Re: Dear Human !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 20, 2:28 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> Dear Human!
>
> >> The lecturer says at the beginning of the video, "I am talking to
> >> you as a human; it does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew,
> >> Buddhist or Hindu. It does not matter whether you are a worshipper of
> >> idols, atheist, religious, secularist, a man or woman. I talk and
> >> address you as a human. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself one
> >> day the reason why you believe in what you believe in? Have you ever
> >> thought about
> >> the reason for which you chose the religion you practice?"
>
> "chose" ?
>
> The vast majority of people who believe in God appear to have had their
> variant of that belief foisted upon them by their parents, who in turn
> were similarly abused by theirs.
>
> Sylvia.

No, some people have an innate sense where they can appreciate
intelligence in natures design.

e.g. AB from alt.astrology can clearly see the Dragon here!

http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg

the rest of you are blind, abusive bigots and more susceptible to gang
ho tactics to try and control what other people should think by using
Newtonian level science or less combined with racecourse bookie level
guiding morality as some Universal model for an independent random
chemical reaction directionless universe.

Herc

[A B]

"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote on 22nd April:

On Apr 20, 2:28 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> Dear Human!
>
> >> The lecturer says at the beginning of the video, "I am talking to
> >> you as a human; it does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew,
> >> Buddhist or Hindu. It does not matter whether you are a worshipper of
> >> idols, atheist, religious, secularist, a man or woman. I talk and
> >> address you as a human. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself one
> >> day the reason why you believe in what you believe in? Have you ever
> >> thought about
> >> the reason for which you chose the religion you practice?"
>
>> "chose" ?
>>
>> The vast majority of people who believe in God appear to have had their
>> variant of that belief foisted upon them by their parents, who in turn
>> were similarly abused by theirs.
>>
>> Sylvia.

>No, some people have an innate sense where they can appreciate
>intelligence in natures design.
>e.g. AB from alt.astrology can clearly see the Dragon here!
>http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg

Not most of the others you post though, I have to say. I think you may just
have an overactive pattern-recognition circuit. (Excuse pseudoscience, just
worked out as the quickest way to put it. I'm not 100% sure that there is
supposed to be such a thing.)
--
A. B.
><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Apr 22, 8:58 pm, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote on 22nd April:

> On Apr 20, 2:28 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Dear Human!
>
> > >> The lecturer says at the beginning of the video, "I am talking to
> > >> you as a human; it does not matter whether you are Christian, Jew,
> > >> Buddhist or Hindu. It does not matter whether you are a worshipper of
> > >> idols, atheist, religious, secularist, a man or woman. I talk and
> > >> address you as a human. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself one
> > >> day the reason why you believe in what you believe in? Have you ever
> > >> thought about
> > >> the reason for which you chose the religion you practice?"
>
> >> "chose" ?
>
> >> The vast majority of people who believe in God appear to have had their
> >> variant of that belief foisted upon them by their parents, who in turn
> >> were similarly abused by theirs.
>
> >> Sylvia.
> >No, some people have an innate sense where they can appreciate
> >intelligence in natures design.
> >e.g.  AB from alt.astrology can clearly see the Dragon here!
> >http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg
>
> Not most of the others you post though, I have to say.  I think you may just
> have an overactive pattern-recognition circuit.  (Excuse pseudoscience, just
> worked out as the quickest way to put it.  I'm not 100% sure that there is
> supposed to be such a thing.)

There are, and you're right, he does.

[BruceS]

How much confidence do you have that the dragon image you see in the
cloud picture is the same one that Graham sees? It would be amusing if
Graham were to add some outlines to show where he sees the dragon, and
it turned out that you see a different dragon.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Apr 22, 10:46 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/22/2013 06:58 AM, A B wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote on 22nd April:

What would be amusing about that? It would be interesting to discover
that dragons were 100% more common than previously believed.

[BruceS]

I suppose the new-found prevalence of a formerly rare species would be
amusing, but I was imagining the storm of caps-lock hate posts from
Graham, accusing AB of spending every waking hour torturing Graham, or
something like that. Who *knows* what terrible crimes AB will turn out
to be committing?

It's odd, but after all the offers I made to provide Graham with a bunch
of cloud pictures I took, he's never accepted. I'm afraid I may have
lost many of them, but I still have some. They're extremely realistic,
and pretty much any sane, honest person with decent eyesight would
recognize them. My pics aren't some vague wisps that one or two people
see as dogs, lamps, or whatever; they're very clear and well defined.
I'd expected Graham to jump at the chance, and to later claim that my
pictures were so realistic because he'd somehow influenced me. Instead,
he avoids discussing them or even looking at them. Peculiar.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

The TRUTH is so horrifying that WE don't discuss it. This guy you know
as Herc/Graham Cooper ain't the real deal. There was such a person,
and he was a paranoid schizophrenic from Townsville, Queensland, but
he hasn't posted here for about a decade. This guy is a common or
"garden-variety" net-kook who adopted his persona. Probably only
Sylvia, Coach and I have been here long enough to remember the real
Graham. Sylvia won't discuss the subject. Coach has his/her own
problems. I need some tequila to cleanse my palate of this disgusting
"no-fat" yoghurt.

DON'T ASK, BRUCE. ASKING IS THE FIRST STEP TO FINDING OUT THINGS YOU'D
WISH YOU'D NEVER LEARNT.

[Coach]

On Apr 23, 2:51 am, Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Um, what? What "problems" do you think I have, pray tell?

[Graham Cooper]

> >>>>> The vast majority of people who believe in God appear to have had their
> >>>>> variant of that belief foisted upon them by their parents, who in turn
> >>>>> were similarly abused by theirs.
>
> >>>>> Sylvia.
>
> >>>> No, some people have an innate sense where they can appreciate
> >>>> intelligence in natures design.
> >>>> e.g.  AB from alt.astrology can clearly see the Dragon here!
> >>>>http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg
>
> >>> Not most of the others you post though, I have to say.  I think you may
> >>> just have an overactive pattern-recognition circuit.  (Excuse
> >>> pseudoscience, just worked out as the quickest way to put it.  I'm not
> >>> 100% sure that there is supposed to be such a thing.)
>
> >> How much confidence do you have that the dragon image you see in the
> >> cloud picture is the same one that Graham sees?  It would be amusing if
> >> Graham were to add some outlines to show where he sees the dragon, and
> >> it turned out that you see a different dragon.
>
> > What would be amusing about that? It would be interesting to discover
> > that dragons were 100% more common than previously believed.
>
> I suppose the new-found prevalence of a formerly rare species would be
> amusing, but I was imagining the storm of caps-lock hate posts from
> Graham, accusing AB of spending every waking hour torturing Graham, or
> something like that.  Who *knows* what terrible crimes AB will turn out
> to be committing?
>

Oh AB's stabbed me in the back more times the Jack The Ripper
at a Geisha House.. (after doing 5 month of channels for her and
saying I could win the $1,000,000 now it's 'in Hercs head'! )

This is one of my favorite photos..

I only gave an outline of the hat and jacket and 2nd person
to my graphics designer and he drew Jack The Ripper


http://graysshed.com/JACK-RIPPER.jpg


Imagine my surprise when the victim he drew was an exact match
to one of JTR suspected victims!

http://graysshed.com/ANNIE-MILLWOOD.jpg



Herc

[BruceS]

<snip rest>

So what do you say to the claim that you're not even the real Graham
Cooper, paranoid schizophrenic and repeat guest of Qld police, but
rather a mere poseur?

[Graham Cooper]

will you STOP JUMPING every single post of mine
with the same slander??

Clocky invented that in 2009..

You're ALL BS, BS!

Herc

[Graham Cooper]

<<REPOST>>
<< IGNORE DAILY SLANDER FROM MY ENTOURAGE OF TROLLS>>

[Coach]

On Apr 23, 12:26 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:

What is there for him to say. Isn't it obvious?

[BDK]

In article <998ea259-2a56-4893-91e3-f4f7e0ebfee2
@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Apr 23, 12:26ï¿œpm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 04/22/2013 08:05 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>> The vast majority of people who believe in God appear to have had their
> > >>>>>>> variant of that belief foisted upon them by their parents, who in turn
> > >>>>>>> were similarly abused by theirs.
> >
> > >>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >
> > >>>>>> No, some people have an innate sense where they can appreciate
> > >>>>>> intelligence in natures design.

> > >>>>>> e.g. ï¿œAB from alt.astrology can clearly see the Dragon here!
> > >>>>>>http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg
> >
> > >>>>> Not most of the others you post though, I have to say. ï¿œI think you may
> > >>>>> just have an overactive pattern-recognition circuit. ￜ(Excuse
> > >>>>> pseudoscience, just worked out as the quickest way to put it. ï¿œI'm not

> > >>>>> 100% sure that there is supposed to be such a thing.)
> >
> > >>>> How much confidence do you have that the dragon image you see in the

> > >>>> cloud picture is the same one that Graham sees? ï¿œIt would be amusing if

> > >>>> Graham were to add some outlines to show where he sees the dragon, and
> > >>>> it turned out that you see a different dragon.
> >
> > >>> What would be amusing about that? It would be interesting to discover
> > >>> that dragons were 100% more common than previously believed.
> >
> > >> I suppose the new-found prevalence of a formerly rare species would be
> > >> amusing, but I was imagining the storm of caps-lock hate posts from
> > >> Graham, accusing AB of spending every waking hour torturing Graham, or

> > >> something like that. ï¿œWho *knows* what terrible crimes AB will turn out

> > >> to be committing?
> >
> > > Oh AB's stabbed me in the back more times the Jack The Ripper

> > > at a Geisha House.. ￜ(after doing 5 month of channels for her and

> > > saying I could win the $1,000,000 now it's 'in Hercs head'! )
> >
> > <snip rest>
> >
> > So what do you say to the claim that you're not even the real Graham
> > Cooper, paranoid schizophrenic and repeat guest of Qld police, but
> > rather a mere poseur?
>
> will you STOP JUMPING every single post of mine
> with the same slander??
>
> Clocky invented that in 2009..
>
> You're ALL BS, BS!
>
> Herc

I was just thinking it was about time for you to reappear.

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[BDK]

In article <71de6a04-0d00-452d-9e8e-
0e556b...@pl9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com
says...

One of the most bizarre of a long string of insane claims.

[BruceS]

I was simply responding to your post, which was a response to mine.
Cutting out the attributions doesn't fool anyone, Graham, it just makes
it look like you're trying to get away with something.

> with the same slander??

"the same slander"? As far as I can recall, this is the first time I
brought up this particular issue. I'm not making the accusation, so it
certainly isn't slander from me, just a question.

> Clocky invented that in 2009..

So you're saying that you truly are the paranoid schizophrenic who keeps
getting into trouble with Australian law over things like threatening to
poison food, stalking a woman, and harassing various people through email?

> You're ALL BS, BS!

Wow, that was very creative! You realize, of course, that nobody has
ever come up with that gem before, right?

[BruceS]

It certainly isn't obvious to me. The persona he presents is clearly
suffering from mental illness, but the exact nature of that illness, and
the true identity of the person behind the persona, is open to question.
Perhaps if Graham did something (non-violent and without hurting
anyone, of course) to get his name in the news, that would demonstrate
that he's the real Graham.

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

Was that Nobody Nobody Else, or Somebody Else named Nobody?

Oh yeah, I need sleep!

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 24, 2:51 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > will you STOP JUMPING every single post of mine
>
> I was simply responding to your post, which was a response to mine.
> Cutting out the attributions doesn't fool anyone, Graham, it just makes
> it look like you're trying to get away with something.

You're not a detective! Just an old geezer loser
who found an audience for your copious religious bashing.

Herc

[Graham Cooper]

http://graysshed.com/JACK-RIPPER.jpg

Imagine my surprise when the victim he drew was an exact match
to one of JTR suspected victims!

http://graysshed.com/ANNIE-MILLWOOD.jpg

Amazing Likeness if you ask me!

A century old Jack The Ripper case SOLVED by Paranormal Ghost
projection!


Herc

[BruceS]

On 04/23/2013 07:15 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:51 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> will you STOP JUMPING every single post of mine
>>
>> I was simply responding to your post, which was a response to mine.
>> Cutting out the attributions doesn't fool anyone, Graham, it just makes
>> it look like you're trying to get away with something.
>
>
> You're not a detective!

Correct so far.

> Just an old

That's relative, of course, but most adults wouldn't call me "old".

> geezer

Generally refers to an old person, so again inaccurate, as well as being
redundant.

> loser

I'll leave others to decide who's the loser. The guy living in a shed,
in the middle of nowhere, and trying to hide from the police while he
collects dole checks, or the guy living in a house in suburbia, earning
a living and paying bills.

> who found an audience

Really? Aside from yourself, can you tell me who my "audience" is? I
suspect that many people simply ignore both your rants and my polite
responses, but I can't be entirely sure.

> for your copious religious bashing.

My responses to you are not copious, as I have far too much else to do
with my time. They are not religious, as I hold no religion. And they
are not bashing, as that would be simply ridiculous. Please try again.

[BruceS]

Or yet another paranoid delusion by someone who may, or may not, be the
infamous Graham Cooper. You decide.

(Thanks, Wolfgang; this is turning out to be an interesting direction)

[Graham Cooper]

You're a true retard Bruce.

Here's a test for you.

Try to go 1 day, without replying to my posts!

If you get that far, maybe you could even learn to post on the topic
for once too!

You spout MENTAL, RETARD, CRIMINAL and 20 synonyms

100 times a day at me, month after month year after year.

ALL DAY EVERY DAY!

Go away you obsessive loser!


Herc
--
GENESIS ADAM
KINGS BEACH

[BDK]

In article <bb6b8d67-2a84-4c09-8528-
f3fdb8...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com
says...

If it makes you feel better, I think it's really you.

[BruceS]

On 04/23/2013 08:53 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Apr 24, 11:49 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/23/2013 07:18 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> http://graysshed.com/JACK-RIPPER.jpg
>>
>>> Imagine my surprise when the victim he drew was an exact match
>>> to one of JTR suspected victims!
>>
>>> http://graysshed.com/ANNIE-MILLWOOD.jpg
>>
>>> Amazing Likeness if you ask me!
>>
>>> A century old Jack The Ripper case SOLVED by Paranormal Ghost
>>> projection
>>
>> Or yet another paranoid delusion by someone who may, or may not, be the
>> infamous Graham Cooper. You decide.
>>
>> (Thanks, Wolfgang; this is turning out to be an interesting direction)
>>
>
>
> You're a true retard Bruce.
>
> Here's a test for you.
>
> Try to go 1 day, without replying to my posts!

No thanks. I don't need any "test" at this point. If I decide I need
one, I'll keep you in mind.

> If you get that far, maybe you could even learn to post on the topic
> for once too!

You seem to be the one who has gotten off topic, and has avoided the
topic. Tell us again, how can you counter the claim that you aren't the
real Graham Cooper?

> You spout MENTAL, RETARD, CRIMINAL and 20 synonyms

You keep saying that sort of thing, but don't back it up. Where have I
said you were a "retard", or equivalent?

> 100 times a day at me, month after month year after year.

A careful examination of my posting record will reveal that there have
been days during the past few years in which my total posting count was
less than 100.

> ALL DAY EVERY DAY!

I tried explaining this to you before, but you seem to have forgotten,
or not understood it. I'm not on Usenet all day, or even every day. I
pop in here for a few minutes at a time, a few times a day. I have
other things I need to do with my time. If you need someone to spend
"all day every day" talking with you on Usenet, you'll have to look
elsewhere. Might I suggest you strike up a relationship with Artie
Holeflapper, Brad "Venus" Guth, or David Harrison?

>
> Go away you obsessive loser!

You just keep missing the mark with your attempts at insults. I'm
hardly obsessive. Many who know me say I'd do better if I *were* a
little bit obsessive. And as for "loser", let's talk about that one
after you get off the dole, move out of the shack, and find someone,
somewhere who is willing to pay you for your time or even just choose to
spend time with you in person.

[A B]

"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote on 23rd April:
> BruceS wrote on 22nd April:

>> I suppose the new-found prevalence of a formerly rare species would be
>> amusing, but I was imagining the storm of caps-lock hate posts from
>> Graham, accusing AB of spending every waking hour torturing Graham, or
>> something like that. Who *knows* what terrible crimes AB will turn out
>> to be committing?
>
>Oh AB's stabbed me in the back more times the Jack The Ripper
>at a Geisha House.. (after doing 5 month of channels for her and
>saying I could win the $1,000,000 now it's 'in Hercs head'! )

I kind of expected this to happen. At least you didn't give the flamers the
satisfaction of seeing you say it in all caps, though. Them crowing (more
than they have anyway) would've annoyed me more than anything *you'd* said.

All I've done the whole time is tell you the straight truth. I'm a
scientist, I don't know any better. When I think you've got one right I've
said so and when I think you haven't I've said so. You may think it would
be more "loyal" to stick to saying that I think you're right, but it would
also be lying to you, so which do you prefer?

It's you that's summed all that up in your memory as me saying you're
brilliant and then going back on it. (I don't recall saying you could win
the $1,000,000, where was that? Seems odd because I've always maintained
that that challenge was rigged and nobody could win it.) And maybe I've
summed it up in my memory as being wrong more often than you really were.
Pattern-recognition again, the curse of the scientist. As for "look how
many channels I did for you", it always seemed to me that I was doing *you*
the favour, you were so darn keen to have somebody test out your
channelling.

Saying that *most* (not even all) of your cloud photos wouldn't look like
anything to other people is hardly the same as saying that the whole thing
lock stock and barrel is in your head! There ain't such a thing as a
perfectly normal brain, or a perfectly mad one unless you're actually
delirious. Flamers - let him who is without phobias among you cast the
first stone.

[BruceS]

Too late. Graham has been casting lots of stones, and some of us have
lobbed a few back. As far as I know, I have no phobias. The things I
fear are things I *should* fear, such as large predators. That isn't to
say I have no irrational fears, just that I'm unaware of them.

I tried being fair and honest with Graham as well. For a while, he
seemed very appreciative of it. Then, he decided I was out to get him.
He doesn't appreciate the time and effort someone goes to, giving him
a chance to test his claimed abilities. He's only happy if the test
goes in his favor, and even then he can be easily upset.

As for cloud pictures, I've seen plenty that do form recognizable
images, though some of those are fake. Unfortunately, many of Graham's
either don't look like anything but clouds to me, or the image(s) I see
differ from those he sees.

I'm curious: in what way do you believe the JRF prize is rigged? I've
seen Randi's show a few times, and it appears to me that he's giving
applicants a fair chance to demonstrate extraordinary abilities.

[Government Shill #2]

Herc's back?

I didn't get the memo. Smarten up fellas.

Shill #2
--
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
Vique

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 25, 1:52 am, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote on 23rd April:

You decided to dump the son of God - no doubt about it.

You know full well my power is real and throw blood in the water
with your ulterior motive of saving alt.astrology from any flaming.

A dozen children of Eden now DEAD because of backstabbers like you.



Herc
--
KINGS BEACH
QUEENSLAND

[Government Shill #2]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You decided to dump the son of God - no doubt about it.

You're not the son of God, you're just a naughty boy.

>You know full well my power is real and throw blood in the water

Your powers are as real as the Easter Bunny.

>with your ulterior motive of saving alt.astrology from any flaming.
>
>A dozen children of Eden now DEAD because of backstabbers like you.

No children are dead. To be dead you first need to be conceived. Your inability
to spread your seed is a practical demonstration of your powers. Those crazy
eyes are a good thing for the gene pool.


>Herc
>KINGS BEACH
A shack
>QUEENSLAND
Hinterland

Shill #2
--
Not in a shack
Don't think I'm the son of God

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 25, 12:13 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper
>

> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You decided to dump the son of God - no doubt about it.
>
> You're not the son of God, you're just a naughty boy.
>
> >You know full well my power is real and throw blood in the water
>
> Your powers are as real as the Easter Bunny.

HIGHWAY BY THE BEACH

what was your secret thought again Shill?

[Peter Newby]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper

<graham...@gmail.com> wrote:


>You decided to dump the son of God - no doubt about it.
>
>You know full well my power is real and throw blood in the water
>with your ulterior motive of saving alt.astrology from any flaming.
>
>A dozen children of Eden now DEAD because of backstabbers like you.
>
>
>
>Herc

The whacko is still whacking itself.....

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Apr 25, 10:15 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Herc
> --
> KINGS BEACH
> QUEENSLAND

I will offer a $500 prize to anyone who actually locates Graham living
in King's Beach, Queensland.

[Peter Newby]

In a filthy old leaking shed behind the sewerage works - you call that
"living"?

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

On Apr 25, 3:59 pm, Peter Newby <pnewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang Wildeblood
>

> <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 25, 10:15 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Herc
> >> --
> >> KINGS BEACH
> >> QUEENSLAND
>
> >I will offer a $500 prize to anyone who actually locates Graham living
> >in King's Beach, Queensland.
>
> In a filthy old leaking shed behind the sewerage works - you call that
> "living"?

Residing. Anyone who can prove he actually resides in King's Beach.

[BDK]

In article <1636a2b4-6e62-4ab6-874b-
fc049c...@pa2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com
says...

We prevented you from molesting women? Since no woman would want to make
a kid with you, that's a very, very good thing to have done.

[A B]

"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote on 25th April:

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

Graham - for crying out loud. The only way to "save alt.astrology from any
flaming" would be to shut it down and I know that as well as you probably do
by this time.

As I remember it (may be mistaken on this one), the last time you and I
tried to do an experiment, it ran into about a hundred complications - time
zones, no-shows, shifting rules, you name it - and then YOU stopped
answering. Not that I blame you, with the complete mess it had become. In
what way am I now supposed to have "dumped" you?

You want to try it again, we can try it again - if you can refrain from
messing around. I need to practice my statistics anyway. If not, flipping
well stop calling names.

(Sorry about lack of >>'s, my mail program is being ornery again.)

[A B]

"BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote on 24th April:

> I'm curious: in what way do you believe the JRF prize is rigged? I've
> seen Randi's show a few times, and it appears to me that he's giving
> applicants a fair chance to demonstrate extraordinary abilities.

(Huh, *now* the >>'s decide to work, after I've already posted one message.)

Well, I've only actually seen it once, so you're ahead of me. (Also an
account of one astrology experiment in which he was a make-weight alongside
several serious paranormal researchers and didn't exactly cover himself in
glory - some monkey business about a ladder and an envelope.)

In that one the supposed psychic didn't seem very convincing to me, but
Randi certainly didn't either. Contestant was a pretty jumpy type - to the
extent that I suspected ADD - and Randi spent the whole of the preamble
telling him how he'd be watching him every moment, etc. etc., and generally
trying to work up atmosphere. Result was that by the start of the
experiment, contestant was literally gibbering with nerves and barely
managed to give a sensible answer to any of the questions. (Look up "Baby
Mind Reader", might still be around somewhere.)

Also, point blank refused to tell him which ones he'd got right until he'd
answered them all. That's a thing I've seen with other researchers, too -
assuming it's more rigorous not to do anything the way the subject prefers
to do it, even if it has no bearing on their chance of cheating.

What particularly annoys me though is that he apparently insists on
statistical significance of 1 in 1,000 for the preliminary test and 1 in
1,000,000 for the main test. Which is ridiculous odds, way above what would
be expected in most normal branches of science, and in many kinds of test
would be completely impractical to show even if the effect was real.
Actually, a good article about the JREF test was forwarded to alt.astrology
the other day: http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040 .

All the best,

[BruceS]

On 04/25/2013 03:14 PM, A B wrote:
> "BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote on 24th April:
>> I'm curious: in what way do you believe the JRF prize is rigged? I've
>> seen Randi's show a few times, and it appears to me that he's giving
>> applicants a fair chance to demonstrate extraordinary abilities.
>
> (Huh, *now* the >>'s decide to work, after I've already posted one
> message.)
>
> Well, I've only actually seen it once, so you're ahead of me. (Also an
> account of one astrology experiment in which he was a make-weight
> alongside several serious paranormal researchers and didn't exactly
> cover himself in glory - some monkey business about a ladder and an
> envelope.)
>
> In that one the supposed psychic didn't seem very convincing to me, but
> Randi certainly didn't either. Contestant was a pretty jumpy type - to
> the extent that I suspected ADD - and Randi spent the whole of the
> preamble telling him how he'd be watching him every moment, etc. etc.,
> and generally trying to work up atmosphere. Result was that by the
> start of the experiment, contestant was literally gibbering with nerves
> and barely managed to give a sensible answer to any of the questions.
> (Look up "Baby Mind Reader", might still be around somewhere.)

I couldn't find the Randi show with him, but that search led me to
videos about Derek Ogilvie, who was entertainingly disturbing. The
Randi shows I've seen were fun, polite, low-budget shows with applicants
agreeing to the setup, but failing in delivery.

> Also, point blank refused to tell him which ones he'd got right until
> he'd answered them all. That's a thing I've seen with other
> researchers, too - assuming it's more rigorous not to do anything the
> way the subject prefers to do it, even if it has no bearing on their
> chance of cheating.

I do the same with the Usenet tests when I can. I know that certain
claimants will keep demanding test after test, and quit early when they
aren't getting the results they want. If you hold off the scoring until
the end, you get a more reasonable test. Instead of the claimant having
150 incomplete tests that "don't count" because they weren't finished,
and one test where he does well and finishes, you have only the complete
tests scored.

> What particularly annoys me though is that he apparently insists on
> statistical significance of 1 in 1,000 for the preliminary test and 1 in
> 1,000,000 for the main test. Which is ridiculous odds, way above what
> would be expected in most normal branches of science, and in many kinds
> of test would be completely impractical to show even if the effect was
> real.

I don't see where this is unrealistic. These people are claiming
magical powers of one sort or another. If their success rate is
anywhere near what could be achieved randomly, they've demonstrated
nothing extraordinary. If I claim I can magically predict throws of a
fair coin, would you accept five in a row as proof of magic, and worthy
of a prize?

> Actually, a good article about the JREF test was forwarded to
> alt.astrology the other day: http://stevevolk.com/archives/1040 .
>
> All the best,

I'll check out that article. Thanks, and all the best to you, too.

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 25, 5:59 pm, Peter Newby <pnewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang Wildeblood
>

> <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 25, 10:15 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Herc
> >> --
> >> KINGS BEACH
> >> QUEENSLAND
>
> >I will offer a $500 prize to anyone who actually locates Graham living
> >in King's Beach, Queensland.
>
> In a filthy old leaking shed behind the sewerage works - you call that
> "living"?
>

I pressure cleaned it and spent $100,000 on upgrades..

www.GraysShed.com

(includes how to run a 12V fridge off petrol!)


Gray

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 26, 6:55 am, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote on 25th April:

bit late now.... Eve is 36... nearly barren.

G/L with US MILITARY Rule over the planet now..

ADAM OUT!

[Brad]

On Apr 26, 7:14 am, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
snipped

> Also, point blank refused to tell him which ones he'd got right until he'd
> answered them all.  That's a thing I've seen with other researchers, too -
> assuming it's more rigorous not to do anything the way the subject prefers
> to do it, even if it has no bearing on their chance of cheating.
>
>

Early in the days of the Zenner card test the procedure was altered to
reveal the results at the end of the test. Revealing incorrect results
after each guess was upsetting and flustering the candidates. We have
seen the same occur with Graham during his tests. He demands to know
the answers immediately then flies off the handle when he is wrong.
Revealing the results at the completion is standard procedure. Have
you ever done an exam with the marking officer looking over your
shoulder and giving progressive marks? That would be off-putting,
wouldn't it?

[Graham Cooper]

Careful discussing para-tests with Brad and Bruce,
they are professional charlatans at phoney tests
designed to block legitimate testing.

Herc

[BDK]

In article <1ce5dea4-0f70-4829-982e-
2decba...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, graham...@gmail.com
says...

>
> On Apr 25, 5:59ï¿œpm, Peter Newby <pnewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang Wildeblood
> >
> > <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >On Apr 25, 10:15ï¿œam, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Herc
> > >> --
> > >> KINGS BEACH
> > >> QUEENSLAND
> >
> > >I will offer a $500 prize to anyone who actually locates Graham living
> > >in King's Beach, Queensland.
> >
> > In a filthy old leaking shed behind the sewerage works - you call that
> > "living"?
> >
>
> I pressure cleaned it and spent $100,000 on upgrades..
>
> www.GraysShed.com
>
> (includes how to run a 12V fridge off petrol!)
>
>
> Gray

As usual, the last pic shows those crazy eyes of yours.

[BruceS]

You've done it again, Graham. Looking through that web page, I nearly
teared up. You're making us feel so sorry for you, we may just have to
try being nice to you again, even knowing that you'll repay kindness
with vitriol. Can't you get enough from public assistance to get out of
that misery and degradation? I thought Australia had a generous dole;
maybe you're not applying for all the benefits you could.

[A B]

"BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26th April:

Have to hand it to you, Graham, you've got some spunk. I'm hoping you're
living there on purpose, though... if not, have to agree with Bruce, they
should be able to do better for you than that.

[A B]

"BruceS" <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:klca6v$6ti$1...@dont-email.me...

You and Brad have a fair point about the downsides of telling the results as
they come in. Randi never troubled to explain that in the show, I notice -
other than with a little more irrelevant chest-beating about not letting
anything get past him - but, to be fair, maybe he tried and got edited.

As for the significance thing, well, the problem is what it says in the
article. A lot of (the more credible) researchers are claiming reliable but
small advantages over chance. In such a case, it can take hundreds of
trials to reach significance of 1 in 1,000, let alone 1 in 1,000,000 - even
if the contestant steadily keeps up their small advantage over chance
throughout. I think it's the "magical powers" idea that's misleading you -
"paranormal" doesn't have to mean "infallible"; it just has to mean
"wouldn't normally happen".

Comes down to what's practicable, I suppose, as with any experiment - all
scientists would LIKE to publish results with significance of 1 in
1,000,000, but in many fields it's just downright impossible. In your
example: if you reckoned you could predict throws of a coin every time, and
didn't need a day's gap between trials or anything like that, then yes, I'd
ask for odds of 1 in 1,000,000 (20 hits out of 20), because I could. But if
you only claimed to get 60% right, I'd settle for demonstrating it at 1 in
20 significance because it would just take too long to do anything else.

OK, in JREF's case, it wouldn't really be fair to expect the same money for
a 1 in 20 result as for a 1 in 1,000,000 result, even if 1 in 20 is all
that's practicably possible. "Rigged" isn't really the right word either.
But in that case, he has to openly admit that he's disqualifying all small
effects, or ones that take some time to do, at the start.

[Graham Cooper]

On Apr 28, 8:58 am, Clocky <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 10:55 pm, Clocky <notg...@happen.com> wrote:

> >> You thought wrong.
>
> >> He's not unemployable so I doubt he is a sickness benefit write-off and
> >> even if he was, it's far from generous.
>
> >> It does explain why he lives in relative squalor however. I would go as
> >> far as to say that he doesn't own the property, it probably belongs to
> >> one of his relatives (sister?) and they let him live in the shed that's
> >> on it out of pity.
>
> >> It's better than sleeping in a car on the Queensland coast somewhere
>
> > Not somewhere, KING(')S BEACH. Haven't you paid any attention at all
> > for the last three years?
>
> That's just a case of him manipulating the reality to fit his delusion.
>

Bruce and Clocky are both complaining they rarely get any work!

Clocky said he couldn't even afford a solar panel and made a free $600
off the Dole!

Remember Clocky, your mate might get you some scrap solar parts?

Every month Clocky changes his story, on the Dole, never on the dole,
on the dole, never on the dole...

Hahaha!

Meanwhile, I have 1 BILLION POPUPS a month on the best converting
media advertising on the internet to work on....

Mobile Landing Pages:
http://CamGirls.com/landing/mobile-1/?AFNO=1-1000
http://CamGirls.com/landing/iphone-1/?AFNO=1-1000
http://CamGirls.com/landing/ipad-1/?AFNO=1-1000

LiveJasmin CAMGIRLS SITE makes $500 MILLION a year with their popups!

they don't do as well as CAMGIRLS-com POPUPS THOUGH!

Herc
--
www.CAMGIRLS.com
www.CAMAFFILIATE.com

[Hercules ofZeus]

On Apr 27, 10:31 pm, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
> "BruceS" <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:klca6v$6ti$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 04/25/2013 03:14 PM, A B wrote:

> >> "BruceS" <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote on 24th April:

YOU'RE A CLUELESS IDIOT AB


the ODDS per TRIAL is competely irrelevant.

The whole notion of paratesting is about CONSISTENCY.

If you can consistently break 33:1 ODDS

all you do is do that TWICE RUNNING for 1000:1 ODDS

You're not a SCIENTIST AB and SCIENTIST is not a copout for being a 2
FACE like you.

ASTRONOMICAL ODDS come very quicky if you have ANY BIAS,
think how much money you could win at Roullette with 60% chance
in RED.

$1000 on DAY 1 $1 bets
$1000000 on DAY 2 $1000 bets
$1000000000000 on DAY 3 $1000000

A small bias in no excuse not to break 1 million to 1. Take slighly
longer.

Herc

[A B]

"Hercules ofZeus" wrote on 28th April:

>the ODDS per TRIAL is competely irrelevant.
>The whole notion of paratesting is about CONSISTENCY.
>If you can consistently break 33:1 ODDS
>all you do is do that TWICE RUNNING for 1000:1 ODDS

Yes, of course. I wasn't talking about 33:1 odds there, I was talking about
much smaller effects than that. Nothing to do with your particular case.

>ASTRONOMICAL ODDS come very quicky if you have ANY BIAS,
>think how much money you could win at Roullette with 60% chance
>in RED.

Not quite the same thing but I'm too tired to argue statistics here. Thanks
for worrying me though, because I should be sure right away whether you're
right on that one or not - I'll have to brush up on that one a bit.

[dh]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:05:42 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>>>> The vast majority of people who believe in God appear to have had their
>> >>>>> variant of that belief foisted upon them by their parents, who in turn
>> >>>>> were similarly abused by theirs.
>>
>> >>>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> >>>> No, some people have an innate sense where they can appreciate
>> >>>> intelligence in natures design.
>> >>>> e.g.  AB from alt.astrology can clearly see the Dragon here!
>> >>>>http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg
>>
>> >>> Not most of the others you post though, I have to say.  I think you may
>> >>> just have an overactive pattern-recognition circuit.  (Excuse
>> >>> pseudoscience, just worked out as the quickest way to put it.  I'm not
>> >>> 100% sure that there is supposed to be such a thing.)
>>
>> >> How much confidence do you have that the dragon image you see in the
>> >> cloud picture is the same one that Graham sees?  It would be amusing if
>> >> Graham were to add some outlines to show where he sees the dragon, and
>> >> it turned out that you see a different dragon.
>>
>> > What would be amusing about that? It would be interesting to discover
>> > that dragons were 100% more common than previously believed.

Dragons could easily have been on Earth if they were brought or/and created
here by beings from other star systems. Those beings could or could not be what
most of us think of as God, or gods. Dragons could have been pets, or other
intelligent life forms of some type(s). They could be very usefull in a number
of ways, from helping with construction and transportation to scaring the hell
out of humans and killing them when desired. They could also have been machines,
or hybrids between machine and biological creatures. They could have had
intelligence themselves, or have been like drones controlled by other beings
remotely, or most likely a combination of both. Since if they did exist there
doesn't seem to be any strong evidence for it much less living examples, it's
likely that dragons themselves didn't reproduce on this planet, or if they did
at some point they stopped doing so. The possibilities go on and on and on of
course, but those are some basics from my pov.

[BruceS]

This is *exactly* what we need around here. No, not dragons; they would
just eat all the virgins and burn down the infrastructure. I mean the
introduction of Graham Cooper and David Harrison. Quick, someone go get
Carole (can't recall her last name; the quackloon with all the
transparent sock puppets) and Brad Guth, and tell them there's a kook
party! This could be fun.

[BDK]

In article <kttqce$u2l$1...@dont-email.me>, bruc...@hotmail.com says...

I would pay big bucks to see that.

[BruceS]

I've seen a couple of introductory kook parties before, and it is pretty
amusing. Typically, the kooks will play nice for a bit. It seems to be
a sort of "we're all in the psycho boat together" sort of thing.
However, it doesn't take long before they step on each others'
delusions, and then it's a caps-lock explosion. Maybe Graham would
express doubt about life on Venus, and Guth would say he uses some
conventional medicine, Carole could ask how things that everyone agrees
don't exist could experience either harm or benefit, and fdh might not
see the same images in a cloud picture. However it fell out, it would
be very entertaining for outsiders.

[Peter Bowditch]

They could hold it at the Smithsonian, hosted by Ed Conrad.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

[BruceS]

LOL, yes, we can't have a kook party without Ed "brain of coal" Conrad.
It may be tough to get a brick & mortar venue though, so I say just
stick with Usenet. That helps with other issues as well, such as
coordination of time zones and sleep cycles, lack of ability to travel
(or leave a secure facility), and the abject poverty common with these
people.

[BDK]

In article <agk509lunna4f3rs7...@4ax.com>,
myfir...@ratbags.com says...

Oh yeah, you gotta have a loon as the host. Or a drunk who has a pickled
brain.

[dh]

From my pov it's seeming like you should try to support it.

>and Guth would say he uses some
>conventional medicine, Carole could ask how things that everyone agrees
>don't exist could experience either harm or benefit, and fdh might not
>see the same images in a cloud picture. However it fell out, it would
>be very entertaining

If you're a strong atheist why don't you start by trying to explain why you
have such strong faith. If you're an eliminationist why don't you start by
trying to explain why you favor the elimination of domestic animals over
providing them with decent lives of positive value *to them*.

[dh]

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:50:36 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.

You don't know if they'd just do that or not. In fact, I am very confident
that you can't think realistically about the possibility that dragons existed at
all, or possibly even that they could exist anywhere in the universe. That's
pitiful, really. I doubt you can think about what they would or would not do, or
anything about it.

>I mean the
>introduction of Graham Cooper and David Harrison. Quick, someone go get
>Carole (can't recall her last name; the quackloon with all the
>transparent sock puppets) and Brad Guth, and tell them there's a kook
>party! This could be fun.

You seem like a kook yourself. Do you consider yourself atheist or agnostic,
or something else, do you know? Do you favor the elimination of domestic animals
over providing them with decent AW instead? Why or why not, kook?

[BruceS]

You're not paying attention, fdh. I *am* supporting it, right here, in
this thread.

>> and Guth would say he uses some
>> conventional medicine, Carole could ask how things that everyone agrees
>> don't exist could experience either harm or benefit, and fdh might not
>> see the same images in a cloud picture. However it fell out, it would
>> be very entertaining
>
> If you're a strong atheist why don't you start by trying to explain why you
> have such strong faith. If you're an eliminationist why don't you start by
> trying to explain why you favor the elimination of domestic animals over
> providing them with decent lives of positive value *to them*.

And again, you're not paying attention. I *don't* have faith, strong or
otherwise. As for "eliminationist", I would have to guess that's
kookspeak for people who want to get the rest of us to stop eating meat
and otherwise using or keeping animals. In that case, you missed again.
While both my breakfast and lunch today were vegetarian (you won't
count the mayo, right?), that's a little unusual. I eat a lot of animal
products, have leather seats on both my cars and both my motorcycles,
have a sheepskin rug (I think it took 8 sheep for that), and even have a
couple of pet dogs. Aside from the dogs, I'm not too fussed about the
value these animals lives had to them, whatever you mean today by that
convoluted phrasing. But if the animals had never been born, the
question would be moot, so it's only a sensible question if you're
comparing a well-treated animal with a comparable but poorly-treated animal.

So how about it? Can you agree to a "meeting of the minds" with other
Usenet kooks, to discuss your various delusions and obsessions? Graham
is all set to read your mind, a concept that brings up some very amusing
imagery.

[BruceS]

As with so very many things, you're quite wrong about that. No surprise.

>> I mean the
>> introduction of Graham Cooper and David Harrison. Quick, someone go get
>> Carole (can't recall her last name; the quackloon with all the
>> transparent sock puppets) and Brad Guth, and tell them there's a kook
>> party! This could be fun.
>
> You seem like a kook yourself. Do you consider yourself atheist or agnostic,
> or something else, do you know? Do you favor the elimination of domestic animals
> over providing them with decent AW instead? Why or why not, kook?

From your perspective, I suppose anyone not suffering from severe
mental illness probably seems like a kook. If you were paying any
attention, you'd see that I already answered your questions, such as
they are.

[dh]

How do you think so?

>>> and Guth would say he uses some
>>> conventional medicine, Carole could ask how things that everyone agrees
>>> don't exist could experience either harm or benefit, and fdh might not
>>> see the same images in a cloud picture. However it fell out, it would
>>> be very entertaining
>>
>> If you're a strong atheist why don't you start by trying to explain why you
>> have such strong faith. If you're an eliminationist why don't you start by
>> trying to explain why you favor the elimination of domestic animals over
>> providing them with decent lives of positive value *to them*.
>
>And again, you're not paying attention. I *don't* have faith, strong or
>otherwise.

Maybe you don't. Maybe you do. Most people I've encountered who have
appeared to consider themselves to be strong atheists have been ashamed of the
very faith that's required to be one. Only a very small percentage of them have
been able to admit their faith and seemed proud of it. The rest denied it
pitifully.

>As for "eliminationist", I would have to guess that's
>kookspeak for people who want to get the rest of us to stop eating meat
>and otherwise using or keeping animals.

That's a kook interpretation. Referring to them using the gross misnomer
they've enjoyed getting away with using all these years is kookspeak. The way to
refer to people who want to eliminate all domestic animals is as
eliminationists, not welfarists or rights supporters. Misnomer advocates/addicts
is another good way. Much more realistic.

>In that case, you missed again.
> While both my breakfast and lunch today were vegetarian (you won't
>count the mayo, right?), that's a little unusual. I eat a lot of animal
>products, have leather seats on both my cars and both my motorcycles,
>have a sheepskin rug (I think it took 8 sheep for that), and even have a
>couple of pet dogs. Aside from the dogs, I'm not too fussed about the
>value these animals lives had to them, whatever you mean today by that
>convoluted phrasing. But if the animals had never been born, the
>question would be moot,

They were.

>so it's only a sensible question if you're
>comparing a well-treated animal with a comparable but poorly-treated animal.

Eliminationists bitch about the deaths of livestock animals, but they can't
appreciate the lives. Since the animals ONLY exist because they're raised for
food their lives NECESSARILY should be given more consideration than their
deaths. Some of their lives are positive for the animals, some are negative, and
they often change in value. That's the starting line. Can you get as "far" as
the starting line, or can't you? Eliminationists can't.

>So how about it? Can you agree to a "meeting of the minds" with other
>Usenet kooks,

You're all kooks, even if you have friend kooks and some sort of clique
going on. Were you somehow unaware of that? From your pov maybe you're not, but
from mine you are. Some people are moreso than others, but...

"Everybody is somebody else's weirdo." - Dykstra's Law

>to discuss your various delusions and obsessions?

If you're up for it, go ahead...

[dh]

Try presenting some reason to believe you might possibly not be wrong about
that. Go:

>No surprise.
>
>>> I mean the
>>> introduction of Graham Cooper and David Harrison. Quick, someone go get
>>> Carole (can't recall her last name; the quackloon with all the
>>> transparent sock puppets) and Brad Guth, and tell them there's a kook
>>> party! This could be fun.
>>
>> You seem like a kook yourself. Do you consider yourself atheist or agnostic,
>> or something else, do you know? Do you favor the elimination of domestic animals
>> over providing them with decent AW instead? Why or why not, kook?
>
> From your perspective, I suppose anyone not suffering from severe
>mental illness probably seems like a kook.

You haven't provided anything more than kook remarks so far. Am I supposed
to believe all of a sudden you'll start doing better? For how long should I try
to believe such a thing could happen, if it never does?

>If you were paying any
>attention, you'd see that I already answered your questions, such as
>they are.

I disbelieve you. Try providing some reason to think you might possibly not
be wrong. Go:

[BruceS]

I'm suggesting that you should all get together for a little party,
naming names of who should be part of it, etc. That is the essence of
supporting the party. What more do you expect me to do to facilitate
you kooks having a party?

>>>> and Guth would say he uses some
>>>> conventional medicine, Carole could ask how things that everyone agrees
>>>> don't exist could experience either harm or benefit, and fdh might not
>>>> see the same images in a cloud picture. However it fell out, it would
>>>> be very entertaining
>>>
>>> If you're a strong atheist why don't you start by trying to explain why you
>>> have such strong faith. If you're an eliminationist why don't you start by
>>> trying to explain why you favor the elimination of domestic animals over
>>> providing them with decent lives of positive value *to them*.
>>
>> And again, you're not paying attention. I *don't* have faith, strong or
>> otherwise.
>
> Maybe you don't. Maybe you do. Most people I've encountered who have
> appeared to consider themselves to be strong atheists have been ashamed of the
> very faith that's required to be one. Only a very small percentage of them have
> been able to admit their faith and seemed proud of it. The rest denied it
> pitifully.

When I've seen the term "strong atheist", is usually seems to mean
someone who could also be termed an "anti-theist", who has absolute
confidence in the lack of deities. I am one of the many who is
faithless. I don't believe in any deities, but freely admit that I
could be wrong. There could be gods and goddesses all over the place,
hiding behind couches or under tables. If anyone can provide any sort
of empirical evidence for any sort of magic, that's great!
Unfortunately, every time someone claims to have such, it turns out to
be delusions and misinterpretations.

>> As for "eliminationist", I would have to guess that's
>> kookspeak for people who want to get the rest of us to stop eating meat
>> and otherwise using or keeping animals.
>
> That's a kook interpretation. Referring to them using the gross misnomer
> they've enjoyed getting away with using all these years is kookspeak. The way to
> refer to people who want to eliminate all domestic animals is as
> eliminationists, not welfarists or rights supporters. Misnomer advocates/addicts
> is another good way. Much more realistic.

So...you're saying that I *am* interpreting your kookspeak correctly?

>> In that case, you missed again.
>> While both my breakfast and lunch today were vegetarian (you won't
>> count the mayo, right?), that's a little unusual. I eat a lot of animal
>> products, have leather seats on both my cars and both my motorcycles,
>> have a sheepskin rug (I think it took 8 sheep for that), and even have a
>> couple of pet dogs. Aside from the dogs, I'm not too fussed about the
>> value these animals lives had to them, whatever you mean today by that
>> convoluted phrasing. But if the animals had never been born, the
>> question would be moot,
>
> They were.
>
>> so it's only a sensible question if you're
>> comparing a well-treated animal with a comparable but poorly-treated animal.
>
> Eliminationists bitch about the deaths of livestock animals, but they can't
> appreciate the lives. Since the animals ONLY exist because they're raised for
> food their lives NECESSARILY should be given more consideration than their
> deaths. Some of their lives are positive for the animals, some are negative, and
> they often change in value. That's the starting line. Can you get as "far" as
> the starting line, or can't you? Eliminationists can't.

Your starting line seems to be delusional. If people stop raising
animals for food, the animals that otherwise would have existed do not
exist. The non-existent animals have no "value" to the lives they don't
have. If you're just on about encouraging more humane treatment of
animals that are already alive, then go for it. If such treatment ends
up substantially increasing the cost of food without tangible benefit,
you're not going to get very far, but good on you for trying. But if
your trying to encourage people to raise more animals for food, with the
idea that this is somehow "good" for these animals, then you just need
to get your medications corrected. Either way, I'll keep eating meat,
wearing leather, etc.

>> So how about it? Can you agree to a "meeting of the minds" with other
>> Usenet kooks,
>
> You're all kooks, even if you have friend kooks and some sort of clique
> going on. Were you somehow unaware of that? From your pov maybe you're not, but
> from mine you are. Some people are moreso than others, but...

When I say "kook", I mean someone like you, who clearly has some
debilitating mental illness. From the pov of the mentally ill, I
suppose sane people appear "weird", but that doesn't make us "kooks". HTH

> "Everybody is somebody else's weirdo." - Dykstra's Law
>
>> to discuss your various delusions and obsessions?
>
> If you're up for it, go ahead...

I'm mainly up for the entertainment. I would find it amusing to watch
you, Graham, Jan, and others discuss your various viewpoints.
Unfortunately, it seems that none of you are really interested in
engaging the others.

As a start, you could reach out to Graham. If you offer to let him read
your mind on Usenet, perhaps he'd in turn agree to help you measure the
value of nonexistent lives.

[BruceS]

OK. I can imagine the possibility of dragons existing. I can imagine
that in the context of a magical world, such as is found in most dragon
stories, or in the context of a world like Pern, where they were
developed from smaller creatures. I can (and do) even enjoy reading
about these situations, and imagining being part of them.

>> No surprise.
>>
>>>> I mean the
>>>> introduction of Graham Cooper and David Harrison. Quick, someone go get
>>>> Carole (can't recall her last name; the quackloon with all the
>>>> transparent sock puppets) and Brad Guth, and tell them there's a kook
>>>> party! This could be fun.
>>>
>>> You seem like a kook yourself. Do you consider yourself atheist or agnostic,
>>> or something else, do you know? Do you favor the elimination of domestic animals
>>> over providing them with decent AW instead? Why or why not, kook?
>>
>> From your perspective, I suppose anyone not suffering from severe
>> mental illness probably seems like a kook.
>
> You haven't provided anything more than kook remarks so far. Am I supposed
> to believe all of a sudden you'll start doing better? For how long should I try
> to believe such a thing could happen, if it never does?
>
>> If you were paying any
>> attention, you'd see that I already answered your questions, such as
>> they are.
>
> I disbelieve you. Try providing some reason to think you might possibly not
> be wrong. Go:

I can't help it if your reading comprehension skills are so poor that
you didn't notice my answers to your questions elsethread. As an
example, I made it extremely clear that I do *not* favor the elimination
of domestic animals. If artificial meat somehow becomes truly viable,
and we can get all manner of animal food products of sufficient quality
(not likely in my lifetime), I'd still want to keep pets.

This whole thing of responding to what someone writes, rather than to
what you expect them to write based on completely different people, is
very hard for you, isn't it?

[dh]

I don't consider that to be a realistic way of thinking and don't see how
you could either. If you can, then try explaining how you think a magical world
is a realistic idea.

>or in the context of a world like Pern, where they were
>developed from smaller creatures.

By the looks of most depictions of them from my pov on the surface it's
unrealistic that such creatures would be able to fly on this planet. The mass of
the body would be too big to be supported by the wings. Even if they were
developed from smaller creatures when they got to a certain mass the physics of
it would prevent them from flying. But! Thinking about it in more detail it
seems possible that the creatures could develop bladders that would not only
allow them to become more buoyant in our atmosphere but could also allow them to
spit fire, if the bladders were for hydrogen.

But you can't appreciate anything that's good about life for the animals you
claim to consume. I wonder if it's possible that you mentally ever could...if
it's possible that your mind would ever allow you to get to the starting line I
mentioned. Can you do it for any pets you have or would like to have? Or can you
mentally not consider anything that's good about life for your own pets as
you're unable to for the animals you consume?

>This whole thing of responding to what someone writes, rather than to
>what you expect them to write based on completely different people, is
>very hard for you, isn't it?

So far you STILL have only behaved in what is a kooky way from my pov. I
would have kept that to myself if you weren't making an issue of kookiness, but
since you are I'll point out that so far ALL you have done is behave like a
kook. You're maybe sniffing around the edges of finally getting to the starting
line with livestock animals, but with other things so far you're not even close.
In most ways you're just remaining distant from any starting line, braying
insults about kookery which you yourself are more guilty of than I am.

[dh]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:06:38 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.

How do you think that's supporting anything to do with life on Venus? What
sort of life do you think even could exist on that planet?

>for a little party,
>naming names of who should be part of it, etc. That is the essence of
>supporting the party. What more do you expect me to do to facilitate
>you kooks having a party?
>
>>>>> and Guth would say he uses some
>>>>> conventional medicine, Carole could ask how things that everyone agrees
>>>>> don't exist could experience either harm or benefit, and fdh might not
>>>>> see the same images in a cloud picture. However it fell out, it would
>>>>> be very entertaining
>>>>
>>>> If you're a strong atheist why don't you start by trying to explain why you
>>>> have such strong faith. If you're an eliminationist why don't you start by
>>>> trying to explain why you favor the elimination of domestic animals over
>>>> providing them with decent lives of positive value *to them*.
>>>
>>> And again, you're not paying attention. I *don't* have faith, strong or
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> Maybe you don't. Maybe you do. Most people I've encountered who have
>> appeared to consider themselves to be strong atheists have been ashamed of the
>> very faith that's required to be one. Only a very small percentage of them have
>> been able to admit their faith and seemed proud of it. The rest denied it
>> pitifully.
>
>When I've seen the term "strong atheist", is usually seems to mean
>someone who could also be termed an "anti-theist", who has absolute
>confidence in the lack of deities.

The amount of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines
how strong an atheist the person is or is not.

>I am one of the many who is
>faithless. I don't believe in any deities, but freely admit that I
>could be wrong.

I had complete faith that God exists for many years, but finally realised
that things *probably* could be as they are without the help of any intelligent
beings. If there wasn't there wasn't and that's as far as you can go with that
one possibility, which I do accept. In contrast, the possibility that God does
exist goes off in boundless directions. I began trying to think of the
possibility of God's existence in realistic ways and started a list of things to
think about. I present the list from time to time and will paste it at the end
of this post.

>There could be gods and goddesses all over the place,
>hiding behind couches or under tables. If anyone can provide any sort
>of empirical evidence for any sort of magic, that's great! Unfortunately,
>every time someone claims to have such, it turns out to be delusions
>and misinterpretations.

If God exists and wants things to be as they are then he necessarily could
not provide proof of his existence. The same is true if there are any other sort
of aliens having influence on this planet. If the general population learns of
their existence for sure things will become different immediately, so if such
beings exist and want things to be as they are they can't allow proof that they
exist. It's number four on the list I mentioned.

>>> As for "eliminationist", I would have to guess that's
>>> kookspeak for people who want to get the rest of us to stop eating meat
>>> and otherwise using or keeping animals.
>>
>> That's a kook interpretation. Referring to them using the gross misnomer
>> they've enjoyed getting away with using all these years is kookspeak. The way to
>> refer to people who want to eliminate all domestic animals is as
>> eliminationists, not welfarists or rights supporters. Misnomer advocates/addicts
>> is another good way. Much more realistic.
>
>So...you're saying that I *am* interpreting your kookspeak correctly?

No since referring to them with the misnomer they like is much more
kookspeak than it is to refer to them in the more realistic ways I told you
about. But! I encourage you to try to pretend their way is less kooky. The only
way for you to do that is to tell us which rights you want people to think they
want to provide for which animals. If you can't do that, it will be proof that
you can't even pretend that what I suggest is kooky while what they like is more
realistic.

>>> In that case, you missed again.
>>> While both my breakfast and lunch today were vegetarian (you won't
>>> count the mayo, right?), that's a little unusual. I eat a lot of animal
>>> products, have leather seats on both my cars and both my motorcycles,
>>> have a sheepskin rug (I think it took 8 sheep for that), and even have a
>>> couple of pet dogs. Aside from the dogs, I'm not too fussed about the
>>> value these animals lives had to them, whatever you mean today by that
>>> convoluted phrasing. But if the animals had never been born, the
>>> question would be moot,
>>
>> They were.
>>
>>> so it's only a sensible question if you're
>>> comparing a well-treated animal with a comparable but poorly-treated animal.
>>
>> Eliminationists bitch about the deaths of livestock animals, but they can't
>> appreciate the lives. Since the animals ONLY exist because they're raised for
>> food their lives NECESSARILY should be given more consideration than their
>> deaths. Some of their lives are positive for the animals, some are negative, and
>> they often change in value. That's the starting line. Can you get as "far" as
>> the starting line, or can't you? Eliminationists can't.
>
>Your starting line seems to be delusional.

It's a very significant aspect of human influence on animals. If you just
happen to hate that aspect as eliminationists do, I'm interested in why you hate
it. It's easy to understand why they hate it, but why would a person who is not
an eliminationist hate it, or even just not care the slightest bit about it?

>If people stop raising
>animals for food, the animals that otherwise would have existed do not
>exist. The non-existent animals have no "value" to the lives they don't
>have.

That's as meaningless as the fact that we don't raise porcupines for food,
so what significance are you trying to give it?

>If you're just on about encouraging more humane treatment of
>animals that are already alive, then go for it. If such treatment ends
>up substantially increasing the cost of food without tangible benefit,
>you're not going to get very far, but good on you for trying.

I encourage people to buy cage free eggs since the cage method is horrible,
imo. They cost more, but it's worth it to contribute to better lives for egg
producing hens if a person cares even the slightest little bit about that. The
cage method sux so bad that in parts of Europe it has been made illegal. I would
like to see it made illegal in the US, but even more...MUCH more...I would like
to see people in general begin buying cage free instead of cage raised eggs to
such a high degree that farmers eventually give up the cage method because of
consumer preference not to continue using the damn cages.

>But if
>your trying to encourage people to raise more animals for food, with the
>idea that this is somehow "good" for these animals, then you just need
>to get your medications corrected.

Some animals raised for food have lives of positive value and some of
negative value TO THEM. That's a very easy fact to understand, and so basic that
it's a starting line. Eliminationists can't get to the starting line, and rather
surprisingly you've never gotten there yet either. Maybe you can get as "far" as
the starting line eventually or maybe you never will be able to, but so far you
have not.

>Either way, I'll keep eating meat, wearing leather, etc.
>
>>> So how about it? Can you agree to a "meeting of the minds" with other
>>> Usenet kooks,
>>
>> You're all kooks, even if you have friend kooks and some sort of clique
>> going on. Were you somehow unaware of that? From your pov maybe you're not, but
>> from mine you are. Some people are moreso than others, but...
>
>When I say "kook", I mean someone like you, who clearly has some
>debilitating mental illness.

I consider your inability to get to the starting line I mentioned above to
be a mental handicap.

>From the pov of the mentally ill, I
>suppose sane people appear "weird", but that doesn't make us "kooks".

You are a kook from my pov, since so far you've still only written kooky
things. Your problem with considering quality of life for livestock and your
problem with referring to eliminationists in a more realistic way makes you seem
even more the kook, of course.

>HTH
>
>> "Everybody is somebody else's weirdo." - Dykstra's Law
>>
>>> to discuss your various delusions and obsessions?
>>
>> If you're up for it, go ahead...
>
>I'm mainly up for the entertainment. I would find it amusing to watch
>you, Graham, Jan, and others discuss your various viewpoints.
>Unfortunately, it seems that none of you are really interested in
>engaging the others.

You can't find entertainment in your own kookery? If not, maybe that's
because you can't recognise it even after it has been pointed out for you.

>As a start, you could reach out to Graham. If you offer to let him read
>your mind on Usenet, perhaps he'd in turn agree to help you measure the
>value of nonexistent lives.

Why do you go on about nonexistent lives while at the same time you refuse
to consider the lives of the creatures you claim to consume, and the billions
more of them that you will never taste?

______________________________________________________

Here's the list I mentioned above:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a
person has that God does not exist is what determines how
strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility
that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find
it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly
try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is
a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing
the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,
the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc
encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere
with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically
advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became
gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out
of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"
in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary
method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are
most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

[BruceS]

I don't recall ever saying I supported your delusions, or anyone else's.
I said I supported getting a bunch of kooks together for a kookfest. What
you all do after that is up to you. Perhaps you could convince some
altie kook of your particular monomania.

In that case I, like many, am an atheist of no "strength" in your little
system. I have zero *faith* in the nonexistence of gods, just a lot of
suspicion, based on the complete lack of evidence for these gods, coupled
with the seemingly extreme unlikelihood of thir existence.

>>I am one of the many who is
>>faithless. I don't believe in any deities, but freely admit that I
>>could be wrong.
>
> I had complete faith that God exists for many years, but finally
> realised
> that things *probably* could be as they are without the help of any
> intelligent beings. If there wasn't there wasn't and that's as far as
> you can go with that one possibility, which I do accept. In contrast,
> the possibility that God does exist goes off in boundless directions. I
> began trying to think of the possibility of God's existence in realistic
> ways and started a list of things to think about. I present the list
> from time to time and will paste it at the end of this post.

Simply *having* a comical delusion is plenty good enough; no need to
expound on the details.

>>There could be gods and goddesses all over the place, hiding behind
>>couches or under tables. If anyone can provide any sort of empirical
>>evidence for any sort of magic, that's great! Unfortunately, every time
>>someone claims to have such, it turns out to be delusions and
>>misinterpretations.
>
> If God exists and wants things to be as they are then he necessarily
> could
> not provide proof of his existence. The same is true if there are any
> other sort of aliens having influence on this planet. If the general
> population learns of their existence for sure things will become
> different immediately, so if such beings exist and want things to be as
> they are they can't allow proof that they exist. It's number four on the
> list I mentioned.
>
>>>> As for "eliminationist", I would have to guess that's kookspeak for
>>>> people who want to get the rest of us to stop eating meat and
>>>> otherwise using or keeping animals.
>>>
>>> That's a kook interpretation. Referring to them using the gross
>>> misnomer
>>> they've enjoyed getting away with using all these years is kookspeak.
>>> The way to refer to people who want to eliminate all domestic animals
>>> is as eliminationists, not welfarists or rights supporters. Misnomer
>>> advocates/addicts is another good way. Much more realistic.
>>
>>So...you're saying that I *am* interpreting your kookspeak correctly?
>
> No since referring to them with the misnomer they like is much more

Wait, I thought *you* were the one who inserted the term "eliminationist"
in the thread. Oh look, you were! So now you claim it's "their" term?

> kookspeak than it is to refer to them in the more
realistic ways I told
> you about. But! I encourage you to try to pretend their way is less
> kooky. The only way for you to do that is to tell us which rights you
> want people to think they want to provide for which animals. If you
> can't do that, it will be proof that you can't even pretend that what I
> suggest is kooky while what they like is more realistic.

As none of "them" is in this conversation, I can't reasonably even say
what it is that "they" "like", much less provide evidence for a position
that it appears I don't have much in common with.

There you go again, using a term that you seem to have invented, but then
claim to be "their" term, and making vague statements about it. What is
it exactly that I'm supposed to hate, and why?

>>If people stop raising
>>animals for food, the animals that otherwise would have existed do not
>>exist. The non-existent animals have no "value" to the lives they don't
>>have.
>
> That's as meaningless as the fact that we don't raise porcupines for
> food,
> so what significance are you trying to give it?
>
>>If you're just on about encouraging more humane treatment of animals
>>that are already alive, then go for it. If such treatment ends up
>>substantially increasing the cost of food without tangible benefit,
>>you're not going to get very far, but good on you for trying.
>
> I encourage people to buy cage free eggs since the cage method is
> horrible,
> imo. They cost more, but it's worth it to contribute to better lives for
> egg producing hens if a person cares even the slightest little bit about
> that. The cage method sux so bad that in parts of Europe it has been
> made illegal. I would like to see it made illegal in the US, but even
> more...MUCH more...I would like to see people in general begin buying
> cage free instead of cage raised eggs to such a high degree that farmers
> eventually give up the cage method because of consumer preference not to
> continue using the damn cages.

I really don't care how much a near-brainless bird enjoys producing eggs.
I buy cage-free because my wife says they taste better. If they were
indstinguishable, I'd go with the cheaper variety.

>>But if
>>your trying to encourage people to raise more animals for food, with the
>>idea that this is somehow "good" for these animals, then you just need
>>to get your medications corrected.
>
> Some animals raised for food have lives of positive value and some
> of
> negative value TO THEM. That's a very easy fact to understand, and so
> basic that it's a starting line.

How can you tell, and how are you measuring this supposed "value"?

> Eliminationists can't get to the
> starting line, and rather surprisingly you've never gotten there yet
> either. Maybe you can get as "far" as the starting line eventually or
> maybe you never will be able to, but so far you have not.

You're off in loony-tunes land again.

>>Either way, I'll keep eating meat, wearing leather, etc.
>>
>>>> So how about it? Can you agree to a "meeting of the minds" with
>>>> other Usenet kooks,
>>>
>>> You're all kooks, even if you have friend kooks and some sort of
>>> clique
>>> going on. Were you somehow unaware of that? From your pov maybe you're
>>> not, but from mine you are. Some people are moreso than others, but...
>>
>>When I say "kook", I mean someone like you, who clearly has some
>>debilitating mental illness.
>
> I consider your inability to get to the starting line I mentioned
> above to
> be a mental handicap.

To get to your "starting line", I think most sane people would require
psychotomimetic drugs.

It seems you never do get to a point, so I suppose it's pointless to try.
No need giving your list, so I'll snip it. Anyone interested can see it
in the original.
<snip babbling loonspeak about gods>

[BruceS]

Now you're just being silly. Anyone considering an idea has to consider
it in a way that you, a proven lunatic, considers "realistic" according to
your own twisted worldview? I'm not prepared to live down to your
expectations.

>>or in the context of a world like Pern, where they were developed from
>>smaller creatures.
>
> By the looks of most depictions of them from my pov on the surface
> it's
> unrealistic that such creatures would be able to fly on this planet. The
> mass of the body would be too big to be supported by the wings. Even if
> they were developed from smaller creatures when they got to a certain
> mass the physics of it would prevent them from flying. But! Thinking
> about it in more detail it seems possible that the creatures could
> develop bladders that would not only allow them to become more buoyant
> in our atmosphere but could also allow them to spit fire, if the
> bladders were for hydrogen.

You like to make a lot of assumptions based on your own mistaken concept
of reality, don't you?

I make the lives of my pets as good as I reasonably can. If these animals
did not exist, the point would be moot. Where are you trying to go with
this? If all domestic animals were eliminated (not born in the first
place), there would be no lives to be good or bad, so no "value".

>
>>This whole thing of responding to what someone writes, rather than to
>>what you expect them to write based on completely different people, is
>>very hard for you, isn't it?
>
> So far you STILL have only behaved in what is a kooky way from my
> pov. I
> would have kept that to myself if you weren't making an issue of
> kookiness, but since you are I'll point out that so far ALL you have
> done is behave like a kook. You're maybe sniffing around the edges of
> finally getting to the starting line with livestock animals, but with
> other things so far you're not even close. In most ways you're just
> remaining distant from any starting line, braying insults about kookery
> which you yourself are more guilty of than I am.

Your starting line appears to involve being insane. I'm not going to be
able to meet you there, without substantial pharmacological help.

[dh]

I'm trying to help you see your position.

>Anyone considering an idea has to consider
>it in a way that you, a proven lunatic,

Give examples of your supposed proof.

>considers "realistic" according to
>your own twisted worldview? I'm not prepared to live down to your
>expectations.

What I told you I felt confident about you is true, and you're proving it.

>>>or in the context of a world like Pern, where they were developed from
>>>smaller creatures.
>>
>> By the looks of most depictions of them from my pov on the surface
>> it's
>> unrealistic that such creatures would be able to fly on this planet. The
>> mass of the body would be too big to be supported by the wings. Even if
>> they were developed from smaller creatures when they got to a certain
>> mass the physics of it would prevent them from flying. But! Thinking
>> about it in more detail it seems possible that the creatures could
>> develop bladders that would not only allow them to become more buoyant
>> in our atmosphere but could also allow them to spit fire, if the
>> bladders were for hydrogen.
>
>You like to make a lot of assumptions based on your own mistaken concept
>of reality, don't you?

Here are a couple of basic facts for you: hydrogen is lighter than air and
also easy to ignite.

If you feel that they have decent lives of positive value TO THEM are you
able to have any appreciation of that aspect, or don't you care in the least?

>If these animals did not exist, the point would be moot.

Rocks aren't alive. So what to both?

>Where are you trying to go with
>this? If all domestic animals were eliminated (not born in the first
>place), there would be no lives to be good or bad, so no "value".

Where I'm going is that they DO exist. If you can learn to appreciate that
then you've gotten to the starting line. If not, then you can't get to the
starting line.

>>>This whole thing of responding to what someone writes, rather than to
>>>what you expect them to write based on completely different people, is
>>>very hard for you, isn't it?
>>
>> So far you STILL have only behaved in what is a kooky way from my
>> pov. I
>> would have kept that to myself if you weren't making an issue of
>> kookiness, but since you are I'll point out that so far ALL you have
>> done is behave like a kook. You're maybe sniffing around the edges of
>> finally getting to the starting line with livestock animals, but with
>> other things so far you're not even close. In most ways you're just
>> remaining distant from any starting line, braying insults about kookery
>> which you yourself are more guilty of than I am.
>
>Your starting line appears to involve being insane.

You sure are a kook. Do you think the appreciation that Indians and Eskimos
had/have for the animals they consume is insane as well, or only appreciation
for the lives of livestock? Do you think appreciation for the lives of all
domestic animals is insane, or only appreciation for the lives of livestock? Do
you think appreciation for the lives of wildlife is also insane? Do you think
appreciation for the lives of other humans is insane? How do you pick and choose
which you feel are insane and which you don't, IF you're able to appreciate life
for any creatures at all?

>I'm not going to be
>able to meet you there, without substantial pharmacological help.

If you have to get wasted to LEARN to appreciate life for any of your pets
then I feel you should try doing it, if not for your own sake for theirs. If you
can LEARN to do it for any other creatures that would be an improvement for
someone in your position as well. Good luck.

[dh]

_________________________________________________________
you:

>>>>>>> Maybe Graham would express doubt about life on Venus,

me:

>>>>>> From my pov it's seeming like you should try to support it.

you:

>>>>> You're not paying attention, fdh. I *am* supporting it, right here

���������������������������������������������������������

> your delusions, or anyone else's.

It was YOUR idea. How could you forget that part?

> I said I supported getting a bunch of kooks together for a kookfest. What
> you all do

You're a kook. How do you allow yourself to pretend that you're not? Try
explaining:

>after that is up to you. Perhaps you could convince some
> altie kook of your particular monomania.

What in particular do you have in mind, do you know?

It's not my system. Try to learn to comprehend that much if you can.

>I have zero *faith* in the nonexistence of gods,

Then you're not a strong atheist. Probably a weak one, and again it's not my
system.

>just a lot of
>suspicion, based on the complete lack of evidence for these gods, coupled
>with the seemingly extreme unlikelihood of thir existence.

It's as or more likely that they do exist as not, even if there aren't any
associated with this planet. That's a basic, but I doubt a person like yourself
could ever get even that "far".

>>>I am one of the many who is
>>>faithless. I don't believe in any deities, but freely admit that I
>>>could be wrong.
>>
>> I had complete faith that God exists for many years, but finally
>> realised
>> that things *probably* could be as they are without the help of any
>> intelligent beings. If there wasn't there wasn't and that's as far as
>> you can go with that one possibility, which I do accept. In contrast,
>> the possibility that God does exist goes off in boundless directions. I
>> began trying to think of the possibility of God's existence in realistic
>> ways and started a list of things to think about. I present the list
>> from time to time and will paste it at the end of this post.
>
>Simply *having* a comical delusion is plenty good enough;

You clearly appear to have faith that God does not exist, even though you're
very very clearly ashamed of it. LOL...so from my pov your position certainly is
plenty comical, kook.

>no need to
>expound on the details.

You're unable to think realistically about the possibility at all ...LOL...
though amusingly you probably like to think you are able.

What part of "referring to them with the misnomer they like" makes you think
I'm referring to the way I refer to them, instead of to the misnomer they like?

>> kookspeak than it is to refer to them in the more
>realistic ways I told
>> you about. But! I encourage you to try to pretend their way is less
>> kooky. The only way for you to do that is to tell us which rights you
>> want people to think they want to provide for which animals. If you
>> can't do that, it will be proof that you can't even pretend that what I
>> suggest is kooky while what they like is more realistic.
>
>As none of "them" is in this conversation, I can't reasonably even say
>what it is that "they" "like", much less provide evidence for a position
>that it appears I don't have much in common with.

Proving you had no clue when you made your insulting remark, and you STILL
don't have any clue.

What part of "referring to them with the misnomer they like" makes you think
I'm referring to the way I refer to them, instead of to the misnomer they like?

>and making vague statements about it. What is
>it exactly that I'm supposed to hate

Since the animals ONLY exist because they're raised for food their lives
NECESSARILY should be given more consideration than their deaths.

>, and why?

I don't feel that anyone should hate it, but some people do. You tell me
why.

>>>If people stop raising
>>>animals for food, the animals that otherwise would have existed do not
>>>exist. The non-existent animals have no "value" to the lives they don't
>>>have.
>>
>> That's as meaningless as the fact that we don't raise porcupines for
>> food,
>> so what significance are you trying to give it?
>>
>>>If you're just on about encouraging more humane treatment of animals
>>>that are already alive, then go for it. If such treatment ends up
>>>substantially increasing the cost of food without tangible benefit,
>>>you're not going to get very far, but good on you for trying.
>>
>> I encourage people to buy cage free eggs since the cage method is
>> horrible,
>> imo. They cost more, but it's worth it to contribute to better lives for
>> egg producing hens if a person cares even the slightest little bit about
>> that. The cage method sux so bad that in parts of Europe it has been
>> made illegal. I would like to see it made illegal in the US, but even
>> more...MUCH more...I would like to see people in general begin buying
>> cage free instead of cage raised eggs to such a high degree that farmers
>> eventually give up the cage method because of consumer preference not to
>> continue using the damn cages.
>
>I really don't care how much a near-brainless bird enjoys producing eggs.
> I buy cage-free because my wife says they taste better.

LOL!!! Maybe she does care but knows you're too inconsiderate to ever learn
to give a shit. Then again maybe she really does think they taste better.
There's no reason to think they should that's for sure, but any reason a person
buys cage free instead of supporting the cage method is good with me, though
some reasons are certainly a hell of a lot better than others. Like when a
person buys them because they DO give a shit, for example. You're probably not
even thinking about cage free but instead are thinking about "organic" or
something else like that. The only reason to buy cage free is if you hate the
cages, and I do hate the damned things.

>If they were
> indstinguishable, I'd go with the cheaper variety.

You are completely inconsiderate about it then. What a kook, from my pov.

>>>But if
>>>your trying to encourage people to raise more animals for food, with the
>>>idea that this is somehow "good" for these animals, then you just need
>>>to get your medications corrected.
>>
>> Some animals raised for food have lives of positive value and some
>> of
>> negative value TO THEM. That's a very easy fact to understand, and so
>> basic that it's a starting line.
>
>How can you tell, and how are you measuring this supposed "value"?

You can tell by the way they behave if you get around any enough to learn.

>> Eliminationists can't get to the
>> starting line, and rather surprisingly you've never gotten there yet
>> either. Maybe you can get as "far" as the starting line eventually or
>> maybe you never will be able to, but so far you have not.
>
>You're off in loony-tunes land again.

It necessarily seems that way because of the purity of your inconsideration.
We'll probably see that pop up in other examples, but whether or no it's
certainly glaring blindingly in regards to this topic. The purity of your
inconsideration prevents you from recognising much less appreciating the obvious
fact that there are different qualities of life for livestock animals, and
possibly for any other creatures at all besides yourself.

>>>Either way, I'll keep eating meat, wearing leather, etc.
>>>
>>>>> So how about it? Can you agree to a "meeting of the minds" with
>>>>> other Usenet kooks,
>>>>
>>>> You're all kooks, even if you have friend kooks and some sort of
>>>> clique
>>>> going on. Were you somehow unaware of that? From your pov maybe you're
>>>> not, but from mine you are. Some people are moreso than others, but...
>>>
>>>When I say "kook", I mean someone like you, who clearly has some
>>>debilitating mental illness.
>>
>> I consider your inability to get to the starting line I mentioned
>> above to
>> be a mental handicap.
>
>To get to your "starting line", I think most sane people would require
>psychotomimetic drugs.

All they would have to do would be learn to consider and appreciate the
lives of the animals they consume. It's not hard, even if it's impossible for
you.

I'll point out that you appear to try to give consideration to
nonexistent...whatever...while at the same time you're unable to consider the
lives of animals that have existed, that do exist, and that will exist in the
future.

> No need giving your list, so I'll snip it. Anyone interested can see it
>in the original.
><snip babbling loonspeak about gods>

You can't think realistically about the existence of God or gods, and the
purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering the lives of domestic
animals in any way(s) at all, afawk. We'll just take it for granted that since
you can't consider the lives of domestic animals, you probably can't consider
the lives of wildlife either. That pretty much covers all animals on the entire
planet. The biggest question now remaining is:

Does your limitation restrict you from considering humans too?

[BruceS]

You're incorrectly linking two things. My idea was to get you kooks
together for a kook party, and I suggested possible ways that you all
might interact, doubting each others' delusions and then going full
caps-lock on each other. It is the get-together that I was supporting,
not any of your particular delusions. HTH.

>> I said I supported getting a bunch of kooks together for a kookfest.
>> What you all do
>
> You're a kook. How do you allow yourself to pretend that you're not?
> Try
> explaining:
>
>>after that is up to you. Perhaps you could convince some
>> altie kook of your particular monomania.
>
> What in particular do you have in mind, do you know?

I am not being very particular. I'm suggesting that you attempt to
convince another kook (esp. an altie) of your particular kooky ideas. Is
this really so hard for you to understand?

Methings the lad doth protest too much.

>
>>just a lot of
>>suspicion, based on the complete lack of evidence for these gods,
>>coupled with the seemingly extreme unlikelihood of thir existence.
>
> It's as or more likely that they do exist as not, even if there
> aren't any
> associated with this planet. That's a basic, but I doubt a person like
> yourself could ever get even that "far".

Once again, you identify yourself as a kook, with a poor grasp of reality.

>
>>>>I am one of the many who is
>>>>faithless. I don't believe in any deities, but freely admit that I
>>>>could be wrong.
>>>
>>> I had complete faith that God exists for many years, but finally
>>> realised
>>> that things *probably* could be as they are without the help of any
>>> intelligent beings. If there wasn't there wasn't and that's as far as
>>> you can go with that one possibility, which I do accept. In contrast,
>>> the possibility that God does exist goes off in boundless directions.
>>> I began trying to think of the possibility of God's existence in
>>> realistic ways and started a list of things to think about. I present
>>> the list from time to time and will paste it at the end of this post.
>>
>>Simply *having* a comical delusion is plenty good enough;
>
> You clearly appear to have faith that God does not exist, even
> though you're
> very very clearly ashamed of it. LOL...so from my pov your position
> certainly is plenty comical, kook.

You're projecting again. I have no faith of that sort.

You're the one using that term---not them. It's your term.

You just keep demonstrating what a clueless kook you are. If my wife says
the cage-free eggs taste better, I assume that's because she thinks they
taste better. That's how normal conversation works. And I am talking
about cage-free, not organic. Please try to keep up; it isn't hard.

>
>>If they were
>> indstinguishable, I'd go with the cheaper variety.
>
> You are completely inconsiderate about it then. What a kook, from my
> pov.

From your clueless kook pov, yes.

[dh]

I'm asking you about something that YOU brought up, you kook.

>My idea was to get you kooks
>together for a kook party,

You can't keep up with your own kookery.

>and I suggested possible ways that you all
>might interact, doubting each others' delusions and then going full
>caps-lock on each other.

You've never seen me do that. I point out other people's failures and
refusals to consider significant things that they do NOT want to take into
consideration. When I do that, it produces cognitive in the person I do it to.
That's something that happens when you're presented with something that
conflicts with what you WANT to believe. For example, and quite amusingly, when
most strong atheists are presented with the FACT that it requires faith in order
to be one, that fact often/usually causes severe cognitive dissonance. It is a
very uncomfortable feeling and one that people will try to reduce or eliminate
in any ways they can. Just denying the information they don't like and trying to
think of the peson presenting it as a "kook" or some such thing is the most
common way people try to deal with their dissonance in these ngs, imo.

>It is the get-together that I was supporting,
>not any of your particular delusions. HTH.

I point out things other people don't like to think about but they SHOULD
think about. If you think any of the things I point out are "delusions" then I'm
interested in which ones you think are, and why. If you can't be specific we'll
know it's another thing you're clueless about like the value of life and the
possibility of the existence of gods...and of course dragons...and whatever all
else.

>>> I said I supported getting a bunch of kooks together for a kookfest.
>>> What you all do
>>
>> You're a kook. How do you allow yourself to pretend that you're not?
>> Try
>> explaining:
>>
>>>after that is up to you. Perhaps you could convince some
>>> altie kook of your particular monomania.
>>
>> What in particular do you have in mind, do you know?
>
>I am not being very particular.

You have no idea what you want people to think you think you're trying to
talk about. Your kookery is impressive. Try to think of something though, since
you're the one trying to say something about it. LOL!...damn, what a kooky
position you're in....or rather what kooky positionS you're in...LOL...

>I'm suggesting that you attempt to
>convince another kook (esp. an altie) of your particular kooky ideas. Is
>this really so hard for you to understand?

You're a kook and I'm trying to help you learn to appreciate the value of
life for some animals. You can't do that. And the possibility of gods....nope.
Dragons? Nah.

YOU are the lad who tried to whine about "my" system. It's what you WANTED
to believe. Then I let you know you were wrong about it, and now you're feeling
the dissonance and wish you could reduce it or get rid of it. Trying to blame me
for something is the way you're attempting to make yourself feel a little
better. But YOU again are wrong since it's you who are bitching, and all I'm
doing is pointing out how YOU are wrong but not necessarily bitching about it.
I'm doing it to help you learn yet something else you don't want to think about,
because that's just what I do.

>>>just a lot of
>>>suspicion, based on the complete lack of evidence for these gods,
>>>coupled with the seemingly extreme unlikelihood of thir existence.
>>
>> It's as or more likely that they do exist as not, even if there
>> aren't any
>> associated with this planet. That's a basic, but I doubt a person like
>> yourself could ever get even that "far".
>
>Once again, you identify yourself as a kook, with a poor grasp of reality.

The reality is that with so many galaxies, with so many star systems, it
would be retarded to have faith that the most advanced beings in the universe
are stuck in any one star system, much MUCH less stuck in this particular one.
To think the possibility that some of them have reached the position that we
could consider them gods is a kooky idea, is to be impressively ignorant and
naive to an extreme degree from my pov. So you viewing me as a kook for
considering the possibility to be likely makes YOU a kook from my pov. But I
always like to encourage people to show that their apparent kookiness is really
a respectable position. I now encourage you to do that by either explaining why
you think people should believe humans on this planet are the most advanced
beings in the universe, or that there are beings who are advanced beyond humans
on Earth but none of them could have achieved a position that we could consider
them to be gods. You can't do either though, and I know that in advance. Still,
I sure would love to see you try...LOL...just thinking about it...lol...

>>>>>I am one of the many who is
>>>>>faithless. I don't believe in any deities, but freely admit that I
>>>>>could be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I had complete faith that God exists for many years, but finally
>>>> realised
>>>> that things *probably* could be as they are without the help of any
>>>> intelligent beings. If there wasn't there wasn't and that's as far as
>>>> you can go with that one possibility, which I do accept. In contrast,
>>>> the possibility that God does exist goes off in boundless directions.
>>>> I began trying to think of the possibility of God's existence in
>>>> realistic ways and started a list of things to think about. I present
>>>> the list from time to time and will paste it at the end of this post.
>>>
>>>Simply *having* a comical delusion is plenty good enough;
>>
>> You clearly appear to have faith that God does not exist, even
>> though you're
>> very very clearly ashamed of it. LOL...so from my pov your position
>> certainly is plenty comical, kook.
>
>You're projecting again. I have no faith of that sort.

YOU referred to trying to think about God's existence in realistic ways as
"simply *having* a comical delusion" and on top of you having done that you also
give the very clear impression that you're not capable of considering the
possibility in any realistic way at all, much less in a number of them. From my
pov there's extremely little if any significant difference between having faith
something does not exist, and having no idea at all how it possibly could exist.

I hate referring to them with the misnomer they've been dishonestly getting
away with using all these years. This will be beyond your ability to comprehend
so it will seem kooky to you, but my guess is that half or more of the people
who contribute to eliminationist organizations would experience cognitive
dissonance if they learned that those organizations do NOT want to provide
better lives for domestic animals, more or longer lives for domestic animals,
"rights" for domestic animals, or anything at all. That the fact is they want to
ELIMINATE domestic animals, not provide them with "rights" or anything else.
Usually eliminationists are dishonest about things far more often than they
are honest, from my experiences with them. But every so often they screw up and
are honest about something. Groups like PeTA pretend that they want to improve
life for domestic animals when the truth is that they want to ELIMINATE all of
them. The false impression they fool people with results in millions of dollars
from contributions for them. One of the elimination supporters in another ng was
honest enough to admit the following:

"The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes
from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination
of animal use." - Dutch

Try explaining how you think that could possibly be the case. How and WHY.

>That's how normal conversation works. And I am talking
>about cage-free, not organic. Please try to keep up; it isn't hard.
>
>>
>>>If they were
>>> indstinguishable, I'd go with the cheaper variety.
>>
>> You are completely inconsiderate about it then. What a kook, from my
>> pov.
>
>From your clueless kook pov, yes.

It's not clueless. I KNOW you're inconsiderate to an extreme degree because
YOU have let me know it for a fact. That or you're ignorant to the extent that
it doesn't mean anything to you, but if that's the case and you did learn the
difference you still might not give a shit because of the inconsideration
factor.

I'm curious what if anything makes your wife feel that cage free eggs taste
better than cage raised eggs. See if you can get her to tell you what she thinks
makes them taste better.

. . .

[BruceS]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:17:01 -0400, dh wrote:

<snip>

> I'm curious what if anything makes your wife feel that cage free
> eggs taste
> better than cage raised eggs. See if you can get her to tell you what
> she thinks makes them taste better.

You've devolved to the point that your mental illness is no longer very
amusing. However, since you asked this same bit twice in one post, and
it's so very simple, I'll answer it. My wife has suggested that the food
available to cage-free chickens might be making the meat and eggs taste
better. She has not claimed this to be absolute fact, and has done no
scientific testing to be sure. In the end, it doesn't even matter. If
she finds one tastes better than the other, the mechanism isn't important.

[dh]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:17:01 -0400, dh wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I'm curious what if anything makes your wife feel that cage free
>> eggs taste
>> better than cage raised eggs. See if you can get her to tell you what
>> she thinks makes them taste better.
>
>You've devolved to the point that your mental illness is no longer very
>amusing.

You don't like the fact that I point out what a kook you are, and other
things I point out about you that you don't like. Your mental illness is still
amusing to me because you turned out to be the bigger kook.

>However, since you asked this same bit twice in one post, and
>it's so very simple, I'll answer it.

You can't answer.

>My wife has suggested that the food
>available to cage-free chickens might be making the meat and eggs taste
>better. She has not claimed this to be absolute fact, and has done no
>scientific testing to be sure.

What sort of scientific testing do you like to think she might be able to do
if she wanted to?

>In the end, it doesn't even matter. If
>she finds one tastes better than the other, the mechanism isn't important.

LOL!!! You show yourself to be a kook once again by saying that if your wife
is correct, the thing that makes her correct "isn't important". LOL. Now I'll
tell you and her what the deal is. It's not that the food available to cage free
chickens is significant in making the eggs taste different than cage raised
eggs. What makes the difference is that different type birds are raised in cage
free environments than are raised in cages. For example all cage free eggs I've
seen are brown because the hens are different and have a different sort of
personality. They are red hens instead of white and they lay brown eggs instead
of white.

http://is.gd/7egy6f
http://is.gd/7rWDos

Their eggs also have a slightly different texture to them, though personally
I've never noticed anything better about their flavor.

You never said anything about the meat of the chickens before and I feel
confident you're not getting chicken that's marked as "cage free" since all
chicken raised specifically for meat is cage free. They are called broiler
chickens and both they and their parents are raised in cage free environments:

http://is.gd/6fNcLc

They are white birds that lay white eggs and each company like Perdue etc has
developed their own breed(s) and their own feed mixes to produce the texture and
flavor they want. If you get free range chicken they may or may not be red and
there may or may not be a noticeable difference in flavor and texture to their
meat. Since you can't appreciate any of this I won't go into detail as to why
that's the case. When I raised my own chickens (not for food) I killed and ate a
few of the pullets (young hens) eating them the same day so they were very
fresh. But because I didn't like the flavor and texture of their meat as well as
the commercially raised birds, I kept buying chicken from a grocery store
instead of killing my own birds for their meat.

[BruceS]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:15:15 -0400, dh wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:17:01 -0400, dh wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> I'm curious what if anything makes your wife feel that cage free
>>> eggs taste
>>> better than cage raised eggs. See if you can get her to tell you what
>>> she thinks makes them taste better.
>>
>>You've devolved to the point that your mental illness is no longer very
>>amusing.
>
> You don't like the fact that I point out what a kook you are, and other
> things I point out about you that you don't like. Your mental illness is still
> amusing to me because you turned out to be the bigger kook.

Nice try, fruitcake. I'm pretty confident that nearly everyone here can
see that you're a lunatic, and that I'm not.

>>However, since you asked this same bit twice in one post, and it's so
>>very simple, I'll answer it.
>
> You can't answer.

I did, but you're too stupid to understand.

>
>>My wife has suggested that the food
>>available to cage-free chickens might be making the meat and eggs taste
>>better. She has not claimed this to be absolute fact, and has done no
>>scientific testing to be sure.
>
> What sort of scientific testing do you like to think she might be
> able to do
> if she wanted to?

You wouldn't be able to understand, so it's a waste to try to explain.

>>In the end, it doesn't even matter. If she finds one tastes better than
>>the other, the mechanism isn't important.
>
> LOL!!! You show yourself to be a kook once again by saying that if
> your wife
> is correct, the thing that makes her correct "isn't important". LOL. Now

You really are stupid as well as insane. You can't understand the
simplest things, and keep misreading them.

> I'll tell you and her what the deal is. It's not that the food available
> to cage free chickens is significant in making the eggs taste different
> than cage raised eggs. What makes the difference is that different type
> birds are raised in cage free environments than are raised in cages. For
> example all cage free eggs I've seen are brown because the hens are
> different and have a different sort of personality. They are red hens
> instead of white and they lay brown eggs instead of white.

You're not only stupid and insane, you have no observation skills. Many
of the cage-free eggs available in stores are white. Both cage-free and
"conventional" eggs come in both white and brown.

[dh]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:53:49 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:15:15 -0400, dh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:15:26 -0600, BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:17:01 -0400, dh wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>> I'm curious what if anything makes your wife feel that cage free
>>>> eggs taste
>>>> better than cage raised eggs. See if you can get her to tell you what
>>>> she thinks makes them taste better.
>>>
>>>You've devolved to the point that your mental illness is no longer very
>>>amusing.
>>
>> You don't like the fact that I point out what a kook you are, and other
>> things I point out about you that you don't like. Your mental illness is still
>> amusing to me because you turned out to be the bigger kook.
>
>Nice try, fruitcake. I'm pretty confident that nearly everyone here can
>see that you're a lunatic, and that I'm not.

LOL. You're the one obsessed with kookiness, you are a kook as you've proven
by your obsession and a couple of other things, and if you have kook friends who
would say you're not one that doesn't mean anything since you've proven that you
are.

>>>However, since you asked this same bit twice in one post, and it's so
>>>very simple, I'll answer it.
>>
>> You can't answer.
>
>I did, but you're too stupid to understand.

According to you your wife suggested something that doesn't seem likely and
she has not claimed to be absolute fact. That means she considers there might be
some other reason.

>>>My wife has suggested that the food
>>>available to cage-free chickens might be making the meat and eggs taste
>>>better. She has not claimed this to be absolute fact, and has done no
>>>scientific testing to be sure.
>>
>> What sort of scientific testing do you like to think she might be
>> able to do
>> if she wanted to?
>
>You wouldn't be able to understand,

LOL! You can't even pretend to have a clue...LOL... Hilarious!

>so it's a waste to try to explain.

You can't try to explain. You're an idiot for trying to act like you could
when you could not, and you're an even bigger idiot if you actualy think I
believe you could but just don't want to.

>>>In the end, it doesn't even matter. If she finds one tastes better than
>>>the other, the mechanism isn't important.
>>
>> LOL!!! You show yourself to be a kook once again by saying that if
>> your wife
>> is correct, the thing that makes her correct "isn't important". LOL. Now
>
>You really are stupid as well as insane. You can't understand the
>simplest things, and keep misreading them.

YOU said it isn't important why, whether she's right or not. You're right to
be ashamed of it since it was a stupid thing to say, but you did none the less.

>> I'll tell you and her what the deal is. It's not that the food available
>> to cage free chickens is significant in making the eggs taste different
>> than cage raised eggs. What makes the difference is that different type
>> birds are raised in cage free environments than are raised in cages. For
>> example all cage free eggs I've seen are brown because the hens are
>> different and have a different sort of personality. They are red hens
>> instead of white and they lay brown eggs instead of white.
>
>You're not only stupid and insane, you have no observation skills. Many
>of the cage-free eggs available in stores are white. Both cage-free and
>"conventional" eggs come in both white and brown.

If you're getting white ones then they don't taste noticeably different and
you're imagining it. But it's good to contribute to that sort of farming method
instead of to the battery method, whatever the reason. You can't appreciate why,
but it's a good thing none the less.