On uk.environment, in >, " wrote:

No name in the "From:" header. Only a throwaway email address.

Troll.

<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>

> Subject: The reality of fur farming

The reality of making automobiles happen: Habitat destruction
on a staggering scale.

From the iron ore mine, limestone quarry, and coal mine needed
to _begin_ the process of making steel, which is necessary
to even _begin_ the process of making an automobile, to the
billionsof acres of land covered with roads, parking lots,
garages and driveways and gas stations and service centers and
parts stores....to the lovely petroleum industry, from well to
tanker to pipeline to refinery to engine...

All of the above (a bare outline of the environmental impact of
the automobile industry) destroy habitat, much of it literally
sterilizes it. Nothing grows on a road.

The animals that lived on that habitat are no more. Billions
upon billions of them. Many of them died and die and will
die, horribly. None can escape and then return to rebuild the
population because there is nothing to return to.

So not only have you killed those animals, but every succeeding
generation of those populations.

All over the world, industrially-caused habitat destruction is
driving entire _species_ extinct, not just populations.

Someone who owns a car is doing thousands of times as much harm
to animals as someone who owns a fur coat.

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

Trolls, like this fellow, need not apply.

Especially if they are as clueless as he is.

Like a typical psuedo-progressive, he will not examine the
environmental impact of _his_ pet consumptions.

He's an ENVIRONMENTALIST (just ask him). Therefore, nothing he
does has any negative environmental impact. It's all someone
else's fault. That GreenPeace bumpersticker magically transforms
his vehicle into something that's utterly impossible without
magic: An earth-friendly car.

I once saw a "Live Simply That Others Might Simply Live"
bumpersticker on a car. I took very careful note of the driver.

People that stupid are dangerous.

Alan

--
Challenge-Response Systems are the best garbage-mail blockers
in the world. Spammers and trolls can't beat them and you
don't need to be a geek to use them. A brief introduction:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:22:55 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:

>On uk.environment, in >, " wrote:
>
>No name in the "From:" header. Only a throwaway email address.
>
>Troll.
>
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: The reality of fur farming
>
>The reality of making automobiles happen: Habitat destruction
>on a staggering scale.
>
>From the iron ore mine, limestone quarry, and coal mine needed
>to _begin_ the process of making steel, which is necessary
>to even _begin_ the process of making an automobile, to the
>billionsof acres of land covered with roads, parking lots,
>garages and driveways and gas stations and service centers and
>parts stores....to the lovely petroleum industry, from well to
>tanker to pipeline to refinery to engine...
>
>All of the above (a bare outline of the environmental impact of
>the automobile industry) destroy habitat, much of it literally
>sterilizes it. Nothing grows on a road.
>
>The animals that lived on that habitat are no more. Billions
>upon billions of them. Many of them died and die and will
>die, horribly. None can escape and then return to rebuild the
>population because there is nothing to return to.
>
>So not only have you killed those animals, but every succeeding
>generation of those populations.
>
>All over the world, industrially-caused habitat destruction is
>driving entire _species_ extinct, not just populations.
>
>Someone who owns a car is doing thousands of times as much harm
>to animals as someone who owns a fur coat.
>
>-------------------------------
>
>Trolls, like this fellow, need not apply.
>
>Especially if they are as clueless as he is.

You're apparently too stupid to understand what he explained.

>Like a typical psuedo-progressive, he will not examine the
>environmental impact of _his_ pet consumptions.

· 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 items containing animal by-products
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@. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:22:55 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>
> >On uk.environment, in >, " wrote:
> >
> >No name in the "From:" header. Only a throwaway email address.
> >
> >Troll.
> >
> ><article not downloaded:
> >http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> >
> >> Subject: The reality of fur farming
> >
> >The reality of making automobiles happen: Habitat destruction
> >on a staggering scale.
> >
> >From the iron ore mine, limestone quarry, and coal mine needed
> >to _begin_ the process of making steel, which is necessary
> >to even _begin_ the process of making an automobile, to the
> >billionsof acres of land covered with roads, parking lots,
> >garages and driveways and gas stations and service centers and
> >parts stores....to the lovely petroleum industry, from well to
> >tanker to pipeline to refinery to engine...
> >
> >All of the above (a bare outline of the environmental impact of
> >the automobile industry) destroy habitat, much of it literally
> >sterilizes it. Nothing grows on a road.
> >
> >The animals that lived on that habitat are no more. Billions
> >upon billions of them. Many of them died and die and will
> >die, horribly. None can escape and then return to rebuild the
> >population because there is nothing to return to.
> >
> >So not only have you killed those animals, but every succeeding
> >generation of those populations.
> >
> >All over the world, industrially-caused habitat destruction is
> >driving entire _species_ extinct, not just populations.
> >
> >Someone who owns a car is doing thousands of times as much harm
> >to animals as someone who owns a fur coat.
> >
> >-------------------------------
> >
> >Trolls, like this fellow, need not apply.
> >
> >Especially if they are as clueless as he is.
>
> You're apparently too stupid to understand what he explained.
>
> >Like a typical psuedo-progressive, he will not examine the
> >environmental impact of _his_ pet consumptions.
>
> · 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 items containing animal by-products
> 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. ·

OK, Moshki gets it now.

You are as sick and demented as Leefy says you are.

Why he wastes time talking to you is a mystery; he's no ARA but
he's not as wacky as you, not even close.

On 21 Aug 2006 20:23:43 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> You're apparently too stupid to understand what he explained.
>>
>> >Like a typical psuedo-progressive, he will not examine the
>> >environmental impact of _his_ pet consumptions.
>>
>> · 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 items containing animal by-products
>> 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. ·
>
>OK, Moshki gets it now.

Probably not.

>You are as sick and demented as Leefy says you are.

I point out facts and aspects of human influence on animals
that you "aras" hate. That being the case, I'm in a position to
feel that those of you who hate the facts I point out are sick
and demented....and I do.

>Why he wastes time talking to you is a mystery;

Goo opposes me for the same reason any "ara" does:
Because I point out things which suggest that decent lives
and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could be
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

>he's no ARA

We have plenty of examples of Goo trying to promote
acceptance of "ar", but few examples of him trying to
oppose it. Can you provide any? No, you can't. Neither
can Goo.

>but he's not as wacky as you, not even close.

Of course you feel that way since Goo promotes what
you want to see promoted, but that only suggests that
you're wacky in a way similar to Goo.

dh "facts" are identical to lies ala Rush Limbaugh and many other
sub-humanoid cowards.

David 'Horrible' Harrison can have the last word--Moshki is not gonna
talk with this thing again.


dh@. wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2006 20:23:43 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
>
> >dh pointed out:
> >
> >> You're apparently too stupid to understand what he explained.
> >>
> >> >Like a typical psuedo-progressive, he will not examine the
> >> >environmental impact of _his_ pet consumptions.
> >>
> >> · 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 items containing animal by-products
> >> 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. ·
> >
> >OK, Moshki gets it now.
>
> Probably not.
>
> >You are as sick and demented as Leefy says you are.
>
> I point out facts and aspects of human influence on animals
> that you "aras" hate. That being the case, I'm in a position to
> feel that those of you who hate the facts I point out are sick
> and demented....and I do.
>
> >Why he wastes time talking to you is a mystery;
>
> Goo opposes me for the same reason any "ara" does:
> Because I point out things which suggest that decent lives
> and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could be
> ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".
>
> >he's no ARA
>
> We have plenty of examples of Goo trying to promote
> acceptance of "ar", but few examples of him trying to
> oppose it. Can you provide any? No, you can't. Neither
> can Goo.
>
> >but he's not as wacky as you, not even close.
>
> Of course you feel that way since Goo promotes what
> you want to see promoted, but that only suggests that
> you're wacky in a way similar to Goo.

On 24 Aug 2006 13:04:28 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:

>dh "facts" are identical to lies ala Rush Limbaugh and many other
>sub-humanoid cowards.
>
>David 'Horrible' Harrison can have the last word--Moshki is not gonna
>talk with this thing again.

No loss there, since you have nothing of value to share.

.. . .

>> We have plenty of examples of Goo trying to promote
>> acceptance of "ar", but few examples of him trying to
>> oppose it. Can you provide any? No, you can't. Neither
>> can Goo.
>>
>> >but he's not as wacky as you, not even close.
>>
>> Of course you feel that way since Goo promotes what
>> you want to see promoted, but that only suggests that
>> you're wacky in a way similar to Goo.

"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote in
message
ups.com...
dh "facts" are identical to lies ala Rush Limbaugh and many other
sub-humanoid cowards.

David 'Horrible' Harrison can have the last word--Moshki is not
gonna
talk with this thing again.

LOL Because you have nothing to defend your ignorance with,
fool. You'll never have ANY word, except those of delusions,
willful ignorance and stupidity.

"Alan Connor" > wrote in message
...
> On uk.environment, in
> t>, "rick"
> wrote:
>
> Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "rick" wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: The coward of usenet..
>
> Not a coward. I just don't waste my time talking to ignorant,
> dishonest, and motormouthed cowards who hide behind multiple
> aliases.
> ============================
Ah, so now you are using 2 different aliases, huh fool? Looks
to me like you're just too stupid to play, killer...


> Obviously, there's no reason to be afraid of you.
> ==============================
LOL Who said you should be? You should be grateful for hearing
the truth once in a while, hypocrite...


> Or haven't you noticed that you can't even get an article into
> my newsreader with a dozen sockpuppets, can't remove my
> articles
> from the Usenet or keep anyone from reading them, and can't
> make
> me go away.
===========================
Really? You seem to read everything i write, stupid. Looks like
I get through just fine!
You reallt are just too stupid to play...

>
> The thing about trolls is that they never quit running their
> mouths on hundreds of newsgroups, using dozens of aliases and
> different newsservers, to do any serious thinking or research.
>
> For some reason that utterly evades me, they all think they are
> the world's foremost authority on any subject, just because
> they
> have thought about it for 10 seconds (max).
>
> Don't like how I do things, Junior?
>
> Eat schitt. Your own. I've never read an article of yours
> (nor any replies to them) and never will.
> =========================
ROTFLMAO Do you always lie so blatently, fool? Afterall, you
just READ and REPLIED to the post I made.
Again, you really are just to stupid for this, aren't you killer?


> Not until you find the honesty and courage to post under a
> single, unique alias.
> =========================
I am. Apparently you are not, hypocrite...


> No, Junior, nothing you post can harm me. You are obviously a
> troll. You have zero credibility.
====================
And you're a lying fool, troll...


> snip spam

..

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 24 Aug 2006 13:04:28 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"
> wrote:
>
> >dh "facts" are identical to lies ala Rush Limbaugh and many other
> >sub-humanoid cowards.
> >
> >David 'Horrible' Harrison can have the last word--Moshki is not gonna
> >talk with this thing again.
>
> No loss there, since you have nothing of value to share.

No one ever has anything valuable to share David. Not according to you.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:46:34 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:

>On uk.environment, in t>, "rick" wrote:
>
>Correction: Someone who _sometimes_ calls himself "rick" wrote:
>
><article not downloaded:
>http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
>> Subject: The coward of usenet..
>
>Not a coward.

You fear the truth. It is your enemy. LOL...in fact of all people
I've seen posting so far, I believe the truth is more your enemy
than anyone else except maybe for Goo.

>I just don't waste my time talking to ignorant,
>dishonest, and motormouthed cowards

You are definately such a person yourself.

>who hide behind multiple aliases.
>
>Obviously, there's no reason to be afraid of you.

You have much reason. Rick cares about human influence
on animals, aspects of which often display your vegan/"ar"
claims as the dishonest absurdity that they are, and Etter is
prone to point them out for everyone to see. We notice that
you hate it when he does so too.
.. . .

>Don't like how I do things, Junior?

If not probably because you're dishonest and/or because
you do things in childish and stupid ways...

>Eat schitt. Your own. I've never read an article of yours
>(nor any replies to them) and never will.

....like that.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:54:12 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:

>Does your mother

You're an idiot.

On uk.environment, in >, "dh@." wrote:

<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>

Like most trolls, this one is too stupid to realize that he has
been defeated.

Trolls all think that if they just run their punk mouths long
enough, what they want to happen will happen.

I'm sure the poor feeb believes that I read his articles.

Although, as near as I can tell, no one does but his own
sockpuppets.

All a rational person with a little experience on the Usenet has
to see is that alias, and they know the poster is a snivelling
punk who can't tell his own asshole from a hole in the ground.

Alan

--
If you replied to an article of mine and are wondering
why I didn't respond to you, the fact is that I didn't
even download your artcle. For an explanation, see:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/newsfilter.html