Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fuckwit David Harrison has not made and never will make a reasoned critique of "ar"
6 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
Nov 26, 2012, 2:10:42 PM11/26/12
to
He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
dh
Nov 29, 2012, 4:20:18 PM11/29/12
to
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
What I point out is for people who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
to the deaths of wildlife.
>He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
to the deaths of wildlife.
George Plimpton
Nov 29, 2012, 5:16:13 PM11/29/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, George Plimpton spoke the truth:
>
>> Fuckwit criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
doing something "bad" or "wrong" to non-existent animals. You're a fuckwit.
futility alive with:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, George Plimpton spoke the truth:
>
>> Fuckwit criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>
> What I point out is
You don't "point out" anything. What you do is criticize "vegans" for
>
> What I point out is
doing something "bad" or "wrong" to non-existent animals. You're a fuckwit.
dh
Dec 3, 2012, 5:27:30 PM12/3/12
to
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:16:13 -0800, Goo lied blatantly again:
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>>
>>>He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
blatantly.
>What you do is criticize "vegans"
I suggest that people consider options which actually contribute to decent
lives for livestock instead of only death to wildlife Goob, and ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose that. And Goober as we've noted in the
past, to people who actually do feel that doing nothing is better than
contributing to decent lives and anti-consideration is better than having
consideration, pointing out the eliminationist positions shouldn't seem like
criticizm at all. It would just be pointing out what people should want for
their lives, and if that's not what they want they should try something else
instead like a more AW!!! approach than an elimination approach Goo.
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>>
>>>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>
>>
>> What I point out is for people who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
>>to the deaths of wildlife.
>
>>livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
>>to the deaths of wildlife.
>
>You don't "point out" anything.
That's a blatant lie Goo. I'll now point out it's very frequent that you lie
blatantly.
>What you do is criticize "vegans"
lives for livestock instead of only death to wildlife Goob, and ONLY
eliminationists have reason to oppose that. And Goober as we've noted in the
past, to people who actually do feel that doing nothing is better than
contributing to decent lives and anti-consideration is better than having
consideration, pointing out the eliminationist positions shouldn't seem like
criticizm at all. It would just be pointing out what people should want for
their lives, and if that's not what they want they should try something else
instead like a more AW!!! approach than an elimination approach Goo.
George Plimpton
Dec 3, 2012, 5:43:51 PM12/3/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:16:13 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
futility alive with:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of futility alive with:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, George L. Plimpton wrote.:
>>>
>>>> He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>>>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>
>>> What I point out is
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, George L. Plimpton wrote.:
>>>
>>>> He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>>>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>
>>> What I point out is
>>
>> You don't "point out" anything.
>
> That's a blatant lie
Not a lie, *Goo*. It's the truth: you "point out" nothing.
>
> That's a blatant lie
>
>> What you do is criticize "vegans" for doing something "bad" or "wrong"
>> to non-existent animals. You're a fuckwit.
>
> I suggest that people consider options which
No, *Goo*. What you do is demand that people want animals to exist, but
it has nothing to do with the animals' lives or welfare - it is *only*
about the products, *Goo*.
dh
Dec 6, 2012, 3:21:33 PM12/6/12
to
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:43:51 -0800, Goo lied some more:
>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:27:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:16:13 -0800, Goo lied blatantly again:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>>>>
Yes Goober, if a person feels that the things I point out about the
missnomer are critical of it, then they should NOT be an eliminationist but
something they could have more respect for instead. ONLY if they believe the
things I point out are supportive of the missnomer should they be an
eliminationist.
>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:27:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:16:13 -0800, Goo lied blatantly again:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>>>>
>>>>>He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>>>>>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>
>>>>>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>
>>>> What I point out is for people who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>>>livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
>>>>to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>
>>>>livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
>>>>to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>
>>>You don't "point out" anything.
>>
>>
>> That's a blatant lie Goo. I'll now point out it's very frequent that you lie
>>blatantly.
>>
>>blatantly.
>>
>>>What you do is criticize "vegans"
>>
>>
>> I suggest that people consider options which actually contribute to decent
>>lives for livestock instead of only death to wildlife Goob, and ONLY
>>eliminationists have reason to oppose that. And Goober as we've noted in the
>>past, to people who actually do feel that doing nothing is better than
>>contributing to decent lives and anti-consideration is better than having
>>consideration, pointing out the eliminationist positions shouldn't seem like
>>criticizm at all. It would just be pointing out what people should want for
>>their lives, and if that's not what they want they should try something else
>>instead like a more AW!!! approach than an elimination approach Goo.
>
>No
>>lives for livestock instead of only death to wildlife Goob, and ONLY
>>eliminationists have reason to oppose that. And Goober as we've noted in the
>>past, to people who actually do feel that doing nothing is better than
>>contributing to decent lives and anti-consideration is better than having
>>consideration, pointing out the eliminationist positions shouldn't seem like
>>criticizm at all. It would just be pointing out what people should want for
>>their lives, and if that's not what they want they should try something else
>>instead like a more AW!!! approach than an elimination approach Goo.
>
Yes Goober, if a person feels that the things I point out about the
missnomer are critical of it, then they should NOT be an eliminationist but
something they could have more respect for instead. ONLY if they believe the
things I point out are supportive of the missnomer should they be an
eliminationist.
George Plimpton
Dec 6, 2012, 3:47:52 PM12/6/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
>>>>>
futility alive with:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>>>>>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I point out is
>>>>
>>>>>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I point out is
>>>>
>>>> You don't "point out" anything.
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie
>>
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie
>>
>> Not a lie, *Goo*. It's the truth: you "point out" nothing.
>>
>>>
>>>> What you do is criticize "vegans" for doing something "bad" or "wrong"
>>>> to non-existent animals. You're a fuckwit.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> What you do is criticize "vegans" for doing something "bad" or "wrong"
>>>> to non-existent animals. You're a fuckwit.
>>>
>>> I suggest that people consider options which
>>
>>
>> No, *Goo*. What you do is demand that people want animals to exist, but it has nothing to do with the animals' lives or welfare - it is *only* about the products, *Goo*.
>
> Yes George,
>
*NO*, *Goo*.
> if a person feels that the things I point out
dh
Dec 10, 2012, 4:57:19 PM12/10/12
to
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:47:52 -0800, Goo lied:
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:21:33 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:43:51 -0800, Goo lied some more:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:27:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:16:13 -0800, Goo lied blatantly again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>>>>>>
particular blatant lie in the past as well, Gooberdoodle.
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:21:33 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:43:51 -0800, Goo lied some more:
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:27:30 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:16:13 -0800, Goo lied blatantly again:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:20:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Goo encouraged trust in the misnomer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>>>>>>>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I point out is for people who want to contribute to decent lives for
>>>>>>livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
>>>>>>to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>>>
>>>>>>livestock with their lifestyle Goo, not for people who only want to contribute
>>>>>>to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't "point out" anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a blatant lie Goo. I'll now point out it's very frequent that you lie
>>>>blatantly.
>>>>
>>>>blatantly.
>>>>
>>>>>What you do is criticize "vegans"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that people consider options which actually contribute to decent
>>>>lives for livestock instead of only death to wildlife Goob, and ONLY
>>>>eliminationists have reason to oppose that. And Goober as we've noted in the
>>>>past, to people who actually do feel that doing nothing is better than
>>>>contributing to decent lives and anti-consideration is better than having
>>>>consideration, pointing out the eliminationist positions shouldn't seem like
>>>>criticizm at all. It would just be pointing out what people should want for
>>>>their lives, and if that's not what they want they should try something else
>>>>instead like a more AW!!! approach than an elimination approach Goo.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Yes Goober, if a person feels that the things I point out about the
>>missnomer are critical of it, then they should NOT be an eliminationist but
>>something they could have more respect for instead. ONLY if they believe the
>>things I point out are supportive of the missnomer should they be an
>>eliminationist.
>
>>>>lives for livestock instead of only death to wildlife Goob, and ONLY
>>>>eliminationists have reason to oppose that. And Goober as we've noted in the
>>>>past, to people who actually do feel that doing nothing is better than
>>>>contributing to decent lives and anti-consideration is better than having
>>>>consideration, pointing out the eliminationist positions shouldn't seem like
>>>>criticizm at all. It would just be pointing out what people should want for
>>>>their lives, and if that's not what they want they should try something else
>>>>instead like a more AW!!! approach than an elimination approach Goo.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Yes Goober, if a person feels that the things I point out about the
>>missnomer are critical of it, then they should NOT be an eliminationist but
>>something they could have more respect for instead. ONLY if they believe the
>>things I point out are supportive of the missnomer should they be an
>>eliminationist.
>
>You don't "point out"
That's a blatant lie Goob and I'm pointing it out. I've pointed out that
particular blatant lie in the past as well, Gooberdoodle.
George Plimpton
Dec 10, 2012, 5:49:24 PM12/10/12
to
Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - kept his fourteen year string of
futility alive with:
futility alive with:
>>>>>>>> He criticizes "vegans", but his criticism is meaningless. He can't say
>>>>>>>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I point out is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> why what they advocate is wrong or bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I point out is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't "point out" anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a blatant lie
>>>>
>>>> Not a lie, *Goo*. It's the truth: you "point out" nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> if a person feels that the things I point out
>>
>> You don't "point out" anything, *Goo*. What you do is criticize "vegans" for doing
>>
>> something "bad" or "wrong" to non-existent animals. You're a fuckwit.
>
>
> That's a blatant lie
Not a lie, *Goo*. Everyone knows that's all you do.
0 new messages