On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Jul 5, 10:52 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Jul 5, 12:36 am, "ontheroad" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message

groups.com...

snippage..

Fine, well, I don't support animal abuse comparable to that
perpetrated by most animal agriculture that exists today, so why
can't
I criticize people for supporting such abuses?
==========================

And, it is equally right of us to criticize those that pretend to care
about
animals
when ALL they do is avoid meat.

Most people who identify themselves as animal rights advocates do
significantly more than just avoid meat.
========================

Sure, they contribute to the deaths of billions of animals unnecessarily.

Billions of animals die, they make a contribution to those deaths
which is greater than zero. But their contribution is a lot smaller
than most people's.

It is equally right of us to criticize
those that
ignore their brutal, inhumane impact on animals while complaining
about
what
they
think others are doing. As long as you continue to contribute to the
deaths
of billions of
animals wrold wide for nothing more than your entertainment, then you
are
just blowing
hot air and hypocrisy, fool.

That's nonsense. You're saying that as long as I use usenet I'm not
entitled to make any criticisms of the status quo. That is very
obviously utterly absurd. That's the point I've been making. You've
got no valid grounds to criticize someone just because they use
usenet, but are critical of some of the practices of modern society.
That is true of you as well.

=======================
ROTFLMAO Yes, I can criticize those that make the claim they care, yet
do
nothing
but kill more animals. That is you, hypocrite. It is completely valid
to
call hypocrites like you
to task, killer.

I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my
behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of
evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for
criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that
entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made
the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that
I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I
care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares
about animals in the slightest? What a joke.

What a wheezy whining windbag you are.


Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining, I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.





I've never said you cannot criticize the status-quo, just
that doing so by killing
even more animals is a pointless exercise in hypocrisy, fool...

Too bad you're just to brain-dead to understand, huh killer?

Well, that's ridiculous. You're saying that anyone who uses usenet and
makes the slightest criticism of the status quo is a hypocrite. That's
a joke. Too bad you're too brain-dead to understand that.

snippage...

If raising animals for food causes significantly more harm than is
necessary, and there is no compelling need to do it, why is it
justified?

=======================
there is no compelling need for rice either. No compelling need for
potatoes. There
is no compelling need for bananas.Yet the production of all of those
causes
far more
brutal, inhumane deaths of animals than those animals in
slaughterhouses.
Why do you
think those deaths are necessary? Why is it not justified for us to
point
out the ignorance
and hypocrisy of your claims, eh killer?

If you genuinely think it's not justified to produce rice and
potatoes, you're welcome to argue your case. Of course you don't
really think that.

==================
No fool, I don't the point is that YOU should IF animals were really a
concern to you.

Yeah, well, that's stupid. You're saying, if you have the slightest
level of concern about animals, then you must drop out of the consumer
society and grow all your own food and make all your own electricity,
and God knows what else. It's a farce. Different people have different
levels of concern about animals, my concern is much more extensive
that most people's. Why do you think that the fact that I don't drop
out of society and grow all my own food is somehow a major criticism
of me? You think that anyone who doesn't do this and thinks that they
have the slightest level of concern about animals is a hypocrite? It's
absurd.

However, you keep proving that they are of no importance to you except as
a
stepping
stone to your ultimate hypocrisy, fool.

That's a joke. The idea that they are of no importance to me is
contradicted by overwhelming evidence. There are no grounds for
calling me hypocritical, either, any more than you.

You've got this idea that just because someone eats rice and potatoes,
that means they're not entitled to make any
criticisms of modern farming whatsoever. Which is very obviously
utterly absurd. It's a joke.

====================
No, fool, it is not a joke when directed at those that make ignorant
claims
of 'saving' animals from
unnecessary death and suffering.

Yes, it is.

You have NO requirement to eat either
one, yet you do for your
convinience.

And?

Time and time again you make this farcical argument. We all draw the
line somewhere. Your view is that
only processes which harm humans (to a significant extent) should be
boycotted. I have a different view. There is no good reason why my
view is more hypocritical than yours.

==========================
LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You claim
animals should not
be killed just to produce food for people.

Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population
healthy, no.

Vague and open to interpertation.


Yes.

Yet there you are, doing just
that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.

No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which
entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an
absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause
harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make
every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering.
The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation.

Like almost everything you say.


Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation? Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

I have
chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's
any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone
else chooses to draw the line.

You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where the
hypocrisy comes in.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

"Rupert" wrote
On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my
behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of
evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for
criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that
entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made
the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that
I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I
care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares
about animals in the slightest? What a joke.

What a wheezy whining windbag you are.


Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you, and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.

[..]
==========================
LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You
claim
animals should not
be killed just to produce food for people.

Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population
healthy, no.

Vague and open to interpertation.


Yes.

Thereby meaningless.

that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.

No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which
entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an
absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause
harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make
every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering.
The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation.

Like almost everything you say.


Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is
vague and open to interpretation.

Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.

I have
chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's
any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone
else chooses to draw the line.

You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where
the
hypocrisy comes in.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line
he is comfortable with.

On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my

behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of
evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds for
criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that
entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made
the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say that
I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I
care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares
about animals in the slightest? What a joke.

What a wheezy whining windbag you are.

Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.


and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.


Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that. You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?


[..]

==========================
LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You
claim
animals should not
be killed just to produce food for people.

Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human population
healthy, no.

Vague and open to interpertation.

Yes.

Thereby meaningless.


No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.

No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which
entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an
absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause
harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should make
every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal suffering.
The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation.

Like almost everything you say.

Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure is
vague and open to interpretation.


Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.


If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
vague and open to interpretation.

I have
chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why there's
any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone
else chooses to draw the line.

You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's where
the
hypocrisy comes in.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a line
he is comfortable with.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then? Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, "Dutch" wrote:

][..]
I'm not a hypocrite any more than you are. It's absurd to say that my

behaviour belies my claim to care about animals, there's plenty of
evidence that I care about animals. You've got no rational grounds
for
criticizing me. What is the difference between you and me that
entitles you to call me a hypocrite? Let me guess, you've never made
the claim that you care about animals. It's utterly absurd to say
that
I'm hypocritical because I claim to care about animals. Of course I
care about animals. Are you saying that no-one in this society cares
about animals in the slightest? What a joke.

What a wheezy whining windbag you are.

Get stuffed, you imbecile. I'm not whining,

LOL, just a wheezy windbag then.

I'm just pointing out his
extraordinary stupidity, which he shares with you and all the other
antis. It's a perfectly reasonable response to his tiresome nonsense.
You can't rationally engage with it, so you resort to abuse.
Absolutely pathetic.

Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall.

That's because you don't listen, you think you're so smart that you don't
need to.

I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

I've told you what I think of you.

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.

Already done.


and as
with most boneheads of your stripe, even more so in your case, it was a
complete waste of breath. Now we're getting some light entertainment out
of
telling you to your face what a stuffed shirted loser you are.


Glad you find it entertaining. So, just what is this point which I'm
ignoring all the overwhelming rational evidence in favour of it? I
mean, I know you think I should stop maintaining that some patterns of
consumption of animal products are morally wrong, but I really don't
see the least rational ground for that.

Stop beating around the bush liar. You believe that ALL consumption of
animal products is morally wrong, how could you not, you think there exists
a presumption of "equal consideration".

You maintain that some
patterns of consumption are morally wrong. Everyone does. Whence the
magic untouchability of animal products?

**** off, sophist. Typical ARA.




[..]

==========================
LOL I've made no claims about saving animals fool. You have. You
claim
animals should not
be killed just to produce food for people.

Not significantly more than is necessary to keep the human
population
healthy, no.

Vague and open to interpertation.

Yes.

Thereby meaningless.


No. You, too, have foundations for your moral views which are vague
and open to interpretation. Everyone does. Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.


that. Plus, killing them
for your entertainment. That, fool, is hypocrisy.

No, it's not. I've never committed to any moral principles which
entail that what I'm doing is wrong. I've never said that I have an
absolute obligation not to financially support processes that cause
harm, even if that harm is "unnecessary". I've said that I should
make
every reasonable effort to reduce my contribution to animal
suffering.
The term "reasonable" is vague and open to interpretation.

Like almost everything you say.

Do you claim to have a foundation for your moral views which is in no
way vague and open to interpretation?

It's a hell of a lot more sound and rational than yours appears to be. At
least I don't imply immorality in others when my own own moral structure
is
vague and open to interpretation.


Um, I'm afraid that's just not so. Your moral structure clearly is
just as vague and open to interpretation as mine, and you too
sometimes accuse others of being immoral. You treat the issue of
consuming animal products with kid gloves, well, you're entitled to do
that, but why do you think it makes you so much better than me?

I don't treat anything with kid gloves you sophist prick. I'm saying that
being against "animal products" is a bogus issue born out of some
fuzzy-headed AR college lounge. The reality of collateral deaths reveals it.


Like your notion of what makes
us "human": you claim that's in no way vague and open to
interpretation?

Absolutely right, clear, no interpretation necessary. Human is human.


If it means "member of the species Homo sapiens", then yes, fine. But
that's not what you mean. Your conception of humanhood is very much
vague and open to interpretation.

No it's not. It means "member of the species Homo sapiens", AND everything
that that implies.

I have
chosen a certain place to draw the line. There's no reason why
there's
any more hypocrisy involved in that than in the place where anyone
else chooses to draw the line.

You persist that you've drawn the line at the RIGHT place, that's
where
the
hypocrisy comes in.

That's absurd. That doesn't mean anything other than that I hold the
opinions that I hold, which is true of everyone.

It's not absurd. I completely accept that the place you draw the line is
right for you, without question. I accept that the place Rudy draws the
line
is right for him, and rick, and the Jain that lives in India, he has a
line
he is comfortable with.

What about the man who buys child pornography, then?

We're talking about harming animals in food production, not pornography, not
rape, not murder, sophist.

Is the place
where he draws the line all right? Everyone supports harmful processes
to some extent, and everyone is prepared to make criticisms of other
people above some threshold. You've given no rational grounds for
thinking that that is any evidence of hypocrisy.

Touchy aren't you? Sophist.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have, so let's have a look at those
clear statements you've made regarding animals over
the years you've spent here to save Rupert some time
extracting them from you.

"I find sufficient evidence of poor practises in
commercial meat production that I refuse to
eat meat produced in this way. In fact for this
and health reasons I eat no meat at all."
Dutch Dec 3 2000 http://tinyurl.com/d49aa

and

"Since I cannot in all good conscience tolerate
the treatment of animals in the mass meat
industry I choose not not eat it."
Dutch Dec 20 2000 http://tinyurl.com/9vc2o

"I am an animal rights believer."
Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3

and

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."
Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh

and

"I recently signed a petition online supporting
an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament."
Dutch 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn

and

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."
Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz

and

"If they are inherent in humans then why are
they not in some way inherent in all animals?
I think rights are a human invention which we
apply widely to humans and in specific ways in
certain situations to other animals."
...
"There is no coherent reason why humans ought
to be prohibited from extending some form of
rights towards animals in their care."
...
"I am firmly on flat ground. Human created rights,
we apply them to all humans at birth, and we apply
versions of them to certain animals in limited ways
within our sphere of influence."
Dutch 18 May 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bu7nb

and

"I measure my right to be free from physical assault
by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone
who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist
to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must
conclude that they hold rights against humans who
would abuse them."
Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp

and

"Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar
way as minor children or people in comas.
They can hold rights against us, but we can't
hold rights against them."
Dutch 24 Sep 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cpxhx

Hope that helps.

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:02 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


snip...



Wrong shit-for-brains, we've tried the rational approach with you,

Not that I recall. I got totally irrational abuse from the very first
post in reply to me. Are you suggesting that you actually do have
rational objections to what I said? I mean, do you actually agree with
Rick that no-one in our society cares about animals in the slightest?
=========================
Again, a proven liar. Show where i have made this claim, killer.



If not, then what's your objection to what I said?

Can you just identify one position I hold which is irrational and
maybe point me in the direction of all the overwhelming rational
arguments you've raised against it.
======================
veganism causes no/less/fewer deaths just because the diet portion contains
no meat.
Completely unsupported by you, and everyother usenet vegan, hypocrite...

snip...

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now
Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur
You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie
girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

Parrot.
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



More of a parrot

No more serious response was ever warranted to your
unserious, sophomoric questions, angie girl. You never
were a serious participant here, and your crap never
merited serious response.


As you don't have anything intelligent to offer

Translation: as you cannot defend your bullshit and
shabby moral beliefs about animals...


I shan't respond any
further.

AREN'T you the dainty thing, though! "Shan't" - how
quaintly dainty. If he were alive, Oscar Wilde would
come in your face.

Nice flouncing off, angie girl. I knew you'd
eventually get around to it.

wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now
Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur
You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie
girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

Parrot.
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



I'm even more of a spineless tosser.


Angus Macmillan

Right.

wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:51:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:24:59 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:06 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

snarky unserious self-marginalized angie girl wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:08:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 07:48:21 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
right on cue, snarky unserious self-marginalized angie
girl, playing her role, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:49 GMT, Rudy Canoza
wrote:
You can't defend your inconsistency, angie girl.
I already have.
You never even tried to defend your towering
inconsistency, angie girl.
See my other evasive, snarky bullshit.
Angus Macmillan
I already did, angie girl. It was a zero.
I'm getting desperate now
Angus Macmillan
We could see that weeks ago, angie girl.
No, you couldn't see anything.
Yes, we could see that you're a sophomoric, hysterical,
unserious twit who can't defend his silly "ar" beliefs.
Parrot.
non sequitur
You really don't have a clue how to defend your belief
about animals.
Of course I do.
No, very clearly you don't, which is why you haven't even tried, angie
girl, preferring instead to do your snarky and juvenile puppet show.
In what way?
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.

Parrot.
Bad faith and lack of serious purpose noted, angie girl.



I'm even more of a squid myself.

Angus Macmillan

Right.

"irate vegan" wrote
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have

Thanks Derek!

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:34:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"irate vegan" wrote
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have

Thanks Derek!

Snip and run, liar Ditch. It's all you have left: nothing at all.

"irate vegan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:34:20 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"irate vegan" wrote
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:09 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote
[..]
Like me, you think that
some consideration of animals' welfare should be given, but you can't
specify how much without using terms which are vague and open to
interpretation.

False, I can say clearly what I believe are the considerations of animal
welfare that should be given and why, I have done so already.

That's correct, you have

Thanks Derek!

Snip and run, liar Ditch. It's all you have left: nothing at all.


Hows the garden going?

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:06:41 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

Hows the garden going?

The wet weather we're having here has ruined my petunias.
I dug the soggy, miserable-looking things up today. I don't
think I'll bother with them next year. I think my cacti have
rotted at the roots as well since deciding to keep them
outside in an old china butlers sink. I had em for years!

On Jul 5, 1:18 pm, irate vegan wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:06:41 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
Hows the garden going?

The wet weather we're having here has ruined my petunias.
I dug the soggy, miserable-looking things up today. I don't
think I'll bother with them next year. I think my cacti have
rotted at the roots as well since deciding to keep them
outside in an old china butlers sink. I had em for years!

Eastbourne is no place to raise cacti.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:33:53 -0000, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:18 pm, irate vegan wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:06:41 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

Hows the garden going?

The wet weather we're having here has ruined my petunias.
I dug the soggy, miserable-looking things up today. I don't
think I'll bother with them next year. I think my cacti have
rotted at the roots as well since deciding to keep them
outside in an old china butlers sink. I had em for years!

Eastbourne is no place to raise cacti.

You told me to put them outside! And now they're dying or
dead. Nice one. Well played.