irrelevant, and it makes you feel dirty. Duh. One of the things that exposes you most clearly as an "ara", IS your inconsideration. In fact it goes beyond inconsideration. You "aras" can't understand this because it goes so extremely against what you're able to think about, but NO ONE in favor of decent AW would have ANY reason to be opposed to people considering the animals' lives. That is easily understood by people who support decent AW, but incomprehensible for those of you who support "ar". So even though you and Goo expose your "ar" beliefs simply BY opposing consideration of the animals, you "aras" in your stupidity and ignorance can't understand that you're doing it. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >> >>Yep, > > No evidence of that yet, There's evidence of your constant equivocations in every single post you make. [..] >>There is NO decent reason to "consider what they get out of it". Doing so >>only makes YOU feel better, it doesn't help any animal. "What we can do to >>improve their lives" leads to providing better lives for animals. > > We can't do that without considering the animals' lives We consider their lives automatically when we consider "What we can do to improve their lives". Anything beyond that is self-serving. Your cheesy transparent equivocating and strawmen are not going to get anyone to accept The Logic of the Larder, certainly not me. <snip drivel> |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >>> >>>Yep, >> >> No evidence of that yet, > >There's evidence LOL!!! There is not, you poor moron. [..] > >>>There is NO decent reason to "consider what they get out of it". Doing so >>>only makes YOU feel better, it doesn't help any animal. "What we can do to >>>improve their lives" leads to providing better lives for animals. >> >> We can't do that without considering the animals' lives > >We consider their lives No Dink. People in favor of decent AW do. You don't, because trying to makes you feel dirty. |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >>>> >>>>Yep, >>> >>> No evidence of that yet, >> >>There's evidence of your constant equivocations in every single post you >>make. > > LOL!!! There is not, you poor moron. See below > [..] >> >>>>There is NO decent reason to "consider what they get out of it". Doing >>>>so >>>>only makes YOU feel better, it doesn't help any animal. "What we can do >>>>to >>>>improve their lives" leads to providing better lives for animals. >>> >>> We can't do that without considering the animals' lives >> >>We consider their lives > > No Dink. People in favor of decent AW do. You don't, because trying to > makes you feel dirty. There's that same equivocation <yawn> |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >>>>> >>>>>Yep Why do you want to then? |
Vagan question, getting started.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >>>>>> >>>>>>Yep > > Why do you want to then? The question is, do you understand what an equivocation is and do you realize that your whole position is based on them? |
Vagan question, getting started.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:04:22 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:45:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote in message om... >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:55:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you want to claim that you do something that so obviously >>>>>>>> should make you ashamed if you do it? Have you ANY idea? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yep >> >> Why do you want to then? > >The question is The question STILL is: Why do you want to then? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter