Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A new one for the Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - FAQ
44 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
Jan 13, 2013, 7:52:52 PM1/13/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
October 25 1999
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
October 25 1999
Mr.Smartypants
Jan 13, 2013, 11:55:36 PM1/13/13
to
dh
Jan 14, 2013, 2:42:48 PM1/14/13
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>
>> dh:
>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>
>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>
>> October 25 1999
>
>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>
>> October 25 1999
>
>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
George Plimpton
Jan 14, 2013, 2:12:25 PM1/14/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
George Plimpton
Jan 14, 2013, 4:17:40 PM1/14/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 14, 2013, 4:43:53 PM1/14/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
dh
Jan 15, 2013, 3:28:45 PM1/15/13
to
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>
>>>> dh:
>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>
>>>> October 25 1999
>>>
don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
part like you do:
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>
>>>> dh:
>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>
>>>> October 25 1999
>>>
>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>
>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>
>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>
>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>
>>
>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>
>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>
>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>
>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>
>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>
>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
part like you do:
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
George Plimpton
Jan 15, 2013, 4:38:52 PM1/15/13
to
On 1/15/2013 12:28 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>> What better thing could
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
Yes, you sure did.
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
George Plimpton
Jan 15, 2013, 4:39:59 PM1/15/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 15, 2013, 4:40:00 PM1/15/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
dh
Jan 16, 2013, 3:05:42 PM1/16/13
to
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>
>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>
>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>
>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>
>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>
>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>
>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>
>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>
>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>
>>>
>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>
>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>part like you do:
>>
>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>
>Yes, you sure did.
>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>part like you do:
>>
>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>
We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
George Plimpton
Jan 16, 2013, 12:14:18 PM1/16/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 16, 2013, 12:14:18 PM1/16/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
George Plimpton
Jan 16, 2013, 12:14:54 PM1/16/13
to
On 1/15/2013 12:28 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>> What better thing could
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
Yes, you sure did.
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
George Plimpton
Jan 16, 2013, 3:40:27 PM1/16/13
to
On 1/16/2013 12:05 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>> George A Plimpton:
sure do, *Goo*.
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> George A Plimpton:
>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>
>>>>> What better thing could
>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>
>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>
>>> No George.
>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>
>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you sure did.
>
> We know I did
We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we
>> Yes, you sure did.
>
> We know I did
sure do, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Jan 17, 2013, 4:17:04 PM1/17/13
to
On 1/15/2013 12:28 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>> What better thing could
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
Yes, you sure did.
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
George Plimpton
Jan 17, 2013, 4:17:23 PM1/17/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 17, 2013, 4:17:34 PM1/17/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
George Plimpton
Jan 17, 2013, 4:17:37 PM1/17/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 17, 2013, 4:18:05 PM1/17/13
to
On 1/15/2013 12:28 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>> What better thing could
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
Yes, you sure did.
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
George Plimpton
Jan 17, 2013, 4:18:06 PM1/17/13
to
George Plimpton
Jan 18, 2013, 1:18:07 AM1/18/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 18, 2013, 1:18:06 AM1/18/13
to
On 1/15/2013 12:28 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>> What better thing could
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
Yes, you sure did.
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
George Plimpton
Jan 18, 2013, 1:18:13 AM1/18/13
to
dh
Jan 21, 2013, 6:03:49 PM1/21/13
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>
>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>
>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>
>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>part like you do:
>>>>
>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>
>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>part like you do:
>>>>
>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>
>>
>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>
>We *all* know
>
Then why did you snip it, Goober?
George Plimpton
Jan 20, 2013, 12:21:29 AM1/20/13
to
On 1/15/2013 12:28 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>> What better thing could
>>>>>
>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>> is this a good
>>>
>>
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
Yes, you sure did.
>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>
>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>
> No
George Plimpton
Jan 20, 2013, 12:21:31 AM1/20/13
to
On 1/14/2013 11:42 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
> What better thing could
> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>
>>> dh:
>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>
>>> October 25 1999
>>
>> is this a good
>
"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
George Plimpton
Jan 20, 2013, 12:21:33 AM1/20/13
to
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
George Plimpton
Jan 21, 2013, 10:25:26 PM1/21/13
to
On 1/21/2013 3:03 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What better thing could
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>
> Then why
>
Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Jan 22, 2013, 2:38:56 PM1/22/13
to
On 1/21/2013 3:03 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What better thing could
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>
>
George Plimpton
Jan 22, 2013, 2:39:14 PM1/22/13
to
On 1/21/2013 3:03 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What better thing could
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>
>
dh
Jan 22, 2013, 6:36:32 PM1/22/13
to
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>
never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
Goo.
>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>
>>>We *all* know
>>
>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>
>>>
>>>We *all* know
>>
>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>
>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
Goo.
George Plimpton
Jan 22, 2013, 2:40:58 PM1/22/13
to
On 1/21/2013 3:03 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What better thing could
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>
>>> We know I did
>>
>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>
> Then why
>
Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Jan 22, 2013, 10:15:25 PM1/22/13
to
On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>
> It's a sign
It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know I did
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know I did
>>>>
>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Then why
>>
>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Then why
>>
>
> It's a sign
It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
dh
Jan 28, 2013, 6:54:16 PM1/28/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
Goo.
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>>>
>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>
>>>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
>>
>>
>> It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>Goo.
>
>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>Goo.
>
The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
Goo.
George Plimpton
Jan 23, 2013, 11:16:51 AM1/23/13
to
On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know I did
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know I did
>>>>
>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss. Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Then why
>>
>>>
>>> Then why
>>
George Plimpton
Jan 28, 2013, 7:21:05 PM1/28/13
to
On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
> The reason it shows
The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
stupidity, *Goo*.
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
stupidity, *Goo*.
dh
Jan 30, 2013, 3:16:26 PM1/30/13
to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>
could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>
>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>Goo.
>
>>
>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>Goo.
>
>The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
How do you want people to think: "Obviously if they never exist, nothing
>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
George Plimpton
Jan 30, 2013, 6:01:37 PM1/30/13
to
On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>
>>> The reason it shows
>>
they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would "gain"
if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a "gain"
by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's another
issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
"gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it repeatedly, in
many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
You "outsupided" (LOL!!!!) yourself again, *Goo*.
> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -
>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*
>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*
>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>
>>>> It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason it shows
>>
>> The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>> saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>
>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>
> How do you want people to think:
Because you *wrote* it, *Goo*: "The loss is what they would gain if
they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would "gain"
if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a "gain"
by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's another
issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
"gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it repeatedly, in
many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
You "outsupided" (LOL!!!!) yourself again, *Goo*.
dh
Feb 4, 2013, 7:11:36 PM2/4/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>
>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>
>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>Goo.
>>>
>>>The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>
>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>
>> How do you want people to think: "Obviously if they never exist, nothing
>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>
>Because you *wrote* it
>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>
It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
George Plimpton
Feb 4, 2013, 9:28:26 PM2/4/13
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
dogs, lied:
> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM, dh@. wrote:
dogs, lied:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felonfor breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* -
>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>
>>>> The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>>>> saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>
>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> How do you want people to think:
>>
>>
>> Because you *wrote* it, *Goo*: "The loss is what they would gain if
>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
>> there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would "gain"
>> if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a "gain"
>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's another
>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>
>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>
>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it repeatedly, in
>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>
>> You "outstupided" (LOL!!!!) yourself again, *Goo*.
>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
>> there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would "gain"
>> if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a "gain"
>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's another
>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>
>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>
>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it repeatedly, in
>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>
>
> It says
It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
dh
Feb 6, 2013, 2:31:36 PM2/6/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
gained by telling that lie Goob? What do you think you COULD gain if you could
persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives for beings on this planet,
Goo? Billions of people do, so what do you think you could gain if you could
persuade someone to believe I'm one of them? I consider the possibility Goober,
but don't have a belief either way. LOL...what do you think you could gain by
persuading someone that I do have a belief, Goo???
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
>>>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>>>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>>>
>>>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>>>
>>>> How do you want people to think: "Obviously if they never exist, nothing
>>>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>>>
>>>Because you *wrote* it
>>
>> It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>
>>>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>>>
>>>Because you *wrote* it
>>
>> It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>
>It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
Your blatant lie is the opposite of what it says, Goo. What do you think you
>have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
gained by telling that lie Goob? What do you think you COULD gain if you could
persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives for beings on this planet,
Goo? Billions of people do, so what do you think you could gain if you could
persuade someone to believe I'm one of them? I consider the possibility Goober,
but don't have a belief either way. LOL...what do you think you could gain by
persuading someone that I do have a belief, Goo???
George Plimpton
Feb 6, 2013, 3:00:04 PM2/6/13
to
On 2/6/2013 11:31 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>>>
George Plimpton:
to live." It's crystal clear, *Goo*: you think that animals that might
have existed but instead never do experience some kind of "loss". That's
just pure fuckwittery, *Goo* - but no surprise that you believe it.
> On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
>> dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM,
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felonfor breeding fighting
>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
>>>>>>>> felon
>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM,
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felonfor breeding fighting
>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
>>>>>>>> felon
>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* -
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
>>>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you want people to think:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because you *wrote* it, *Goo*: "The loss is what they would gain if
>>>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
>>>> there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would "gain"
>>>> if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a "gain"
>>>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's another
>>>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
>>>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>>>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>>>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>>>
>>>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>>>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>>>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it repeatedly, in
>>>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
>>>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>>>
>>>> You "outstupided" (LOL!!!!) yourself again, *Goo*.
>>>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
>>>> there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would "gain"
>>>> if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a "gain"
>>>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's another
>>>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
>>>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>>>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>>>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>>>
>>>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>>>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>>>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it repeatedly, in
>>>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
>>>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It says
>>
>> It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>> have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>
> Your blatant lie is the opposite of
It's not a lie, you stupid Fuckwit. It's the truth. You *do* believe
>>> It says
>>
>> It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>> have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>
> Your blatant lie is the opposite of
that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
kind of "loss", Fuckwit. And your stupid post:
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the
animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
October 25 1999
"The loss [from never existing] is what they would gain if they did get
October 25 1999
to live." It's crystal clear, *Goo*: you think that animals that might
have existed but instead never do experience some kind of "loss". That's
just pure fuckwittery, *Goo* - but no surprise that you believe it.
dh
Feb 10, 2013, 6:50:13 PM2/10/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:00:04 -0800, Goo continued to wuss:
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:31:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
suffered a loss Goo I'd tell you why instead, you stupid moron. LOL...again it's
hilarious that you want to think otherwise Goo, since even YOU can't say what
you think you could gain if you could persuade people to think I believe in
multiple lives. You suck at this so badly Goob, and have so obviously no clue
what it is you think you're trying to talk about, that you can't and never could
say WHICH particular potential future animals you think you're trying to get
people to believe I think would be experiencing this loss. LOL...the idea is so
stupid I don't see how you can believe it Goober meaning you're probably lying
that you do, and the fact that you can't even pretend you do by telling us which
potential animals you think you're trying to talk about PROVES you're lying from
my pov, Goo.
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:31:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
>>>>>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>>>>>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you want people to think: "Obviously if they never exist, nothing
>>>>>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you *wrote* it
>>>>
>>>> It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>>>
>>>>>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you *wrote* it
>>>>
>>>> It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>>>
>>>It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>>>have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>
>>>have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>
>> Your blatant lie is the opposite of what it says, Goo. What do you think you
>>gained by telling that lie Goob? What do you think you COULD gain if you could
>>persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives for beings on this planet,
>>Goo? Billions of people do, so what do you think you could gain if you could
>>persuade someone to believe I'm one of them? I consider the possibility Goober,
>>but don't have a belief either way. LOL...what do you think you could gain by
>>persuading someone that I do have a belief, Goo???
>
>>gained by telling that lie Goob? What do you think you COULD gain if you could
>>persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives for beings on this planet,
>>Goo? Billions of people do, so what do you think you could gain if you could
>>persuade someone to believe I'm one of them? I consider the possibility Goober,
>>but don't have a belief either way. LOL...what do you think you could gain by
>>persuading someone that I do have a belief, Goo???
>
>It's not a lie, you stupid Fuckwit. It's the truth. You *do* believe
>that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>kind of "loss"
I've told you I don't Goober because that's the truth. If I did believe they
>that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>kind of "loss"
suffered a loss Goo I'd tell you why instead, you stupid moron. LOL...again it's
hilarious that you want to think otherwise Goo, since even YOU can't say what
you think you could gain if you could persuade people to think I believe in
multiple lives. You suck at this so badly Goob, and have so obviously no clue
what it is you think you're trying to talk about, that you can't and never could
say WHICH particular potential future animals you think you're trying to get
people to believe I think would be experiencing this loss. LOL...the idea is so
stupid I don't see how you can believe it Goober meaning you're probably lying
that you do, and the fact that you can't even pretend you do by telling us which
potential animals you think you're trying to talk about PROVES you're lying from
my pov, Goo.
George Plimpton
Feb 10, 2013, 8:48:14 PM2/10/13
to
On 2/10/2013 3:50 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "gain"
You were lying, *Goo* - you *DO* believe it. You believe that animals
that are "prevented" from existing experience a loss. You said so. I
*quoted* you where you said so.
> If I did believe they suffered a loss
You *DO* believe they suffer a loss, you stupid piss-sucking cracker.
> On 2/6/2013 12:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 2/6/2013 11:31 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM,
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felonfor breeding fighting
>>>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
>>>>>>>>>> felon
>>>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM,
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felonfor breeding fighting
>>>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
>>>>>>>>>> felon
>>>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* -
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because
>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
>>>>>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you want people to think:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you *wrote* it, *Goo*: "The loss is what they would gain if
>>>>>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
>>>>>> there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would
>>>>>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You say
>>>>>> "gain"
>>>>>> if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a
>>>>>> "gain"
>>>>>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
>>>>>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>>>>>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>>>>>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>>>>>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>>>>>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it
>>>>>> repeatedly, in
>>>>>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
>>>>>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You "outstupided" (LOL!!!!) yourself again, *Goo*.
>>>>>> "gain"
>>>>>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that mythical
>>>>>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>>>>>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>>>>>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>>>>>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>>>>>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it
>>>>>> repeatedly, in
>>>>>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an idiot - a
>>>>>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It says
>>>>
>>>> It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>>>> have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>>
>>> Your blatant lie is the opposite of
>>
>>>>> It says
>>>>
>>>> It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>>>> have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>>
>>> Your blatant lie is the opposite of
>>
>> It's not a lie, you stupid Fuckwit. It's the truth. You *do* believe
>> that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>> that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>> kind of "loss", Fuckwit. And your stupid post:
>>
>> George Plimpton:
>>
>> George Plimpton:
>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the
>> animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>> animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>
>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>
>> October 25 1999
>>
>>
>>
>> October 25 1999
>>
>>
>> "The loss [from never existing] is what they would gain if they did get
>> to live." It's crystal clear, *Goo*: you think that animals that might
>> have existed but instead never do experience some kind of "loss". That's
>> just pure fuckwittery, *Goo* - but no surprise that you believe it.
>
> I've told you I don't because that's the truth.
>> to live." It's crystal clear, *Goo*: you think that animals that might
>> have existed but instead never do experience some kind of "loss". That's
>> just pure fuckwittery, *Goo* - but no surprise that you believe it.
>
You were lying, *Goo* - you *DO* believe it. You believe that animals
that are "prevented" from existing experience a loss. You said so. I
*quoted* you where you said so.
> If I did believe they suffered a loss
dh
Feb 12, 2013, 5:01:04 PM2/12/13
to
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013, Goo outstupided himself yet again:
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:50:13 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:00:04 -0800, Goo continued to wuss:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:31:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
AGAIN, Goo.
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:50:13 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:00:04 -0800, Goo continued to wuss:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:31:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:28:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:36 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:01:37 -0800, Goo stupidly wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:16:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:05 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:16 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:15:25 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:36:32 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, Goo agreed with dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 13, 5:52�pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton [Goo]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is this a good waste of your valuable time, Gooberdoodle?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing could Goo find to do with his time than look up things I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>said over a dozen years ago? I was completely new to it then and Goo's great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prize is a couple of mistakes I made in terminology. The Goober was desperately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hoping he could find another one, and it looks like he did. But it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>matter that he did because we know and always have known I don't believe what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's dishonestly trying to get people to believe. This is another blatant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attempt at a lowlife dishonest trick, which is all Goo is capable of afaik. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo mistakenly was honest a couple of times a decade ago, letting us know what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lowlife liar he is today and EVERY time he repeats that same blatant lie over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and over and over again, lying each time he does and knowing he's doing it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"in the very next sentence, you claim that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe the animals exist before conception" - Goo Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"This view of them as being morally considerable doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mean you think they "exist" in some kind of tangible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sense - no one ever suggested it did" - Goo Mon, 04 Mar 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss. QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Goober. Though I did make another mistake I immediately let people know I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>don't believe what you're trying to insist, but you dishonestly snipped that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part like you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live. Obviously if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." - dh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did Goob, so why did you snip it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We *all* know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why did you snip it, Goober?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because you say stupid nonsensical shit
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign of your impressive stupidity that you think: "Obviously if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>never exist, nothing could be a loss to them." is "stupid nonsensical shit",
>>>>>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, Goo. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows your stupidity so clearly is that there's nothing
>>>>>>>>>>nonsensically shitty about thinking nothing could be a loss if they never exist,
>>>>>>>>>>Goo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because you're
>>>>>>>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you want people to think: "Obviously if they never exist, nothing
>>>>>>>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because you *wrote* it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>could be a loss to them." says they can suffer a loss, Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because you *wrote* it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says "nothing could be a loss to them" you stupid goober, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>>>>>have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>>>
>>>>>have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>>>
>>>> Your blatant lie is the opposite of what it says, Goo. What do you think you
>>>>gained by telling that lie Goob? What do you think you COULD gain if you could
>>>>persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives for beings on this planet,
>>>>Goo? Billions of people do, so what do you think you could gain if you could
>>>>persuade someone to believe I'm one of them? I consider the possibility Goober,
>>>>but don't have a belief either way. LOL...what do you think you could gain by
>>>>persuading someone that I do have a belief, Goo???
>>>
>>>>gained by telling that lie Goob? What do you think you COULD gain if you could
>>>>persuade people to think I believe in multiple lives for beings on this planet,
>>>>Goo? Billions of people do, so what do you think you could gain if you could
>>>>persuade someone to believe I'm one of them? I consider the possibility Goober,
>>>>but don't have a belief either way. LOL...what do you think you could gain by
>>>>persuading someone that I do have a belief, Goo???
>>>
>>>It's not a lie, you stupid Fuckwit. It's the truth. You *do* believe
>>>that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>>>kind of "loss"
>>
>>>that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>>>kind of "loss"
>>
>> I've told you I don't Goober because that's the truth. If I did believe they
>>suffered a loss Goo I'd tell you why instead, you stupid moron. LOL...again it's
>>hilarious that you want to think otherwise Goo, since even YOU can't say what
>>you think you could gain if you could persuade people to think I believe in
>>multiple lives. You suck at this so badly Goob, and have so obviously no clue
>>what it is you think you're trying to talk about, that you can't and never could
>>say WHICH particular potential future animals you think you're trying to get
>>people to believe I think would be experiencing this loss. LOL...the idea is so
>>stupid I don't see how you can believe it Goober meaning you're probably lying
>>that you do, and the fact that you can't even pretend you do by telling us which
>>potential animals you think you're trying to talk about PROVES you're lying from
>>my pov, Goo.
>
>>suffered a loss Goo I'd tell you why instead, you stupid moron. LOL...again it's
>>hilarious that you want to think otherwise Goo, since even YOU can't say what
>>you think you could gain if you could persuade people to think I believe in
>>multiple lives. You suck at this so badly Goob, and have so obviously no clue
>>what it is you think you're trying to talk about, that you can't and never could
>>say WHICH particular potential future animals you think you're trying to get
>>people to believe I think would be experiencing this loss. LOL...the idea is so
>>stupid I don't see how you can believe it Goober meaning you're probably lying
>>that you do, and the fact that you can't even pretend you do by telling us which
>>potential animals you think you're trying to talk about PROVES you're lying from
>>my pov, Goo.
>
>You *DO* believe they suffer
Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
AGAIN, Goo.
Dutch
Feb 12, 2013, 5:06:09 PM2/12/13
to
dh@. wrote:
>>
>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>
> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
> AGAIN, Goo.
If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>>
>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>
> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
> AGAIN, Goo.
to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
criticism of them?
George Plimpton
Feb 12, 2013, 5:49:54 PM2/12/13
to
On 2/12/2013 2:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>> On 2/10/2013 3:50 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "gain"
suffer a loss.
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On 2/10/2013 5:48 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/10/2013 3:50 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>> On 2/6/2013 12:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2013 11:31 AM,Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting
dogs, lied:
>>>>> On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison -*Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>> On 2/4/2013 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM,
>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>> On 1/30/2013 3:01 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/30/2013 12:16 PM,
>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felonfor breeding
>>>>>>>> fighting
>>>>>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
>>>>>>>>>>>> felon
>>>>>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:25:26 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> fighting
>>>>>>>> dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2013 4:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 1/28/2013 3:54 PM,
>>>>>>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 7:15 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2013 3:36 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted
>>>>>>>>>>>> felon
>>>>>>>>>>>> for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:03:49 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrison -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What better thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is this a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying that non-existent animals suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you sure did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We *all* know you said non-existent animals can suffer a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign of your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*. Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we sure do, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you say stupid nonsensical shit all the time, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a sign
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reason it shows your aggressive stupidity, *Goo*, is because
>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>> saying non-existent entities can suffer a loss. That's just sheer
>>>>>>>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> stupidity, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you want people to think:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you *wrote* it, *Goo*: "The loss is what they would gain if
>>>>>>>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You
>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> there *IS* a loss, *Goo*. You say the loss *IS* what they would
>>>>>>>> they did get to live." See that, *Goo*? "The loss *IS*..." You
>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> "gain"
>>>>>>>> if they *did* live. You think non-existent animals experience a
>>>>>>>> "gain"
>>>>>>>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that
>>>>>>>> mythical
>>>>>>>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>>>>>>>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>>>>>>>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>>>>>>>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>>>>>>>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it
>>>>>>>> repeatedly, in
>>>>>>>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an
>>>>>>>> idiot - a
>>>>>>>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You "outstupided" (LOL!!!!) yourself again, *Goo*.
>>>>>>>> "gain"
>>>>>>>> by coming into existence - which is stupid and wrong, but that's
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> issue - and you say that because they *don't* experience that
>>>>>>>> mythical
>>>>>>>> "gain", "they" therefore suffer a loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're an idiot, *Goo*. You're an idiot based on your own written
>>>>>>>> bullshit. No *wonder* you always and dishonestly call every stupid
>>>>>>>> thing you write - *thousands* of them - "mistakes" in vocabulary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say, and you believe, that non-existent animals that might have
>>>>>>>> lived but were "prevented" from living due to the actions of
>>>>>>>> eeeeeeeeeeevil "vegan" experience a loss. You've said it
>>>>>>>> repeatedly, in
>>>>>>>> many different forms, and you believe it. That makes you an
>>>>>>>> idiot - a
>>>>>>>> stupid fuckwit: Fuckwit David Harrison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It says
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>>>>>> have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your blatant lie is the opposite of
>>>>
>>>>>>> It says
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says you believe that animals that might have existed but never do
>>>>>> have experienced some kind of "loss", Fuckwit. That's what it says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your blatant lie is the opposite of
>>>>
>>>> It's not a lie, you stupid Fuckwit. It's the truth. You *do* believe
>>>> that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>>>> that animals that might have existed but never do have experienced some
>>>> kind of "loss", Fuckwit. And your stupid post:
>>>>
>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>
>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the
>>>> animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
>>>> animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>
>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>
>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The loss [from never existing] is what they would gain if they did get
>>>> to live." It's crystal clear, *Goo*: you think that animals that might
>>>> have existed but instead never do experience some kind of "loss". That's
>>>> just pure fuckwittery, *Goo* - but no surprise that you believe it.
>>>
>>> I've told you I don't because that's the truth.
>>
>> You were lying, *Goo* - you *DO* believe it. You believe that animals
>> that are "prevented" from existing experience a loss. You said so. I
>> *quoted* you where you said so.
>>
>>
>>>> to live." It's crystal clear, *Goo*: you think that animals that might
>>>> have existed but instead never do experience some kind of "loss". That's
>>>> just pure fuckwittery, *Goo* - but no surprise that you believe it.
>>>
>>> I've told you I don't because that's the truth.
>>
>> You were lying, *Goo* - you *DO* believe it. You believe that animals
>> that are "prevented" from existing experience a loss. You said so. I
>> *quoted* you where you said so.
>>
>>
>>> If I did believe they suffered a loss
>>
>>
>> You *DO* believe they suffer a loss, you stupid piss-sucking cracker.
>
>
> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain
You think that "future farm animals" that never "get to experience life"
suffer a loss.
Rupert
Feb 13, 2013, 5:00:41 AM2/13/13
to
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:49:54 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 2:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>
> On 2/12/2013 2:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>
>
> You think that "future farm animals" that never "get to experience life"
>
> suffer a loss.
It looks as though he said that at one point, but it is conceivable that he might have changed his mind. What's the point in trying to argue that he does believe it when he repeatedly says he doesn't? He's saying that there's no sense in which a "potential farm animal" suffers a loss if it is not brought into existence. So that's something that the two of you agree on, for the moment at least. So why not move forward from there?
>
> suffer a loss.
George Plimpton
Feb 13, 2013, 10:02:08 AM2/13/13
to
On 2/13/2013 2:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:49:54 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 2:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>
>>
>> You think that "future farm animals" that never "get to experience life"
>>
>> suffer a loss.
>
> It looks as though he said that at one point, but it is conceivable that he might have changed his mind.
No, he didn't change his mind. What he now claims - laughably - is that
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:49:54 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/12/2013 2:01 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>
>>
>> You think that "future farm animals" that never "get to experience life"
>>
>> suffer a loss.
>
> It looks as though he said that at one point, but it is conceivable that he might have changed his mind.
he made a "mistake in terminology." It's one of the more absurd lies he
has told. He didn't make any "mistake in terminology," because he said
fundamentally the same thing four or five ways.
Tell me what is a meaningful difference in these:
(A)
George Plimpton:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the
animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*:
but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the
animals don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
October 25 1999
(B)
October 25 1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo*
August 01 2000
The answer is, there is no meaningful difference. Fuckwit said - and
*believes* - that animals that might have lived, but never do, have
experienced a loss. To Fuckwit, that loss - the loss of "getting to
experience life" - has moral weight, and he accuses "vegans" and "aras"
of a grave moral failure for not "appreciating" or "considering" the
moral meaning and changing their ways. You know this is how he thinks
about it.
> What's the point in trying to argue that he does believe it when he repeatedly says he doesn't?
to believe it. His entire complaint about "vegans" depends on it. You
know it does.
> He's saying that there's no sense in which a "potential farm animal" suffers a loss if it is not brought into existence.
the mechanics of *how* "it" suffers a loss, but he believes "it" does.
He has said it does - more than just the two times I have given above -
and his entire case against "vegans" depends on it.
> So that's something that the two of you agree on, for the moment at least.
I believe not only that there is not, but that there *CANNOT* be one.
Rupert
Feb 13, 2013, 11:20:40 AM2/13/13
to
George Plimpton
Feb 13, 2013, 12:54:39 PM2/13/13
to
quotes above. They were not "mistakes in terminology."
Rupert
Feb 13, 2013, 12:57:09 PM2/13/13
to
George Plimpton
Feb 13, 2013, 2:56:06 PM2/13/13
to
it. But he has said the same thing several times, only slightly varying
the form but not the meaning.
He believes it, and you know he *has* to believe it. I have proved it.
He clearly is attempting to make a moral criticism of "vegans" for
failing to give what he feels is the appropriate consideration to the
potential livestock animals' "getting to experience life." Fuckwit
claims that it is the "getting" of the experience of life that has
meaning "to the animals", and that preventing the animals from ever
existing is "denying" them the "getting" of that experience:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Fuckwit has repeatedly said that we need to look at this "from the
animals' pov [sic]". He is saying that there is a morally considerable
value "to the animals" of "getting to experience life," and that people,
but particularly "vegans", who fail to recognize and "appreciate" that
value are doing something wrong. Fuckwit doesn't put it in these words,
but it is what he is saying - it *has* to be what he is saying, or else
he isn't saying anything.
dh
Feb 13, 2013, 3:20:17 PM2/13/13
to
have lives of positive value and that none could. But what I point out is that
decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination,
for anyone who can appreciate the lives of any livestock...or any domestic
animals at all for that matter...
Rupert
Feb 13, 2013, 3:26:44 PM2/13/13
to
If you're going to bother to have a conversation with someone, it seems to me that it would be rational to at least occasionally listen to what they have to say about what they believe. You might be right about what Harrison believes. But on the other hand, he might have changed his mind over the years. It seems to me that you don't really know. Why not just ask him?
George Plimpton
Feb 13, 2013, 5:12:26 PM2/13/13
to
On 2/13/2013 12:20 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker
and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
> But what I point out is that
> decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination
No, you do not "point out" any such thing. It's what you *claim*, but
with no basis for it.
and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lying cracker and criminal breeder of fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>>>
>>> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
>>> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
>>> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
>>> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
>>> AGAIN, Goo.
>>
>> If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>> to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
>> criticism of them?
>
> It's not criticism if a person actually believes that no livestock animals
> have lives of positive value and that none could.
But you *do* criticize them, specifically for that belief.
>>>>
>>>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>>>
>>> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
>>> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
>>> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
>>> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
>>> AGAIN, Goo.
>>
>> If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>> to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
>> criticism of them?
>
> It's not criticism if a person actually believes that no livestock animals
> have lives of positive value and that none could.
> But what I point out is that
> decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination
with no basis for it.
Dutch
Feb 13, 2013, 6:43:21 PM2/13/13
to
porcupines therefore no porcupines are getting to experience "lives of
positive value" because of our dietary choices. Is that worthy of
criticism too? Animals who never get to exist are all on the same level.
Your case against veg*ns has no basis in reality, therefore it has no merit.
George Plimpton
Feb 13, 2013, 9:16:48 PM2/13/13
to
> And if you think there's compelling reason to think that he's being dishonest about what he really believes, then you could simply produce the evidence for that?
believe multiple times.
>
> If you're going to bother to have a conversation with someone, it seems to me that it would be rational to at least occasionally listen to what they have to say about what they believe.
Then I point out how absurdly stupid it is, and he denies that he ever
believed it.
> You might be right about what Harrison believes.
> But on the other hand, he might have changed his mind over the years.
"vegans" don't give consideration to the "getting" part of "getting to
experience life" proves that he still believes what he originally said:
that there is some "loss" that results.
Rupert
Feb 14, 2013, 12:44:10 AM2/14/13
to
The reality is that I don't really know for sure exactly what Harrison believes. You might very well be right. I don't know for sure. Partly because I'm just not all that interested to bother looking into it all that closely, partly because I find Harrison's writing incomprehensible and incoherent and I think it's pretty hard to be confident about what he really believes, and partly because the only two pieces of evidence you've produced in recent memory are two quotes that are more than a decade old. You could be right. I don't know for sure, and I don't really care all that much. You really don't have any especially rational grounds for thinking that I'm lying when I say this. You should try to be a rational person who bases his beliefs on the evidence.
>
>
>
>
> > But on the other hand, he might have changed his mind over the years.
>
>
>
> He hasn't. All the cracker bullshit he writes about how bad it is that
>
> "vegans" don't give consideration to the "getting" part of "getting to
>
> experience life" proves that he still believes what he originally said:
>
> that there is some "loss" that results.
George Plimpton
Feb 14, 2013, 3:54:11 AM2/14/13
to
about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>
> The reality is that I don't really know for sure exactly what Harrison believes. You might very well be right. I don't know for sure. Partly because I'm just not all that interested to bother looking into it all that closely, partly because I find Harrison's writing incomprehensible and incoherent and I think it's pretty hard to be confident about what he really believes, and partly because the only two pieces of evidence you've produced in recent memory are two quotes that are more than a decade old. You could be right. I don't know for sure, and I don't really care all that much. You really don't have any especially rational grounds for thinking that I'm lying when I say this. You should try to be a rational person who bases his beliefs on the evidence.
evidence he has presented about them.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But on the other hand, he might have changed his mind over the years.
>>
>>
>>
>> He hasn't. All the cracker bullshit he writes about how bad it is that
>>
>> "vegans" don't give consideration to the "getting" part of "getting to
>>
>> experience life" proves that he still believes what he originally said:
>>
>> that there is some "loss" that results.
>
> Okay. So what next? You're going to tell him that he's wrong once again, are you? Because you derive benefit from that activity? Have you thought about doing something else instead? You could look at some porn, or read a book about quantum mechanics, or do an electronics project with your son, or even just pick your nose. I'm sure you could think of something better to do with your time if you only tried hard enough. But whatever floats your boat.
best use of my time in that moment. Sometimes - most of the time - my
time has more highly valued uses - to me, the only person who counts -
than to use it kicking Fuckwit. Other times, kicking Fuckwit is my most
highly valued use of time. It's subjective.
Rupert
Feb 14, 2013, 4:12:04 AM2/14/13
to
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:54:11 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 9:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
> > You really ought to be more open to the possibility that you might be mistaken. I mean, you criticize me for having suffered from psychosis in the past. The whole thing with psychosis, or the form of psychosis that I suffered anyway, is that you entertain irrational beliefs and are not sufficiently open to the possibility that they might be mistaken. You should be more critical of your own worldview.
>
>
>
> You certainly haven't given me any reason to think I might be mistaken
>
> about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>
I make no claim that I've given you any reason to think that you are mistaken. I claim that there is good reason to be open to the possibility that you might be mistaken, with just about any belief that you hold.
> On 2/13/2013 9:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
> > You really ought to be more open to the possibility that you might be mistaken. I mean, you criticize me for having suffered from psychosis in the past. The whole thing with psychosis, or the form of psychosis that I suffered anyway, is that you entertain irrational beliefs and are not sufficiently open to the possibility that they might be mistaken. You should be more critical of your own worldview.
>
>
>
> You certainly haven't given me any reason to think I might be mistaken
>
> about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>
Besides, I wasn't talking about your beliefs about what David Harrison believes. I was talking about your belief that I am lying when I say that I'm not absolutely sure that you're right. That strikes me as a bit silly.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > The reality is that I don't really know for sure exactly what Harrison believes. You might very well be right. I don't know for sure. Partly because I'm just not all that interested to bother looking into it all that closely, partly because I find Harrison's writing incomprehensible and incoherent and I think it's pretty hard to be confident about what he really believes, and partly because the only two pieces of evidence you've produced in recent memory are two quotes that are more than a decade old. You could be right. I don't know for sure, and I don't really care all that much. You really don't have any especially rational grounds for thinking that I'm lying when I say this. You should try to be a rational person who bases his beliefs on the evidence.
>
>
>
> I base my beliefs about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs entirely on the
>
> evidence he has presented about them.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> But on the other hand, he might have changed his mind over the years.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> He hasn't. All the cracker bullshit he writes about how bad it is that
>
> >>
>
> >> "vegans" don't give consideration to the "getting" part of "getting to
>
> >>
>
> >> experience life" proves that he still believes what he originally said:
>
> >>
>
> >> that there is some "loss" that results.
>
> >
>
> > Okay. So what next? You're going to tell him that he's wrong once again, are you? Because you derive benefit from that activity? Have you thought about doing something else instead? You could look at some porn, or read a book about quantum mechanics, or do an electronics project with your son, or even just pick your nose. I'm sure you could think of something better to do with your time if you only tried hard enough. But whatever floats your boat.
>
>
>
> *When* I give Fuckwit another kick, I have determined that that's the
>
> best use of my time in that moment. Sometimes - most of the time - my
>
> time has more highly valued uses - to me, the only person who counts -
>
> than to use it kicking Fuckwit. Other times, kicking Fuckwit is my most
>
> highly valued use of time. It's subjective.
George Plimpton
Feb 14, 2013, 4:22:21 AM2/14/13
to
On 2/14/2013 1:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:54:11 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 9:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>>> You really ought to be more open to the possibility that you might be mistaken. I mean, you criticize me for having suffered from psychosis in the past. The whole thing with psychosis, or the form of psychosis that I suffered anyway, is that you entertain irrational beliefs and are not sufficiently open to the possibility that they might be mistaken. You should be more critical of your own worldview.
>>
>>
>>
>> You certainly haven't given me any reason to think I might be mistaken
>>
>> about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>>
>
> I make no claim that I've given you any reason to think that you are mistaken. I claim that there is good reason to be open to the possibility that you might be mistaken, with just about any belief that you hold.
I've considered the possibility that I might be mistaken about his
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:54:11 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 9:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>>> You really ought to be more open to the possibility that you might be mistaken. I mean, you criticize me for having suffered from psychosis in the past. The whole thing with psychosis, or the form of psychosis that I suffered anyway, is that you entertain irrational beliefs and are not sufficiently open to the possibility that they might be mistaken. You should be more critical of your own worldview.
>>
>>
>>
>> You certainly haven't given me any reason to think I might be mistaken
>>
>> about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>>
>
> I make no claim that I've given you any reason to think that you are mistaken. I claim that there is good reason to be open to the possibility that you might be mistaken, with just about any belief that you hold.
beliefs, and I've concluded it is negligible. Fuckwit has written much
about his beliefs, and I have read it and considered it. I think I have
a very solid understanding of his beliefs. I can't prove that I do,
obviously, but I believe I do, and I think the belief is well founded.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The reality is that I don't really know for sure exactly what Harrison believes. You might very well be right. I don't know for sure. Partly because I'm just not all that interested to bother looking into it all that closely, partly because I find Harrison's writing incomprehensible and incoherent and I think it's pretty hard to be confident about what he really believes, and partly because the only two pieces of evidence you've produced in recent memory are two quotes that are more than a decade old. You could be right. I don't know for sure, and I don't really care all that much. You really don't have any especially rational grounds for thinking that I'm lying when I say this. You should try to be a rational person who bases his beliefs on the evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> I base my beliefs about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs entirely on the
>>
>> evidence he has presented about them.
>>
>
> Good on you. So, as I say, what next? You're going to keep telling him that he's wrong? Much joy may it bring you.
crackpot nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> But on the other hand, he might have changed his mind over the years.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> He hasn't. All the cracker bullshit he writes about how bad it is that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "vegans" don't give consideration to the "getting" part of "getting to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> experience life" proves that he still believes what he originally said:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> that there is some "loss" that results.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Okay. So what next? You're going to tell him that he's wrong once again, are you? Because you derive benefit from that activity? Have you thought about doing something else instead? You could look at some porn, or read a book about quantum mechanics, or do an electronics project with your son, or even just pick your nose. I'm sure you could think of something better to do with your time if you only tried hard enough. But whatever floats your boat.
>>
>>
>>
>> *When* I give Fuckwit another kick, I have determined that that's the
>>
>> best use of my time in that moment. Sometimes - most of the time - my
>>
>> time has more highly valued uses - to me, the only person who counts -
>>
>> than to use it kicking Fuckwit. Other times, kicking Fuckwit is my most
>>
>> highly valued use of time. It's subjective.
>
> Jolly good.
Rupert
Feb 14, 2013, 4:59:46 AM2/14/13
to
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:22:21 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 2/14/2013 1:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:54:11 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 2/13/2013 9:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>> You really ought to be more open to the possibility that you might be mistaken. I mean, you criticize me for having suffered from psychosis in the past. The whole thing with psychosis, or the form of psychosis that I suffered anyway, is that you entertain irrational beliefs and are not sufficiently open to the possibility that they might be mistaken. You should be more critical of your own worldview.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You certainly haven't given me any reason to think I might be mistaken
>
> >>
>
> >> about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I make no claim that I've given you any reason to think that you are mistaken. I claim that there is good reason to be open to the possibility that you might be mistaken, with just about any belief that you hold.
>
>
>
> I've considered the possibility that I might be mistaken about his
>
> beliefs, and I've concluded it is negligible. Fuckwit has written much
>
> about his beliefs, and I have read it and considered it. I think I have
>
> a very solid understanding of his beliefs. I can't prove that I do,
>
> obviously, but I believe I do, and I think the belief is well founded.
>
Okay, good on you. But as I say, this wasn't the belief of yours that I was talking about.
> On 2/14/2013 1:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:54:11 AM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
> >> On 2/13/2013 9:44 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>> You really ought to be more open to the possibility that you might be mistaken. I mean, you criticize me for having suffered from psychosis in the past. The whole thing with psychosis, or the form of psychosis that I suffered anyway, is that you entertain irrational beliefs and are not sufficiently open to the possibility that they might be mistaken. You should be more critical of your own worldview.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You certainly haven't given me any reason to think I might be mistaken
>
> >>
>
> >> about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I make no claim that I've given you any reason to think that you are mistaken. I claim that there is good reason to be open to the possibility that you might be mistaken, with just about any belief that you hold.
>
>
>
> I've considered the possibility that I might be mistaken about his
>
> beliefs, and I've concluded it is negligible. Fuckwit has written much
>
> about his beliefs, and I have read it and considered it. I think I have
>
> a very solid understanding of his beliefs. I can't prove that I do,
>
> obviously, but I believe I do, and I think the belief is well founded.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The reality is that I don't really know for sure exactly what Harrison believes. You might very well be right. I don't know for sure. Partly because I'm just not all that interested to bother looking into it all that closely, partly because I find Harrison's writing incomprehensible and incoherent and I think it's pretty hard to be confident about what he really believes, and partly because the only two pieces of evidence you've produced in recent memory are two quotes that are more than a decade old. You could be right. I don't know for sure, and I don't really care all that much. You really don't have any especially rational grounds for thinking that I'm lying when I say this. You should try to be a rational person who bases his beliefs on the evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I base my beliefs about Fuckwit David Harrison's beliefs entirely on the
>
> >>
>
> >> evidence he has presented about them.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Good on you. So, as I say, what next? You're going to keep telling him that he's wrong? Much joy may it bring you.
>
>
>
> It does bring me some joy to *prove* to Fuckwit that his beliefs are
>
> crackpot nonsense.
>
Mr.Smartypants
Feb 15, 2013, 2:55:05 AM2/15/13
to
raised for TWELVE YEARS for the sole purpose of becoming pet food.
dh
Feb 18, 2013, 3:50:48 PM2/18/13
to
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:43:21 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:06:09 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>>>>
>>>> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
>>>> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
>>>> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
>>>> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
>>>> AGAIN, Goo.
>>>
>>> If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>>> to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
>>> criticism of them?
>>
>> It's not criticism if a person actually believes that no livestock animals
>> have lives of positive value and that none could. But what I point out is that
>> decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination,
>> for anyone who can appreciate the lives of any livestock...or any domestic
>> animals at all for that matter...
>
>I still don't understand
Then you can't apprecieate the lives of any domestic animals, which means
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:06:09 -0800, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>>>>
>>>> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular they you think
>>>> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept Goober that
>>>> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain what you
>>>> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided yourself yet
>>>> AGAIN, Goo.
>>>
>>> If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>>> to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
>>> criticism of them?
>>
>> It's not criticism if a person actually believes that no livestock animals
>> have lives of positive value and that none could. But what I point out is that
>> decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to elimination,
>> for anyone who can appreciate the lives of any livestock...or any domestic
>> animals at all for that matter...
>
>I still don't understand
you couldn't be in favor of AW over elimination. If you'd still like to try
pretending you are then you need to explain how you want people to think you do
even though you can't appreciate the lives of any domestic animals. Go:
dh
Feb 18, 2013, 3:51:43 PM2/18/13
to
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:55:05 -0800 (PST), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Feb 13, 1:26�pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Feb 13, 1:26�pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:56:06 PM UTC+1, Goo wrote:
>> > On 2/13/2013 9:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>> > On 2/13/2013 9:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
the same Goober who was stupid enough to believe it in the first place and it's
not like he has somehow gotten any smarter than he was. Maybe finding out about
his stupidity could have made him somewhat less ignorant, but he's still as
stupid as ever...
George Plimpton
Feb 18, 2013, 4:30:49 PM2/18/13
to
On 2/18/2013 12:50 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lied:
> On 2/13/2013 3:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lied:
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lied:
attached to their "getting to experience life." That's just a fact, *Goo*.
> On 2/13/2013 3:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lied:
>>>> Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular
>>>>> they you think
>>>>> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept
>>>>> Goober that
>>>>> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain
>>>>> what you
>>>>> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided
>>>>> yourself yet
>>>>> AGAIN, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>>>> to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
>>>> criticism of them?
>>>
>>> It's not criticism if a person actually believes that no
>>> livestock animals
>>> have lives of positive value and that none could. But what I point out
>>> is that
>>> decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to
>>> elimination,
>>> for anyone who can appreciate the lives of any livestock...or any
>>> domestic
>>> animals at all for that matter...
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You *DO* believe they suffer
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you can't even pretend to try to explain which particular
>>>>> they you think
>>>>> you're trying to tell people about Goob. You're so stupid and inept
>>>>> Goober that
>>>>> you can't even tell your own lie. Your inability to try to explain
>>>>> what you
>>>>> think you're trying to talk about shows that you've outstupided
>>>>> yourself yet
>>>>> AGAIN, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't believe that there is some sense suffering or loss related
>>>> to veg*ns' decision to avoid meat then what is the basis of your
>>>> criticism of them?
>>>
>>> It's not criticism if a person actually believes that no
>>> livestock animals
>>> have lives of positive value and that none could. But what I point out
>>> is that
>>> decent AW could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to
>>> elimination,
>>> for anyone who can appreciate the lives of any livestock...or any
>>> domestic
>>> animals at all for that matter...
>>
>> I still don't understand your criticism of veg*ns. We don't eat
>> porcupines therefore no porcupines are getting to experience "lives of
>> positive value" because of our dietary choices. Is that worthy of
>> criticism too? Animals who never get to exist are all on the same level.
>> Your case against veg*ns has no basis in reality, therefore it has no
>> merit.
>
>> porcupines therefore no porcupines are getting to experience "lives of
>> positive value" because of our dietary choices. Is that worthy of
>> criticism too? Animals who never get to exist are all on the same level.
>> Your case against veg*ns has no basis in reality, therefore it has no
>> merit.
>
> Then you can't apprecieate the lives of any domestic animals,
Nothing to "apprecieate" [sic], *Goo*. There is *NO* moral value
attached to their "getting to experience life." That's just a fact, *Goo*.
Dutch
Feb 18, 2013, 7:06:48 PM2/18/13
to
right now as you suggest when would the positive effects on animals
begin, and what would those positive effects be? If there are no
positive effects then why should I do it?
dh
Feb 20, 2013, 3:47:27 PM2/20/13
to
fortunately! LOL...if you were able to change things by your own appreciation or
lack of there would be a LOT more suffering than there is now, since you enjoy
thinking about suffering while blatantly refusing to consider conditions that
are of positive value to animals, much less would you consider those which are
actually good.
>and what would those positive effects be? If there are no
>positive effects then why should I do it?
the topic you're trying to talk about. LOL...in fact it's no less stupid than it
would be if I couldn't figure out why bad conditions should be taken into
consideration. To get a realistic interpretation BOTH need to be taken into
consideration, not only the one that supports elimination.
Dutch
Feb 20, 2013, 9:48:44 PM2/20/13
to
not appreciating animals is meaningless.
LOL...if you were able to change things by your own appreciation or
> lack of there would be a LOT more suffering than there is now, since you enjoy
> thinking about suffering while blatantly refusing to consider conditions that
> are of positive value to animals, much less would you consider those which are
> actually good.
>
>> and what would those positive effects be? If there are no
>> positive effects then why should I do it?
>
> It's like asking why you would want to have a realistic interpretation of
> the topic you're trying to talk about. LOL...in fact it's no less stupid than it
> would be if I couldn't figure out why bad conditions should be taken into
> consideration. To get a realistic interpretation BOTH need to be taken into
> consideration, not only the one that supports elimination.
actual effect "taking these things into consideration" would have. I
don't generally advise people to do things that have no purpose and will
have no effect.
dh
Feb 25, 2013, 5:16:21 PM2/25/13
to
influence, though they don't find it meaningless either obviously or they
wouldn't try to oppose it. DUH!!!
> LOL...if you were able to change things by your own appreciation or
>> lack of there would be a LOT more suffering than there is now, since you enjoy
>> thinking about suffering while blatantly refusing to consider conditions that
>> are of positive value to animals, much less would you consider those which are
>> actually good.
>
>That's because it accomplishes nothing, as you just admitted.
would be a LOT more suffering than there is now
>>> and what would those positive effects be? If there are no
>>> positive effects then why should I do it?
>>
>> It's like asking why you would want to have a realistic interpretation of
>> the topic you're trying to talk about. LOL...in fact it's no less stupid than it
>> would be if I couldn't figure out why bad conditions should be taken into
>> consideration. To get a realistic interpretation BOTH need to be taken into
>> consideration, not only the one that supports elimination.
>
>We're right where we started, you still unable to give any reason, any
>actual effect "taking these things into consideration" would have.
I've pointed out that people who pay the extra money for cage free eggs do
>>> positive effects then why should I do it?
>>
>> It's like asking why you would want to have a realistic interpretation of
>> the topic you're trying to talk about. LOL...in fact it's no less stupid than it
>> would be if I couldn't figure out why bad conditions should be taken into
>> consideration. To get a realistic interpretation BOTH need to be taken into
>> consideration, not only the one that supports elimination.
>
>We're right where we started, you still unable to give any reason, any
>actual effect "taking these things into consideration" would have.
it ONLY to contribute to decent lives for laying hens, not because it helps the
person buying the eggs in any way.
If a person decides to be a more conscientious consumer of animal products
instead of a vegan then they contribute to decent lives for livestock with their
lifestyle instead of not contributing to anything at all for them. You consider
doing nothing to be the superior approach and I consider being a conscientious
consumer to be the superior approach.
>I don't generally advise people to do things that have no purpose and will
>have no effect.
livestock has purpose and effect. Go:
When you can't do that, try explaining how you want people to think it's
superior to having consideration. Go:
When you can't do either you will be left with nothing, as you always are.
George Plimpton
May 21, 2013, 1:16:56 PM5/21/13
to
On 1/21/2013 3:03 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What better thing could
for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:55:36 -0800 (PST), Douchebag Hamilton shit herself:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:27 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:05:42 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:38:52 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:17:40 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:42:48 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - convicted felon for breeding fighting dogs, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton:
>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh:
>>>>>>>>> but this way you avoided having to address my point that if the animals
>>>>>>>>> don't ever come into existence, there is no loss to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is this a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> October 25 1999
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What better thing could
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The loss is what they would gain if they did get to live."
>>>>>>
0 new messages