Get rick etter, dutch, and Jonathan Ball out of these forums
exploratory
which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
These same hypocrites would complain
and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
if American patriots were to post photos and
flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
in every restaurant and on every advertisement
for hamburgers and fried chicken.
We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
Derek
"exploratory" <explo...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:e2719240.03082...@posting.google.com...
> I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
> None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>
> These same hypocrites would complain
> and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> if American patriots were to post photos and
> flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers
Are you aware that the PCRM are even bigger liars than
Jon et al put together? Plastering Jon's house with flyers
from that outfit would in fact be worse than letting him
have his say, in my opinion.
Dutch
> I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
Absolutely false, you haven't even looked. Most of the new threads are
posted by ARAs and vegans. I virtually NEVER start a thread, neither
does Rick.
> None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
Another falsehood, you know zero about any of us.
> These same hypocrites would complain
> and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> if American patriots were to post photos and
> flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> for hamburgers and fried chicken.
What a disgusting pile of steaming crap! American patriots, holocaust my
ass, you raving amateur sophist.
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
Silence those who disagree with you, nice start for an aspiring fascist.
> Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
I'm not promoting meat, I'm too busy exposing hate-mongering little
pukes you.
> As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
yawn...
rick etter
> which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
Another outright ly by the first-loonie of usenet. I haven't started any
threads here for quite some time. It's already a full time job replying to
your ignorance. You have started far more threads displaying your stupidity
than the number of posts I've ever started.
> None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
================
Far more than you, killer.
>
> These same hypocrites would complain
> and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
================
LOL That's all vegans?AR loons do, so you should know the drill, hypocrite.
> if American patriots were to post photos and
> flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
==============
Come on and try littleboy. See if you make it past the drive way.
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
>
> As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
====================
Banning is all your side. It's all about you and your religion, stupid.
usual suspect
> I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
> None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
> These same hypocrites would complain
The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
> and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
example of it.
> if American patriots were to post photos and
> flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> for hamburgers and fried chicken.
You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
any manner.
> Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
ignorance." Pansy.
> As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
hang yourself.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> exploratory wrote:
> > I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> > which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> > begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
>
> Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They are
here for the purposes of disruption.
Every single time they fail.
>
> > None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>
> They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
Like what?
>
> > These same hypocrites would complain
>
> The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
> then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
>
> > and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
>
> Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> example of it.
You sound like sick rick.
>
> > if American patriots were to post photos and
> > flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> > in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> > for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>
> You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
> movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
> ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
> as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
> violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
ISOLATED- My arse!
>
> > We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> > and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> > THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
>
> What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
> apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
> those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
> someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
> civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
> any manner.
>
> > Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> > petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
>
> Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
> ignorance." Pansy.
>
> > As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
>
> I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
> spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
> hang yourself.
Come off it - you are only annoyed because he missed you off his loony list.
Sorry I have not taken you seriously.
Few of us do!
>
C. James Strutz
"useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> exploratory wrote:
> > I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> > which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> > begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
>
> Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
> > None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>
> They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're just
defending your buddies.
> > These same hypocrites would complain
>
> The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
> then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending, and
obnoxious.
> > and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
>
> Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> example of it.
You would know a lot about sanctimony.
> > if American patriots were to post photos and
> > flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> > in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> > for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>
> You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
> movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
> ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
> as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
> violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
I wonder how isolated farm animal cruelty really is, and what percentage of
violations are actually prosecuted. Do you really know or are you going to
lengths to distance yourself from the AR crowd?
> > We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> > and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> > THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
>
> What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
> apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
> those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
> someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
> civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
> any manner.
As you should...
> > Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> > petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
>
> Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
> ignorance." Pansy.
You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
> > As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
>
> I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
> spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
> hang yourself.
I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much different
from the lowlifes he's dissing.
Jonathan Ball
> "useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>
>>exploratory wrote:
>>
>>>I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
>>>which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
>>>begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
>>
>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>
>
> True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
You call anyone saying something you don't like to
hear a "troll". The word has no real meaning.
>
>
>>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>>
>>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
>
>
> A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're just
> defending your buddies.
Actually, he's playing some pretty good averages.
"aras" are almost always low-skill marginals, and
frequently are out-and-out parasites. "ar" is an
extremist leftwing movement, and extreme leftists are
usually unproductive.
>
>
>>>These same hypocrites would complain
>>
>>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
>>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
>
>
> To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending, and
> obnoxious.
That would be all "vegans". usual suspect is not a
"vegan"; he eats a strictly vegetarian diet. There's a
difference, but it's too subtle for a brick like you.
>
>
>>>and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
>>
>>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
>>example of it.
>
>
> You would know a lot about sanctimony.
Only from being on the receiving end of it from prigs
like you.
>
>
>>>if American patriots were to post photos and
>>>flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
>>>in every restaurant and on every advertisement
>>>for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>>
>>You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
>>movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
>>ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
>>as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
>>violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
>
>
> I wonder how isolated farm animal cruelty really is, and what percentage of
> violations are actually prosecuted. Do you really know or are you going to
> lengths to distance yourself from the AR crowd?
He's never been part of the "ar" crowd.
>
>
>>>We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
>>>and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
>>>THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
>>
>>What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
>>apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
>>those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
>>someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
>>civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
>>any manner.
>
>
> As you should...
>
>
>>>Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
>>>petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
>>
>>Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
>>ignorance." Pansy.
>
>
> You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
>
>
>>>As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
>>
>>I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
>>spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
>>hang yourself.
>
>
> I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much different
> from the lowlifes he's dissing.
I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
mr_natural
> which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
"This newsgroup"? You posted your silly whine to three newsgroups. Don't you
even know where you post?
> begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
> None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
You have no idea what they do or do not contribute.
>
> These same hypocrites would complain
> and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> if American patriots were to post photos and
> flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> for hamburgers and fried chicken.
The vast majority of patrons would not bother to read them, just as the vast
majority don't bother to read them now. Candidly, animal rights hasn't
caught on (beyond a small minority) because the PR is inadequate. It's
because your "message" is patently absurd and you are a bunch of bigoted,
whiny, self-righteous lunatics. In other words, people don't believe your
silly theories and they don't like you.
>
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
This is a typical threat, and a clear illustration why you are almost
universally despised as a group. Any moderately organized gaggle of fascist
kooks seeking to impose ludicrous requirements and theories by force on the
public will get precisely the same reaction.
> Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
I don't read as many posts as you claim to (and your time might be better
served getting an education instead of indulging your morbid intellectual
tics and diet obsessions), but I see little, if any, promotion of meat in di
ets in t.p.a. What I do see is unabashed ridicule - and I must say, it is
richly deserved - of dietary practices that are not based on health. I have
no doubt that with careful attention and effort, adults can consume a vegan
diet and remain healthy. But you attempt to disguise dietary obsessions
based on "theories" of rights behind a mantle of "better health". It's not
only a transparent ruse, it's silly. People have never been motivated very
much by risk reduction. If they were, they wouldn't drive cars, build houses
with steps in them, or sunbathe. A quick drive on a freeway, tour of a
subdivision, or trip to the beach clearly shows that vast numbers of people
simply ignore very real risks. You and your ilk need a better strategy.
Fortunately for mankind, you're too stupid to realize it or to devise
anything better.
>
> As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
I can see you standing in an auditorium. You're back in the cheap seats with
your unkempt appearance and pencil neck poking yourself in the chest with a
dirty fingernail, proclaiming in your prepubescent voice that if THEY are
not "banned", *you* cannot be "banned". It's quite the image...
Speaking for myself, I would vigorously oppose banning you and your
co-religionists even if it could be done in an unmoderated newsgroup. Your
posts reveal your lunacy far more clearly than any argument your opponents
could ever make. The more people read, the more they despise you. The more
they despise you, the greater your bunker mentality becomes. The greater
your bunker mentality becomes, the more nakedly you reveal your lust for
power. I think it's all working quite well. Why change anything?
usual suspect
>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>
> All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They are
> here for the purposes of disruption.
> Every single time they fail.
Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
>>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>>
>>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
>
> Like what?
Taxes, well-behaved children, etc. Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on
"the side," they have respectable gainful employment.
>>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
>>example of it.
>
> You sound like sick rick.
He's often right, ya know...
>>>if American patriots were to post photos and
>>>flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
>>>in every restaurant and on every advertisement
>>>for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>>
>>You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
>>movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
>>ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
>>as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
>>violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
>
> ISOLATED- My arse!
Your arse probably isn't isolated, Ray. The horrific treatment of
animals represented in those videos IS isolated.
<...>
>>I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
>>spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
>>hang yourself.
>
> Come off it - you are only annoyed because he missed you off his loony list.
Loony? lol... Try this. When was the last time you saw someone other
than an ARA dressed up like an animal?
http://yves.a.free.fr/graph/peta.jpg
When was the last time you saw people who weren't AR kooks take off
their clothes in protest?
http://www.slyskunk.com/images/Man%20Peta.jpg
When was the last time you heard of someone other than an AR zealot who
changed his or her name after a pet cause?
http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2003/08/13/news/food/food01.txt
> Sorry I have not taken you seriously.
> Few of us do!
Fair enough. That almost makes us even.
Ray
"mr_natural" <nat...@indra.com> wrote in message
news:UwL2b.14126$8i2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
There is'nt room for you and Usual Suspect.
One day, when he has finished with you, he will blow you out like the couple
of wet farts you are:-)
Still it's good watching the pair of you - better than TV. Sorry I forgot -
you are a TV.
Kind regards!
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:ijL2b.4602$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> See James Strut wrote:
> > "useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >
> >>exploratory wrote:
> >>
> >>>I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> >>>which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> >>>begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
> >>
> >>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> >>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> >>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> >>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
> >
> >
> > True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
>
> No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
> You call anyone saying something you don't like to
> hear a "troll". The word has no real meaning.
Mmmm, I bet the vast majority of people here would also consider you a
troll. Clearly you are.
> >>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
> >>
> >>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
> >
> >
> > A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're
just
> > defending your buddies.
> Actually, he's playing some pretty good averages.
> "aras" are almost always low-skill marginals, and
> frequently are out-and-out parasites. "ar" is an
> extremist leftwing movement, and extreme leftists are
> usually unproductive.
Not true, I've met several very intelligent and well educated AR vegans.
They do, however, tend to be pretty far to the left.
> >>>These same hypocrites would complain
> >>
> >>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
> >>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
> >
> >
> > To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending,
and
> > obnoxious.
>
> That would be all "vegans". usual suspect is not a
> "vegan"; he eats a strictly vegetarian diet. There's a
> difference, but it's too subtle for a brick like you.
"I am vegan (and I am not the only Republican I know who is one)."
Usual Suspect, June 14, 2002
" I am vegan
primarily for health reasons; that there are other benefits (reduced
pollution, less harm to animals, etc.) is also very appealing."
Usual Suspect, May 9, 2002
"I post here because I am vegan. I try to offer as much assistance as I
can. Jonathan David Ball (who is a slacker in SoCal) is not veg-n, but
trolls this newsgroup." :^)
Usual Suspect, November 18, 2002
Lots more evidence out there that you're wrong.
[snip]
> > I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much
different
> > from the lowlifes he's dissing.
>
> I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
> "vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
> direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
> "vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
> but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
usual suspect
> True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
They're not trolls. "A TROLL is a person who posts messages to usenet
with the intent of getting people to answer it. Posts are usually off
topic. Trolls do this for any number of reasons. Just to see who
answers, or all the way to trying to find email addresses to send them
spam."
http://www.smr-usenet.com/def/index.shtml
Since their posts are responses, they're on topic insofar as the threads
are actually on topic. Just because they're not in goose-step agreement
with vegans doesn't make them trolls.
>>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>>
>>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
>
> A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're just
> defending your buddies.
They're not morons. They make plenty of sense in their posts. A moron is
clinically defined as having an IQ between 50 and 70. As for their
contributions to society, they all appear to have gainful employment,
they don't seem to get in much trouble with the law, and they appear to
have loving families.
As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
>>>These same hypocrites would complain
>>
>>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
>>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
>
> To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending, and
> obnoxious.
Yeah, you should stop being like that.
>>>and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
>>
>>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
>>example of it.
>
> You would know a lot about sanctimony.
I learned it from you.
>>>if American patriots were to post photos and
>>>flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
>>>in every restaurant and on every advertisement
>>>for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>>
>>You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
>>movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
>>ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
>>as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
>>violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
>
> I wonder how isolated farm animal cruelty really is, and what percentage of
> violations are actually prosecuted. Do you really know or are you going to
> lengths to distance yourself from the AR crowd?
I don't have to separate myself from ARAs, because I've never been for
animal rights (I am for humane treatment, though). I'm pro-hunting. I'm
pro-angling. What part of that don't you understand?
As for what I really know, I was born and raised on a ranch. I worked in
agriculture during summers and fall harvests even after we moved to the
city. I still have family involved in agriculture, including ranching. I
have friends with farming and dairy interests. I've had my own endeavors
in agriculture, including goat milk production, in my younger adulthood.
I've castrated bulls, pigs, and goats, and never had an incident
involving bleeding or sustained pain. I've raised and slaughtered those
species plus chickens, ducks, deer, feral hogs, you name it. Our animals
always had lots of space, plenty to eat, plenty to drink, immediate
veterinarian care when sick or injured, etc.
I know that healthy animals gain weight faster than sickly ones: time is
money in agriculture. I know that healthy animals bring significantly
more cash at auction that sickly ones. In other words, it's not in a
farmer's or rancher's economic interest to treat his income in a shoddy,
haphazard manner. Those who mistreat or malnourish their livestock pay a
double price for it if caught, and pay heavily for it even if not caught.
What else would you like to know, asshole?
>>>We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
>>>and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
>>>THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
>>
>>What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
>>apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
>>those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
>>someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
>>civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
>>any manner.
>
> As you should...
>
>
>>>Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
>>>petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
>>
>>Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
>>ignorance." Pansy.
>
> You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
I would've called him something else but it would've been an insult to
felines.
>>>As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
>>
>>I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
>>spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
>>hang yourself.
>
> I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much different
> from the lowlifes he's dissing.
You ought to know.
usual suspect
>>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
>
> It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
How is he a troll if it's not his substance but his *style*?
>> You call anyone saying something you don't like to
>>hear a "troll". The word has no real meaning.
>
> Mmmm, I bet the vast majority of people here would also consider you a
> troll. Clearly you are.
Logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. I pasted in a standard
definition. None of the three meet that definition.
>>Actually, he's playing some pretty good averages.
>>"aras" are almost always low-skill marginals, and
>>frequently are out-and-out parasites. "ar" is an
>>extremist leftwing movement, and extreme leftists are
>>usually unproductive.
>
> Not true, I've met several very intelligent and well educated AR vegans.
> They do, however, tend to be pretty far to the left.
The issue isn't intelligence or education, it's what they do with it.
Their leftist views would still remain, imho, a sign of academic laziness.
>>That would be all "vegans". usual suspect is not a
>>"vegan"; he eats a strictly vegetarian diet. There's a
>>difference, but it's too subtle for a brick like you.
>
> "I am vegan (and I am not the only Republican I know who is one)."
> Usual Suspect, June 14, 2002
>
> " I am vegan
> primarily for health reasons; that there are other benefits (reduced
> pollution, less harm to animals, etc.) is also very appealing."
> Usual Suspect, May 9, 2002
>
> "I post here because I am vegan. I try to offer as much assistance as I
> can. Jonathan David Ball (who is a slacker in SoCal) is not veg-n, but
> trolls this newsgroup." :^)
> Usual Suspect, November 18, 2002
My *diet* is vegan, my views are *NOT*. I ceased calling myself a vegan
several months ago. WTLW
> Lots more evidence out there that you're wrong.
Plenty more that he's right.
>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
>
> Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:ijL2b.4602$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>>
>>>"useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>>>news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>exploratory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
>>>>>which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
>>>>>begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>>>
>>>
>>>True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
>>
>>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
>
>
> It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
That's called style.
>
>
>> You call anyone saying something you don't like to
>>hear a "troll". The word has no real meaning.
>
>
> Mmmm, I bet the vast majority of people here would also consider you a
> troll.
I'll bet the vast majority of peoplehere WOULDN'T
consider me a troll, as most of the whiny leftist
"vegans" have left, and only a few dedicated nutcases,
most of them British Isles layabouts, are left.
> Clearly you are.
Clearly you don't like the content of what I say, SeeJimmy.
>
>
>>>>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>>>>
>>>>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
>>>
>>>
>>>A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're
>
> just
>
>>>defending your buddies.
>
>
>>Actually, he's playing some pretty good averages.
>>"aras" are almost always low-skill marginals, and
>>frequently are out-and-out parasites. "ar" is an
>>extremist leftwing movement, and extreme leftists are
>>usually unproductive.
>
>
> Not true,
Very much true.
> I've met several very intelligent and well educated AR vegans.
Intelligent and well educated does not mean they are
productive. I know some highly intelligent people who
are colossal shirkers.
> They do, however, tend to be pretty far to the left.
No kidding!
>
>
>>>>>These same hypocrites would complain
>>>>
>>>>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
>>>>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
>>>
>>>
>>>To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending,
>
> and
>
>>>obnoxious.
>>
>>That would be all "vegans". usual suspect is not a
>>"vegan"; he eats a strictly vegetarian diet. There's a
>>difference, but it's too subtle for a brick like you.
>
>
> "I am vegan (and I am not the only Republican I know who is one)."
> Usual Suspect, June 14, 2002
>
> " I am vegan
> primarily for health reasons; that there are other benefits (reduced
> pollution, less harm to animals, etc.) is also very appealing."
> Usual Suspect, May 9, 2002
>
> "I post here because I am vegan. I try to offer as much assistance as I
> can. Jonathan David Ball (who is a slacker in SoCal) is not veg-n, but
> trolls this newsgroup." :^)
> Usual Suspect, November 18, 2002
>
> Lots more evidence out there that you're wrong.
Ask him what he thinks now that he's regularly looking
in on a.a.e.v. and t.p.a., in addition to a.f.v. I
think he's saying something different. In fact, I KNOW
he is: he has posted here recently that he does not
consider himself to be "a" vegan, just someone who
follows a strictly vegetarian diet.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much
>>>different from the lowlifes he's dissing.
>>
>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
>
>
> Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
Non-responsive. I said you can't coherently explain
why you're not "vegan", despite being vegetarian for
largely the same reasons as people who DO label
themselves "vegan". It isn't just a semantic
difference; it's that you don't have a rational and
coherent stopping rule.
--
The Last Word: Darwin's theory of natural selection
does not lead to a conclusion that man is a "frugivore".
pearl
> Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on "the side,"
Baseless malicious slander from a proven ignorant unhinged git.
C. James Strutz
"useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> suppository wrote:
> > True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
>
> They're not trolls. "A TROLL is a person who posts messages to usenet
> with the intent of getting people to answer it. Posts are usually off
> topic. Trolls do this for any number of reasons. Just to see who
> answers, or all the way to trying to find email addresses to send them
> spam."
> http://www.smr-usenet.com/def/index.shtml
>
> Since their posts are responses, they're on topic insofar as the threads
> are actually on topic. Just because they're not in goose-step agreement
> with vegans doesn't make them trolls.
Screw you and your definitions. They are trolls by any popular definition of
the term.
> >>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
> >>
> >>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
> >
> > A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're
just
> > defending your buddies.
>
> They're not morons. They make plenty of sense in their posts. A moron is
> clinically defined as having an IQ between 50 and 70. As for their
> contributions to society, they all appear to have gainful employment,
> they don't seem to get in much trouble with the law, and they appear to
> have loving families.
I never said they were morons, the other guy did. You don't even know who
you are responding to!
> As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
> a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
> time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
> last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
> constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
> haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
>
> >>>These same hypocrites would complain
> >>
> >>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
> >>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
> >
> > To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending,
and
> > obnoxious.
>
> Yeah, you should stop being like that.
>
> >>>and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> >>
> >>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> >>example of it.
> >
> > You would know a lot about sanctimony.
>
> I learned it from you.
How unoriginal. I haven't heard such a childish response since I was in
gradeschool. Funny, I have the urge to stick my tougue out at you and say
"nya, nya, nya"! Grow up...
> >>>if American patriots were to post photos and
> >>>flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> >>>in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> >>>for hamburgers and fried chicken.
> >>
> >>You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
> >>movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
> >>ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
> >>as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
> >>violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
> >
> > I wonder how isolated farm animal cruelty really is, and what percentage
of
> > violations are actually prosecuted. Do you really know or are you going
to
> > lengths to distance yourself from the AR crowd?
>
> I don't have to separate myself from ARAs, because I've never been for
> animal rights (I am for humane treatment, though). I'm pro-hunting. I'm
> pro-angling. What part of that don't you understand?
Who said I didn't understand? Oh, I see...you're lashing out again.
> As for what I really know, I was born and raised on a ranch. I worked in
> agriculture during summers and fall harvests even after we moved to the
> city. I still have family involved in agriculture, including ranching. I
> have friends with farming and dairy interests. I've had my own endeavors
> in agriculture, including goat milk production, in my younger adulthood.
> I've castrated bulls, pigs, and goats, and never had an incident
> involving bleeding or sustained pain. I've raised and slaughtered those
> species plus chickens, ducks, deer, feral hogs, you name it. Our animals
> always had lots of space, plenty to eat, plenty to drink, immediate
> veterinarian care when sick or injured, etc.
>
> I know that healthy animals gain weight faster than sickly ones: time is
> money in agriculture. I know that healthy animals bring significantly
> more cash at auction that sickly ones. In other words, it's not in a
> farmer's or rancher's economic interest to treat his income in a shoddy,
> haphazard manner. Those who mistreat or malnourish their livestock pay a
> double price for it if caught, and pay heavily for it even if not caught.
Finally, an answer to my question after lots of unnecessary graphic
testimony. Or maybe you were trying to prop yourself up as an expert on the
matter? So you think that cattle who are forced to eat food they can't
easily digest as well as antibiotics and growth hormones is healthy? Sure,
it's within the letter of the law but your "healthy" animal rationale is
nothing but a facade.
> What else would you like to know, asshole?
You don't do anger very well, do you?
> >>>We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> >>>and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> >>>THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> >>
> >>What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
> >>apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
> >>those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
> >>someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
> >>civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
> >>any manner.
> >
> > As you should...
> >
> >
> >>>Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> >>>petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
> >>
> >>Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
> >>ignorance." Pansy.
> >
> > You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
>
> I would've called him something else but it would've been an insult to
> felines.
Oh, so instead you insult flowers. You must be some kind of an animal
activist!
> >>>As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
> >>
> >>I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
> >>spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
> >>hang yourself.
> >
> > I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much
different
> > from the lowlifes he's dissing.
>
> You ought to know.
Nya, nya, nya.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> >>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> >>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> >>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> >>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
> >
> > All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They
are
> > here for the purposes of disruption.
> > Every single time they fail.
>
> Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
> hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
Hey pillock, there is more than one person on this NG who has received a
virus from your hero.
Derek Nash, 'Pearl', Ron Gaul to name only three.. ~~Jonnie~~ the spastic
gnome is so fucking thick he puts his own name on the list of recipients in
childish attempt to make it look authentic.
I know for a fact that 'Pearl' has received three today, a couple of his
usual W32Gibe@mm and one W32Dumaru@mm Some fine company you keep.
Don't forget he is also a credit card hacker. He has his own card swiper
which he keeps in the garden shed he stole from 'Monrovia'. Don't show your
ignorance by defending this little pickpocket.
>
> >>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
> >>
> >>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Taxes, well-behaved children, etc. Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on
> "the side," they have respectable gainful employment.
>
> >>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> >>example of it.
> >
> > You sound like sick rick.
>
> He's often right, ya know...
Not even right in the head. A fucking loon of the lowest order.
>
> >>>if American patriots were to post photos and
> >>>flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> >>>in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> >>>for hamburgers and fried chicken.
> >>
> >>You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
> >>movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
> >>ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
> >>as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
> >>violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
> >
> > ISOLATED- My arse!
>
> Your arse probably isn't isolated, Ray. The horrific treatment of
> animals represented in those videos IS isolated.
Prove it.
>
> <...>
> >>I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
> >>spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
> >>hang yourself.
> >
> > Come off it - you are only annoyed because he missed you off his loony
list.
>
> Loony? lol... Try this. When was the last time you saw someone other
> than an ARA dressed up like an animal?
www.tinyurl.com/kzoo An insult to the animal kingdom.
>
> When was the last time you saw people who weren't AR kooks take off
> their clothes in protest?
> http://www.slyskunk.com/images/Man%20Peta.jpg
>
> When was the last time you heard of someone other than an AR zealot who
> changed his or her name after a pet cause?
> http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2003/08/13/news/food/food01.txt
>
> > Sorry I have not taken you seriously.
> > Few of us do!
>
> Fair enough. That almost makes us even.
We will never be even in the eyes of righteousness.
You are at the bottom of the pile clinging on to the lies of 'The Three
Stooges'
>
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>
>>Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on "the side,"
>
>
> Baseless malicious slander
No. It's the truth.
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
You are a complete nut.
Jonathan Ball
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>>>
>>>All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They
>
> are
>
>>>here for the purposes of disruption.
>>>Every single time they fail.
>>
>>Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
>>hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
>
>
> Hey pillock, there is more than one person on this NG who has received a
> virus from your hero.
>
> Derek Nash, 'Pearl', Ron Gaul to name only three..
Where's your evidence?
I've never sent any virus to anyone.
C. James Strutz
"useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> See James Strut wrote:
> >>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
> >
> > It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
>
> How is he a troll if it's not his substance but his *style*?
Anybody who tries to get his point across while demeaning and insulting
people qualifies as a troll by my definition.
> >> You call anyone saying something you don't like to
> >>hear a "troll". The word has no real meaning.
> >
> > Mmmm, I bet the vast majority of people here would also consider you a
> > troll. Clearly you are.
>
> Logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. I pasted in a standard
> definition. None of the three meet that definition.
Oh, so I guess that makes you "right" then, doesn't it?
> >>Actually, he's playing some pretty good averages.
> >>"aras" are almost always low-skill marginals, and
> >>frequently are out-and-out parasites. "ar" is an
> >>extremist leftwing movement, and extreme leftists are
> >>usually unproductive.
> >
> > Not true, I've met several very intelligent and well educated AR vegans.
> > They do, however, tend to be pretty far to the left.
>
> The issue isn't intelligence or education, it's what they do with it.
> Their leftist views would still remain, imho, a sign of academic laziness.
Gee, that comes from you from the far right! Hardly biased, huh?
> >>That would be all "vegans". usual suspect is not a
> >>"vegan"; he eats a strictly vegetarian diet. There's a
> >>difference, but it's too subtle for a brick like you.
> >
> > "I am vegan (and I am not the only Republican I know who is one)."
> > Usual Suspect, June 14, 2002
> >
> > " I am vegan
> > primarily for health reasons; that there are other benefits (reduced
> > pollution, less harm to animals, etc.) is also very appealing."
> > Usual Suspect, May 9, 2002
> >
> > "I post here because I am vegan. I try to offer as much assistance as I
> > can. Jonathan David Ball (who is a slacker in SoCal) is not veg-n, but
> > trolls this newsgroup." :^)
> > Usual Suspect, November 18, 2002
>
> My *diet* is vegan, my views are *NOT*. I ceased calling myself a vegan
> several months ago. WTLW
Glad you're mending your evil ways and making positive improvements in your
life. Way to go!
> > Lots more evidence out there that you're wrong.
>
> Plenty more that he's right.
>
> >>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
> >>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
> >>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
> >>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
> >>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
> >
> > Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
>
> Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
Jonathan Ball
> "useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:arN2b.2475$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>>
>>>>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
>>>
>>>It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
>>
>>How is he a troll if it's not his substance but his *style*?
>
>
> Anybody who tries to get his point across while demeaning and insulting
> people qualifies as a troll by my definition.
I'm only responding in kind.
Note: "ar" FUNDAMENTALLY depends on demeaning and
insulting others.
>
>
>>>> You call anyone saying something you don't like to
>>>>hear a "troll". The word has no real meaning.
>>>
>>>Mmmm, I bet the vast majority of people here would also consider you a
>>>troll. Clearly you are.
>>
>>Logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. I pasted in a standard
>>definition. None of the three meet that definition.
>
>
> Oh, so I guess that makes you "right" then, doesn't it?
Snide.
>
>
>>>>Actually, he's playing some pretty good averages.
>>>>"aras" are almost always low-skill marginals, and
>>>>frequently are out-and-out parasites. "ar" is an
>>>>extremist leftwing movement, and extreme leftists are
>>>>usually unproductive.
>>>
>>>Not true, I've met several very intelligent and well educated AR vegans.
>>>They do, however, tend to be pretty far to the left.
>>
>>The issue isn't intelligence or education, it's what they do with it.
>>Their leftist views would still remain, imho, a sign of academic laziness.
>
>
> Gee, that comes from you from the far right! Hardly biased, huh?
Not far right. Nowhere near as rightwing as "aras" are
leftwing.
Snide.
It was a question: Why don't you do it? I think I
know why: you know you can't coherently explain why
you lean towards "veganism" without going all the way
there.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:68O2b.4748$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Your homosexual bash for one ~~jonnie~~. During the time you were lifting
tent flaps and your shirt tail I did not receive one virus. Upon your sore
arsed return - so did they. Is that ok for a start?
>
> I've never sent any virus to anyone.
Yeah, like 'I have never lied here'!
Bollocks.
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:68O2b.4748$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>>>news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>>>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>>>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>>>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>>>>>
>>>>>All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They
>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>>>here for the purposes of disruption.
>>>>>Every single time they fail.
>>>>
>>>>Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
>>>>hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey pillock, there is more than one person on this NG who has received a
>>>virus from your hero.
>>>
>>> Derek Nash, 'Pearl', Ron Gaul to name only three..
>>
>>
>>Where's your evidence?
>
>
> Your
Where's your evidence that I sent you a virus ever, whore?
>
>>I've never sent any virus to anyone.
>
>
> Yeah, like 'I have never lied here'!
I've never sent anyone a virus.
You have no evidence; you're just taking a shit in public.
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:IsN2b.4707$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> See James Strut whined:
>
> > "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:ijL2b.4602$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>See James Strut wrote:
> >>
> >>>"useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> >>>news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>exploratory wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> >>>>>which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> >>>>>begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan
Ball.
> >>>>
> >>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> >>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> >>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> >>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
> >>
> >>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
> >
> >
> > It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
>
> That's called style.
Yeah, you sure have style all right.
> I'll bet the vast majority of peoplehere WOULDN'T
> consider me a troll, as most of the whiny leftist
> "vegans" have left, and only a few dedicated nutcases,
> most of them British Isles layabouts, are left.
Well then put it up to a vote. I vote you're a troll.
Sure I do.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Well, I've found a good shithouse eh ~~jonnie~~
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:IsN2b.4707$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>See James Strut whined:
>>
>>>>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>>>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>>>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>>>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
>>>>
>>>>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
>>
>>That's called style.
>
>
> Yeah, you sure have style all right.
>
>
>>I'll bet the vast majority of peoplehere WOULDN'T
>>consider me a troll, as most of the whiny leftist
>>"vegans" have left, and only a few dedicated nutcases,
>>most of them British Isles layabouts, are left.
>
>
> Well then put it up to a vote. I vote you're a troll.
You don't, really. It's just a swearword with you.
You're merely trying to insult me, and you can't do any
better than that.
You want to insult me because I expose you for a fraud,
and you don't like it. Rather than examine my
argument, and then either change your nasty attitude or
just go away, you decide instead to engage in cheap,
meaningless invective.
>>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
>>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
>>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
>>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
>>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
>>
>>Non-responsive. I said you can't coherently explain
>>why you're not "vegan", despite being vegetarian for
>>largely the same reasons as people who DO label
>>themselves "vegan". It isn't just a semantic
>>difference; it's that you don't have a rational and
>>coherent stopping rule.
>
>
> Sure I do.
No, you plainly do not. You stop, but you can't give
an ethically coherent accounting of why you stop where
you do. You make a little PSEUDO-ethical baby step,
then stop, and you can't say why you stop.
How about this? You stop because you KNOW it's only a
pseudo-ethical step, based almost entirely on fashion,
and you know no one takes you seriously, so why wear a
hair shirt?
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:zmO2b.4771$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>>>
>>>>Where's your evidence?
>>>
>>>
>>>Your
>>
>>Where's your evidence that I sent you a virus ever, whore?
>>
>>
>>>>I've never sent any virus to anyone.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, like 'I have never lied here'!
>>
>>I've never sent anyone a virus.
>>
>>You have no evidence; you're just taking a shit in public.
>
>
> Well, I've found a good shithouse eh ~~jonnie~~
That's all you've ever done here, Dump. You don't care
about animals or human use of them one bit. You're
just here to shit in public.
You have no evidence that I sent you or anyone a virus.
You couldn't have: I have never sent anyone a virus.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Repeating youself ~~jonnie~~.
PS You forgot your sig.
>
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
> >>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
> >>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
> >>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
> >>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
> >>>
> >>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
> >>
> >>Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
> >
> >
> > Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
>
> Snide.
>
> It was a question: Why don't you do it? I think I
> know why: you know you can't coherently explain why
> you lean towards "veganism" without going all the way
> there.
Because my choice to be vegetarian and not vegan has nothing to do with the
original subject that you're a troll. You and Useless Subject are trying to
drift the thread to put me on the defensive.
Jonathan Ball
Don't be such a stiff-necked prig.
> You and Useless Subject are trying to
> drift the thread to put me on the defensive.
You are on the defensive from the outset, because you
know you don't really occupy a defensible position.
You also know that the whole reason I and the other are
here is not to troll, but to point out the inherent
contradictions of the position.
Note that the subject line has now been changed for
your convenience.
Please explain how it is that you are largely
vegetarian for (pseudo)-ethical reasons, but you don't
go all the way to being "vegan"?
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:QwO2b.4794$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> See James Strut wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:IsN2b.4707$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>See James Strut whined:
> >>
>
> >>>>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most
of
> >>>>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads.
You
> >>>>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages,
that
> >>>>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. You just don't like what we say, mr. semi-"vegan".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
> >>
> >>That's called style.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, you sure have style all right.
> >
> >
> >>I'll bet the vast majority of peoplehere WOULDN'T
> >>consider me a troll, as most of the whiny leftist
> >>"vegans" have left, and only a few dedicated nutcases,
> >>most of them British Isles layabouts, are left.
> >
> >
> > Well then put it up to a vote. I vote you're a troll.
>
> You don't, really. It's just a swearword with you.
> You're merely trying to insult me, and you can't do any
> better than that.
Trust me, I could do a lot better than that.
> You want to insult me because I expose you for a fraud,
> and you don't like it. Rather than examine my
> argument, and then either change your nasty attitude or
> just go away, you decide instead to engage in cheap,
> meaningless invective.
You don't even have an argument.
> >>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
> >>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
> >>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
> >>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
> >>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
> >>
> >>Non-responsive. I said you can't coherently explain
> >>why you're not "vegan", despite being vegetarian for
> >>largely the same reasons as people who DO label
> >>themselves "vegan". It isn't just a semantic
> >>difference; it's that you don't have a rational and
> >>coherent stopping rule.
> >
> >
> > Sure I do.
>
> No, you plainly do not. You stop, but you can't give
> an ethically coherent accounting of why you stop where
> you do. You make a little PSEUDO-ethical baby step,
> then stop, and you can't say why you stop.
>
> How about this? You stop because you KNOW it's only a
> pseudo-ethical step, based almost entirely on fashion,
> and you know no one takes you seriously, so why wear a
> hair shirt?
Good try, but no.
Jonathan Ball
It bears repeating numerous times, shitworm, because it
illustrates that you're a worthless liar. You have
never contributed a thing to any debate on animals and
their uses, just worthless invective and out-of-control
emotion.
You've accused me of doing something terrible, and you
have zero evidence to support your charge. In fact,
not only do you have no evidence, you KNOW that I
didn't send you anything at all.
You have no honor. No yorkshire pud has any honor.
Yorkshire is a shithole.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:QwO2b.4794$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>See James Strut whined:
>>
>>>>>It's not so much what you say as it is how you say it.
>>>>
>>>>That's called style.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, you sure have style all right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll bet the vast majority of peoplehere WOULDN'T
>>>>consider me a troll, as most of the whiny leftist
>>>>"vegans" have left, and only a few dedicated nutcases,
>>>>most of them British Isles layabouts, are left.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well then put it up to a vote. I vote you're a troll.
>>
>>You don't, really. It's just a swearword with you.
>>You're merely trying to insult me, and you can't do any
>>better than that.
>
>
> Trust me, I could do a lot better than that.
I don't think you can do much of anything well.
>
>
>>You want to insult me because I expose you for a fraud,
>>and you don't like it. Rather than examine my
>>argument, and then either change your nasty attitude or
>>just go away, you decide instead to engage in cheap,
>>meaningless invective.
>
>
> You don't even have an argument.
I do have an argument. You can't address it, which is
why you're pathetically reduced to weak insults.
>
>
>>>>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
>>>>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
>>>>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
>>>>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
>>>>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
>>>>
>>>>Non-responsive. I said you can't coherently explain
>>>>why you're not "vegan", despite being vegetarian for
>>>>largely the same reasons as people who DO label
>>>>themselves "vegan". It isn't just a semantic
>>>>difference; it's that you don't have a rational and
>>>>coherent stopping rule.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure I do.
>>
>>No, you plainly do not. You stop, but you can't give
>>an ethically coherent accounting of why you stop where
>>you do. You make a little PSEUDO-ethical baby step,
>>then stop, and you can't say why you stop.
>>
>>How about this? You stop because you KNOW it's only a
>>pseudo-ethical step, based almost entirely on fashion,
>>and you know no one takes you seriously, so why wear a
>>hair shirt?
>
>
> Good try, but no.
It's quite close, if not spot-on.
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:fjO2b.4765$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
> >>>>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
> >>>>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
> >>>>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
> >>>>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
> >>
> >>Snide.
> >>
> >>It was a question: Why don't you do it? I think I
> >>know why: you know you can't coherently explain why
> >>you lean towards "veganism" without going all the way
> >>there.
> >
> >
> > Because my choice to be vegetarian and not vegan has nothing to do with
the
> > original subject that you're a troll.
>
> Don't be such a stiff-necked prig.
You don't know me.
> > You and Useless Subject are trying to
> > drift the thread to put me on the defensive.
>
> You are on the defensive from the outset, because you
> know you don't really occupy a defensible position.
> You also know that the whole reason I and the other are
> here is not to troll, but to point out the inherent
> contradictions of the position.
No, you are frustrated with your pathetic life and have nothing better to do
than to torment and abuse people while hiding behind the internet. You are
pitiful, indeed.
> Note that the subject line has now been changed for
> your convenience.
Oh, don't go to any trouble on my account. Thanks for the thought though.
> Please explain how it is that you are largely
> vegetarian for (pseudo)-ethical reasons, but you don't
> go all the way to being "vegan"?
You don't know that.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Partly correct.
Some parts of Yorkshire are 'Shitholes'
Leeds, Bradford in fact most of West Yorkshire.
You see ~~jonnie~~ I do not lie here!
Now if you are really nice I will put my clock right.
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:GJO2b.4806$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:fjO2b.4765$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
>>>>>>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
>>>>>>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
>>>>>>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
>>>>>>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
>>>>
>>>>Snide.
>>>>
>>>>It was a question: Why don't you do it? I think I
>>>>know why: you know you can't coherently explain why
>>>>you lean towards "veganism" without going all the way
>>>>there.
>>>
>>>
>>>Because my choice to be vegetarian and not vegan has nothing to do with
>>>the original subject that you're a troll.
>>
>>Don't be such a stiff-necked prig.
>
>
> You don't know me.
I know you well enough.
>
>
>>>You and Useless Subject are trying to
>>>drift the thread to put me on the defensive.
>>
>>You are on the defensive from the outset, because you
>>know you don't really occupy a defensible position.
>>You also know that the whole reason I and the other are
>>here is not to troll, but to point out the inherent
>>contradictions of the position.
>
>
> No,
Yes.
> you are frustrated with your pathetic life and have nothing better to do
> than to torment and abuse people while hiding behind the internet. You are
> pitiful, indeed.
Non sequitur.
This topic - "veganism" as an ethical response - is a
legitimate one, and there are newsgroups dedicated to
it. Two of the three groups to which you're posting
your empty replies are explicitly concerned with it.
>
>
>>Note that the subject line has now been changed for
>>your convenience.
>
>
> Oh, don't go to any trouble on my account. Thanks for the thought though.
It figures you'd whiff off. Your inadequacies are showing.
>
>
>>Please explain how it is that you are largely
>>vegetarian for (pseudo)-ethical reasons, but you don't
>>go all the way to being "vegan"?
>
>
> You don't know that.
I do know all of it. You are largely vegetarian, but
not "vegan", for (pseudo)-ethical reasons. You can't
give a decent accounting of the reasons, let alone why
you stop at some no man's land.
Jonathan Ball
>>You have no honor. No yorkshire pud has any honor.
>>Yorkshire is a shithole.
>
>
> Partly correct.
Fully correct: you have no evidence to support your
charge, you have no honor, you inhabit a shithole.
You are a zero.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:GJO2b.4806$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You are on the defensive from the outset, because you
> know you don't really occupy a defensible position.
How can anyone be in a position while not occupying
that position, dolt?
"I write with extreme clarity and lucidity, and you
simply wouldn't read what was in front of you, even
after it was pointed out to you each and every time
that you had misstated what I actually wrote.
I've said a number of times that you're only semi literate.
You slagged that off as a cheap insult, but it really isn't.
You simply don't have the intellectual tools for this kind
of debate. You're extremely poorly read, you're an
incredibly sloppy thinker, and you just don't pay attention."
Jonathan Ball to firstoftwins Date: 2001-08-19
What a larf that was.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:GJO2b.4806$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>You are on the defensive from the outset, because you
>>know you don't really occupy a defensible position.
>
>
> How can anyone be in a position while not occupying
> that position, dolt?
You're a moron.
usual suspect
>>Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on "the side,"
>
> Baseless malicious slander from a proven ignorant unhinged git.
Try your big clown shoes on for size, witchy:
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer.
Zapper.
Foot massage.
Leprechauns.
Channeling.
Polar fountains.
Sun gazing.
Chemtrails.
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory.
Crop circles.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
OK,
Clock stays slow.
I'm off to watch the second part of a serial on my rented 9" B&W TV.
Insult you tomorow.
10/10.
>
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >
> >>Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on "the side,"
> >
> >
> > Baseless malicious slander
>
> No. It's the truth.
I'm surprised you don't self-combust just typing the word.
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth"
> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucer
> Zapper
> Foot massage
> Leprechauns
> Channeling
> Polar fountains
> Sun gazing
> Chemtrails
> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
> Crop circles
Contains innacuracies and lies.
> You are a complete nut.
You're a nasty lying troll.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:R6O2b.4745$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>
> news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>>
>>>>Unlike the charlatan foot masseuse on "the side,"
>>>
>>>
>>>Baseless malicious slander
>>
>>No. It's the truth.
>
>
> I'm surprised you don't self-combust just typing the word.
I always write the truth.
>
>
>> "inner earth beings"
>> "hollow earth"
>> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
>> your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>> rain forest destruction
>> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>> Stolen French flying saucer
>> Zapper
>> Foot massage
>> Leprechauns
>> Channeling
>> Polar fountains
>> Sun gazing
>> Chemtrails
>> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
>> Crop circles
>
>
> Contains innacuracies and lies.
No.
>
>
>>You are a complete nut.
Malcolm
<jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>> news:68O2b.4748$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Ray wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>>>>news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>>>>>>>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>>>>>>>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>>>>>>>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They
>>>>
>>>>are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>here for the purposes of disruption.
>>>>>>Every single time they fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
>>>>>hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hey pillock, there is more than one person on this NG who has received a
>>>>virus from your hero.
>>>>
>>>> Derek Nash, 'Pearl', Ron Gaul to name only three..
>>>
>>>
>>>Where's your evidence?
>>
>>
>> Your
>
>Where's your evidence that I sent you a virus ever, whore?
You are a virus fart face, your whole syphilitic presence is an
airborne disease. Live with it and stop crying.
>>>I've never sent any virus to anyone.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, like 'I have never lied here'!
>
>I've never sent anyone a virus.
Lying wartlips.
>You have no evidence; you're just taking a shit in public.
You should feel right at home then, as you live in it all day.
--
So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?
I understand.
/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..
usual suspect
>>>True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
>>
>>with the intent of getting people to answer it. Posts are usually off
>>topic. Trolls do this for any number of reasons. Just to see who
>>answers, or all the way to trying to find email addresses to send them
>>spam."
>>http://www.smr-usenet.com/def/index.shtml
>>
>>Since their posts are responses, they're on topic insofar as the threads
>>are actually on topic. Just because they're not in goose-step agreement
>>with vegans doesn't make them trolls.
>
> Screw you and your definitions. They are trolls by any popular definition of
> the term.
No, only by YOUR peculiar definition. The one I pasted is commonly
accepted. Yours isn't.
>>They're not morons. They make plenty of sense in their posts. A moron is
>>clinically defined as having an IQ between 50 and 70. As for their
>>contributions to society, they all appear to have gainful employment,
>>they don't seem to get in much trouble with the law, and they appear to
>>have loving families.
>
> I never said they were morons, the other guy did. You don't even know who
> you are responding to!
I do know to whom I'm responding. You said it was a very precarious and
subjective statement without identifying or narrowing down what I said.
By defining "moron" accurately, I demonstrated whom the capricious and
subjective parties are.
>>As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
>>a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
>>time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
>>last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
>>constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
>>haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
What's this, no response?
>>>>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
>>>>example of it.
>>>
>>>You would know a lot about sanctimony.
>>
>>I learned it from you.
>
> How unoriginal. I haven't heard such a childish response since I was in
> gradeschool. Funny, I have the urge to stick my tougue out at you and say
> "nya, nya, nya"! Grow up...
Thank heavens you haven't succumbed to such immature antics yourself and
have taken the high road in responding as you have. Putz.
>>I don't have to separate myself from ARAs, because I've never been for
>>animal rights (I am for humane treatment, though). I'm pro-hunting. I'm
>>pro-angling. What part of that don't you understand?
>
> Who said I didn't understand? Oh, I see...you're lashing out again.
It's clear you didn't. While digging through all my old posts, did you
ever find any anti-hunting ones? Did you ever find any that were in
support of animal rights?
>>As for what I really know, I was born and raised on a ranch. I worked in
>>agriculture during summers and fall harvests even after we moved to the
>>city. I still have family involved in agriculture, including ranching. I
>>have friends with farming and dairy interests. I've had my own endeavors
>>in agriculture, including goat milk production, in my younger adulthood.
>>I've castrated bulls, pigs, and goats, and never had an incident
>>involving bleeding or sustained pain. I've raised and slaughtered those
>>species plus chickens, ducks, deer, feral hogs, you name it. Our animals
>>always had lots of space, plenty to eat, plenty to drink, immediate
>>veterinarian care when sick or injured, etc.
>>
>>I know that healthy animals gain weight faster than sickly ones: time is
>>money in agriculture. I know that healthy animals bring significantly
>>more cash at auction that sickly ones. In other words, it's not in a
>>farmer's or rancher's economic interest to treat his income in a shoddy,
>>haphazard manner. Those who mistreat or malnourish their livestock pay a
>>double price for it if caught, and pay heavily for it even if not caught.
>
> Finally, an answer to my question after lots of unnecessary graphic
> testimony. Or maybe you were trying to prop yourself up as an expert on the
> matter?
Look, asshole, you asked, "Do you really know...?" I only explained that
I do.
> So you think that cattle who are forced to eat food they can't
> easily digest as well as antibiotics and growth hormones is healthy?
Our cattle weren't force-fed, given unnecessary antibiotics, or injected
with or fed growth hormones. I know many ranchers engage in some or all
those practices (except force-feeding), but not on the scale to which
you seem to think it's done.
> Sure,
> it's within the letter of the law but your "healthy" animal rationale is
> nothing but a facade.
It's not a facade, it's an economic fact.
>>What else would you like to know, asshole?
>
> You don't do anger very well, do you?
Oh, I do anger very well. I just don't suffer fools at all.
>>>You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
>>
>>I would've called him something else but it would've been an insult to
>>felines.
>
> Oh, so instead you insult flowers. You must be some kind of an animal
> activist!
Keep your day job.
<snip childish nonsense>
pearl
'D';
> Look at the newspapers one day and you'll find
> that our cowardly and murderous so-called
> soldiers have been dropping bombs on large
> cities in Iraq killing innocents. You can deny
> it if you want. Be my guest.
'U.S'
Citation, PLEASE. My papers haven't had any such story
since the war started, I've yet to see or hear or read of any
evidence supporting such claims.
(16 July 2003)
pearl
> I always write the truth.
You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
usual suspect
>>How is he a troll if it's not his substance but his *style*?
>
> Anybody who tries to get his point across while demeaning and insulting
> people qualifies as a troll by my definition.
Oh, you mean like *you* do by calling him "Jonathan Bald" and like you
have regarding your foul tone with me? So Jim is a troll, too. Fine.
>>>Mmmm, I bet the vast majority of people here would also consider you a
>>>troll. Clearly you are.
>>
>>Logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. I pasted in a standard
>>definition. None of the three meet that definition.
>
> Oh, so I guess that makes you "right" then, doesn't it?
Yes, as usual. :-)
>>>Not true, I've met several very intelligent and well educated AR vegans.
>>>They do, however, tend to be pretty far to the left.
>>
>>The issue isn't intelligence or education, it's what they do with it.
>>Their leftist views would still remain, imho, a sign of academic laziness.
>
> Gee, that comes from you from the far right! Hardly biased, huh?
I'm fair.
>>My *diet* is vegan, my views are *NOT*. I ceased calling myself a vegan
>>several months ago. WTLW
>
> Glad you're mending your evil ways and making positive improvements in your
> life. Way to go!
FU
>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
>>
>>Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
>
> Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
Whiff. You can't explain it, much less coherently.
usual suspect
<snip>
> Well then put it up to a vote. I vote you're a troll.
I vote that he's not. And if he IS, then you are as well. Your
contributions to afv pale next to his, at least in terms of recipes and
advice.
<snip>
>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
>>
>>Non-responsive. I said you can't coherently explain
>>why you're not "vegan", despite being vegetarian for
>>largely the same reasons as people who DO label
>>themselves "vegan". It isn't just a semantic
>>difference; it's that you don't have a rational and
>>coherent stopping rule.
>
> Sure I do.
Then give it, Putz.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:PfP2b.4840$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>I always write the truth.
>
>
> You NEVER write the truth.
I always write the truth.
You write weird anti-science:
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
usual suspect
>>It was a question: Why don't you do it? I think I
>>know why: you know you can't coherently explain why
>>you lean towards "veganism" without going all the way
>>there.
>
> Because my choice to be vegetarian and not vegan has nothing to do with the
> original subject that you're a troll. You and Useless Subject are trying to
> drift the thread to put me on the defensive.
Avoidance is getting you nowhere. We're not trying to put you on the
defensive; you've done a swell job of it yourself.
usual suspect
Still waiting for you to produce a source for wholesale collateral
bombing of civilians. All you've done so far is give a link to some
radical organization's website. Then again, we expect such trash from
you given your crackpot beliefs in:
usual suspect
> You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
> You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
WTF do you call the following?
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
rick etter
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:j_N2b.5124$L15....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Ray wrote:
> > >>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> > >>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> > >>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> > >>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
> > >
> > > All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They
> are
> > > here for the purposes of disruption.
> > > Every single time they fail.
> >
> > Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
> > hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
>
> Hey pillock, there is more than one person on this NG who has received a
> virus from your hero.
>
> gnome is so fucking thick he puts his own name on the list of recipients
in
> childish attempt to make it look authentic.
==========
you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
once....
rick etter
"C. James Strutz" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3f4b7e25$1...@news.nauticom.net...
>
> "useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:GXJ2b.2367$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> > exploratory wrote:
> > > I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> > > which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> > > begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
> >
> > Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
> > Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
> > would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
> > they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>
Obviously another loon that doesn't kknow the meaning of the term. I post
relevent, straigh forward truths about vegan, and their sanctimonious
blatherings. Not one of them has ever been able to refute what I post.
Like you, all they have are a bucnh of strawmen to throw on the heap of
their lys and delusions.
>
> > > None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
> >
> > They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
>
> A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're
just
> defending your buddies.
=====================
LOL better read up on this group a little. Usual and I hardly started out
as buddies!!
>
> > > These same hypocrites would complain
> >
> > The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
> > then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
>
> To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending,
and
> obnoxious.
================
There are some that aren't? they sure aren't here on usenet then.
>
> > > and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> >
> > Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> > example of it.
>
> You would know a lot about sanctimony.
=============
Yes, we read vegan stupidity...
>
> > > if American patriots were to post photos and
> > > flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> > > in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> > > for hamburgers and fried chicken.
> >
> > You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
> > movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
> > ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those violations
> > as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
> > violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
>
> I wonder how isolated farm animal cruelty really is, and what percentage
of
> violations are actually prosecuted. Do you really know or are you going to
> lengths to distance yourself from the AR crowd?
================
Actually, I'd say very, very little cruelty and death to animals on farms is
reported. Afterall, most of the deaths on farms are from those that are
sliced, diced, shredded, dis-membered, poisoned, etc. just so that you can
have your cheap, convenient veggies. When are you going to start demanding
that these deaths be reported and punished, hypocrite? See, you sanctimony
pervades everything you write...
>
> > > We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> > > and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> > > THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> >
> > What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
> > apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
> > those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
> > someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
> > civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
> > any manner.
>
> As you should...
==============
And yet, it only seems to be the AR/vegan loons that advocate and commit
these actions.
>
> > > Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> > > petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
> >
> > Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
> > ignorance." Pansy.
>
> You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
================
He should apologize to those pansys for dissing them....
>
> > > As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
> >
> > I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap you've
> > spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
> > hang yourself.
>
> I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much different
> from the lowlifes he's dissing.
=============
or like the ones he identifies with, eh killer?
>
>
rick etter
>
snippage...
> >
> > Then why don't you try rather than proudly pronouncing your evasion?
>
> Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
==================
yeah, thought so. You have nothing to say, or reason to give, that doesn't
make you sound the fool you are.
Have a nice blood-drenched dinner, killer.
John Smith
should meet somewhere and just beat each other to death and that would
end our suffering also.
wrote:
> I see over 90% of the starting threads on this newsgroup,
> which is SUPPOSED to be about vegetarian ethics and politics,
> begun by the brainless trolls of Rick Etter, Dutch, and Jonathan Ball.
> None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>
> These same hypocrites would complain
> and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> if American patriots were to post photos and
> flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> for hamburgers and fried chicken.
>
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
>
Malcolm
wrote:
>
>"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:j_N2b.5124$L15....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>> news:rRM2b.2471$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>> > Ray wrote:
>> > >>Bullshit. Rick and Dutch *rarely* start their own threads, and most of
>> > >>Jon's started threads are actually responses to previous threads. You
>> > >>would also know, if you'd taken the time to read their messages, that
>> > >>they address vegetarian "ethics" and politics.
>> > >
>> > > All three are liars, fraudsters and have no interest in animals. They
>> are
>> > > here for the purposes of disruption.
>> > > Every single time they fail.
>> >
>> > Fraudsters? You mean like the hapless punk who keeps lying on a nearly
>> > hourly basis that another user is sending him viruses?
>>
>> Hey pillock, there is more than one person on this NG who has received a
>> virus from your hero.
>>
>> Derek Nash, 'Pearl', Ron Gaul to name only three.. ~~Jonnie~~ the spastic
>> gnome is so fucking thick he puts his own name on the list of recipients
>in
>> childish attempt to make it look authentic.
>==========
>you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
>once....
Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think canine herpes can yet be
transmitted via usenet, or at least I have seen no warnings on the
Symantec website.
Do you get on very well with your pets?
rick etter
"John Smith" <J...@altopia.com> wrote in message
news:3F4BCF91...@altopia.com...
> Amen to that. They have turned this group into a total waste. Maybe they
> should meet somewhere and just beat each other to death and that would
> end our suffering also.
Funny thing. I don't think I have never initiated a post to afv. All I do
is respond to the sacntimonious loons, that are your kind of people, and let
them, and you, know a little bit of truth. That you, and they, like to live
in a dark little corner with your eyes closed and pretend that your diet
'saves' animals, says alot about the collective vegan intellegence. maybe
you should change your diet....
rick etter
"Malcolm" <bruta...@ToughGuy.net> wrote in message
news:344fff496b11323f...@news.teranews.com...snippage...
>
> Do you get on very well with your pets?
================
apparently not a well as you, pervie....
you'd better talk to exploratory if you want pointers on doing you pets...
Ray
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:H4Q2b.9663$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
usual suspect
>>you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
>>once....
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think canine herpes can yet be
> transmitted via usenet, or at least I have seen no warnings on the
> Symantec website.
Hmmm, are you saying pearl has canine herpes?
rick etter
google for it stupid. I posted it when it happened... nice try at
deversion though.
rick etter
>
> "useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:VfN2b.2474$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > suppository wrote:
> > > True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
> >
> > with the intent of getting people to answer it. Posts are usually off
> > topic. Trolls do this for any number of reasons. Just to see who
> > answers, or all the way to trying to find email addresses to send them
> > spam."
> > http://www.smr-usenet.com/def/index.shtml
> >
> > Since their posts are responses, they're on topic insofar as the threads
> > are actually on topic. Just because they're not in goose-step agreement
> > with vegans doesn't make them trolls.
>
> Screw you and your definitions. They are trolls by any popular definition
of
> the term.
Only by those that refuse to hear the truth, and have to label it something
else so their guilt doesn't bother them.
Now, go have that blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
>
> > >>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
> > >>
> > >>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
> > >
> > > A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that,
you're
> just
> > > defending your buddies.
> >
> > They're not morons. They make plenty of sense in their posts. A moron is
> > clinically defined as having an IQ between 50 and 70. As for their
> > contributions to society, they all appear to have gainful employment,
> > they don't seem to get in much trouble with the law, and they appear to
> > have loving families.
>
> I never said they were morons, the other guy did. You don't even know who
> you are responding to!
>
> > As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
> > a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
> > time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
> > last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
> > constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
> > haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
> >
> > >>>These same hypocrites would complain
> > >>
> > >>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
> > >>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
> > >
> > > To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant,
condescending,
> and
> > > obnoxious.
> >
> > Yeah, you should stop being like that.
> >
> > >>>and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
> > >>
> > >>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> > >>example of it.
> > >
> > > You would know a lot about sanctimony.
> >
> > I learned it from you.
>
> How unoriginal. I haven't heard such a childish response since I was in
> gradeschool. Funny, I have the urge to stick my tougue out at you and say
> "nya, nya, nya"! Grow up...
>
> > >>>if American patriots were to post photos and
> > >>>flyers showing the holocaust of factory farming
> > >>>in every restaurant and on every advertisement
> > >>>for hamburgers and fried chicken.
> > >>
> > >>You apparently believe the propaganda peddled by the animal rights
> > >>movement. What they do is take pictures or video of terrible yet
> > >>ISOLATED violations of animal welfare laws and portray those
violations
> > >>as the norm. What they don't tell you is that in many instances, such
> > >>violations can be and ARE punished under existing law.
> > >
> > > I wonder how isolated farm animal cruelty really is, and what
percentage
> of
> > > violations are actually prosecuted. Do you really know or are you
going
> to
> > > lengths to distance yourself from the AR crowd?
> >
> > I don't have to separate myself from ARAs, because I've never been for
> > animal rights (I am for humane treatment, though). I'm pro-hunting. I'm
> > pro-angling. What part of that don't you understand?
>
> Who said I didn't understand? Oh, I see...you're lashing out again.
>
> > As for what I really know, I was born and raised on a ranch. I worked in
> > agriculture during summers and fall harvests even after we moved to the
> > city. I still have family involved in agriculture, including ranching. I
> > have friends with farming and dairy interests. I've had my own endeavors
> > in agriculture, including goat milk production, in my younger adulthood.
> > I've castrated bulls, pigs, and goats, and never had an incident
> > involving bleeding or sustained pain. I've raised and slaughtered those
> > species plus chickens, ducks, deer, feral hogs, you name it. Our animals
> > always had lots of space, plenty to eat, plenty to drink, immediate
> > veterinarian care when sick or injured, etc.
> >
> > I know that healthy animals gain weight faster than sickly ones: time is
> > money in agriculture. I know that healthy animals bring significantly
> > more cash at auction that sickly ones. In other words, it's not in a
> > farmer's or rancher's economic interest to treat his income in a shoddy,
> > haphazard manner. Those who mistreat or malnourish their livestock pay a
> > double price for it if caught, and pay heavily for it even if not
caught.
>
> Finally, an answer to my question after lots of unnecessary graphic
> testimony. Or maybe you were trying to prop yourself up as an expert on
the
> matter? So you think that cattle who are forced to eat food they can't
> easily digest as well as antibiotics and growth hormones is healthy? Sure,
> it's within the letter of the law but your "healthy" animal rationale is
> nothing but a facade.
>
> > What else would you like to know, asshole?
>
> You don't do anger very well, do you?
>
> > >>>We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> > >>>and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> > >>>THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> > >>
> > >>What purpose would that serve? Like other sanctimonious veg-ns, you
> > >>apparently are unable and unwilling to discuss opposing beliefs with
> > >>those who hold them. BTW, not sure if you realize it, but plastering
> > >>someone's home with propaganda is actionable both criminally and
> > >>civilly. I'd press charges and sue your ass if you defaced my house in
> > >>any manner.
> > >
> > > As you should...
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Of course, their "cause" of promoting meat is the most trivial,
> > >>>petty selfish infantile subject, not worthy of discussion.
> > >>
> > >>Which means "I can't argue from a point of reason, so I'll act out of
> > >>ignorance." Pansy.
> > >
> > > You're slandering pansies in gardens everywhere.
> >
> > I would've called him something else but it would've been an insult to
> > felines.
>
> Oh, so instead you insult flowers. You must be some kind of an animal
> activist!
>
> > >>>As long as THEY are not banned, then *I* cannot be banned.
> > >>
> > >>I haven't seen where they're trying to shut you up. With the crap
you've
> > >>spewed, I can see where they'll only give you more rope with which to
> > >>hang yourself.
> > >
> > > I'd say the dude is delusional, maybe even sociopathic. Not much
> different
> > > from the lowlifes he's dissing.
> >
> > You ought to know.
>
> Nya, nya, nya.
>
>
>
rick etter
>
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:GJO2b.4806$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> > > "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > > news:fjO2b.4765$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>>>I'd say you're incoherent, SeeJames. You're close to
> > >>>>>>"vegan", and to the extent you've moved in that
> > >>>>>>direction, it's for the same reasons "vegans" follow
> > >>>>>>"vegan" diets - maudlin sentimentality about animals -
> > >>>>>>but you can't explain why you're not all the way there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Of course I could explain why I'm vegetarian, and quite coherently.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Make me! Nya, nya, nya!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>It was a question: Why don't you do it? I think I
> > >>know why: you know you can't coherently explain why
> > >>you lean towards "veganism" without going all the way
> > >>there.
> > >
> > >
> > > Because my choice to be vegetarian and not vegan has nothing to do
with
> the
> > > original subject that you're a troll.
> >
>
> You don't know me.
>
> > > You and Useless Subject are trying to
> > > drift the thread to put me on the defensive.
> >
> > know you don't really occupy a defensible position.
> > You also know that the whole reason I and the other are
> > here is not to troll, but to point out the inherent
> > contradictions of the position.
>
> No, you are frustrated with your pathetic life and have nothing better to
do
> than to torment and abuse people while hiding behind the internet. You are
> pitiful, indeed.
>
> > Note that the subject line has now been changed for
> > your convenience.
>
> Oh, don't go to any trouble on my account. Thanks for the thought though.
>
> > Please explain how it is that you are largely
> > vegetarian for (pseudo)-ethical reasons, but you don't
> > go all the way to being "vegan"?
>
> You don't know that.
================
I do know that you are *not* vegan in anyway. you prove that with everyone
of your inane posts to usenet.
>
>
pearl
news:WQP2b.4695$Pn6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
> > You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
>
> WTF do you call the following?
Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
pearl
news:0QP2b.4694$Pn6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
<..>
> >>Look at the newspapers one day and you'll find
> >>that our cowardly and murderous so-called
> >>soldiers have been dropping bombs on large
> >>cities in Iraq killing innocents. You can deny
> >>it if you want. Be my guest.
> >
> > 'U.S'
> > Citation, PLEASE. My papers haven't had any such story
> > since the war started, I've yet to see or hear or read of any
> > evidence supporting such claims.
> > (16 July 2003)
>
> Still waiting for you to produce a source for wholesale collateral
> bombing of civilians.
AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles killed more civilians in
the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according
to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid
agencies and independent study groups.
- May 23rd
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-5-19103-23-48-54.html.
Adding indifference to injury
At least 20,000 civilians were injured in the Iraq war: Why are
the occupiers ignoring their suffering and their needs?
August 7th 2003
Extraction of media-reported civilian injuries from the Iraq Body
Count database and archive of war reports provides evidence of
at least 20,000 civilian injuries on top of the maximum reported
7798 (now 7830) deaths. 8,000 of these injuries were in the
Baghdad area alone, suggesting that the full, countrywide picture,
as with deaths, is yet to emerge. ........'
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_aug0703.htm
> All you've done so far is give a link to some
> radical organization's website.
'Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with
web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further
sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project
standards (see below). ..'
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
What did you imagine would happen? Not death and horror?
How many generations are going to be affected by your DU?
pearl
<..>
>
> Where's your evidence?
I did. :-| Not intentionally though. You might say petter was CD.
Dutch
> Anybody who tries to get his point across while demeaning and
insulting
> people qualifies as a troll by my definition.
Using troll in that fashion guarantees you're a usenet newbie trying to
sound like he knows the lingo. It shows the opposite. There are a lot of
epithets to hurl at people you don't like, why ruin a term that
specifically means something else?
swamp
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"useless subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>news:VfN2b.2474$gf.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>> suppository wrote:
>> > True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
>>
>> They're not trolls. "A TROLL is a person who posts messages to usenet
>> with the intent of getting people to answer it. Posts are usually off
>> topic. Trolls do this for any number of reasons. Just to see who
>> answers, or all the way to trying to find email addresses to send them
>> spam."
>> http://www.smr-usenet.com/def/index.shtml
>>
>> Since their posts are responses, they're on topic insofar as the threads
>> are actually on topic. Just because they're not in goose-step agreement
>> with vegans doesn't make them trolls.
>
>Screw you and your definitions. They are trolls by any popular definition of
>the term.
No, anyone who disagrees w/ you is a troll, by your definition. aaev
=alt animals ETHICAL vegan. What part of ethical are you debating?
And, pointing out your lack of understanding is neither trolling nor
ad hominem.
>> >>>None of these morons has contributed ANYthing to society.
>> >>
>> >>They're not morons, and they contribute more to society than you do.
>> >
>> > A very precarious and subjective statement. You don't know that, you're
>just
>> > defending your buddies.
>>
>> They're not morons. They make plenty of sense in their posts. A moron is
>> clinically defined as having an IQ between 50 and 70. As for their
>> contributions to society, they all appear to have gainful employment,
>> they don't seem to get in much trouble with the law, and they appear to
>> have loving families.
>
>I never said they were morons, the other guy did. You don't even know who
>you are responding to!
Which mattters more to you, the misattributions or your diet?
>> As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
>> a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
>> time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
>> last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
>> constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
>> haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
>>
>> >>>These same hypocrites would complain
>> >>
>> >>The hypocrites are the veg-ns who bitch and moan about everything and
>> >>then whine even louder when asked to substantiate their silly notions.
>> >
>> > To say nothing of some vegans who are evasive, arrogant, condescending,
>and
>> > obnoxious.
>>
>> Yeah, you should stop being like that.
>>
>> >>>and wag their mighty self-rigtheous tongues
>> >>
>> >>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
>> >>example of it.
>> >
>> > You would know a lot about sanctimony.
>>
>> I learned it from you.
>
>How unoriginal.
...but true. Who's trying to impose their beliefs on others here? Is
aaev always like this?
>I haven't heard such a childish response since I was in
>gradeschool. Funny, I have the urge to stick my tougue out at you and say
>"nya, nya, nya"! Grow up...
I haven't read anything like this since I studied McCarthyism back in
school college a long time ago. I'll commit to growing up if you'll
commit to thinking.
It's very difficult to feed an animal a food it doesn't want to eat.
You obviously haven't spent much time around them.
>> What else would you like to know, asshole?
>
>You don't do anger very well, do you?
[snip]
>Nya, nya, nya.
Is this guy the "norm" in aaev? Nevermind. Gotta tend to my animals.
--swamp
Jonathan Ball
Not just that...your post was in reply to Dump himself.
What a dumb fucking loser.
> nice try at
> deversion though.
>
>
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> "useless dipstick" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:WQP2b.4695$Pn6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>
>>>You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
>>>You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
>>
>>WTF do you call the following?
>
>
> Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
Nope. Your core beliefs.
You are crazy.
>
>
>>"inner earth beings"
>>"hollow earth"
>>that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
>>your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>>rain forest destruction
>>Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>>Stolen French flying saucer.
>>Zapper.
>>Foot massage.
>>Leprechauns.
>>Channeling.
>>Polar fountains.
>>Sun gazing.
>>Chemtrails.
>>AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory.
>>Crop circles.
>
>
>
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> "filthy useless suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:0QP2b.4694$Pn6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> <..>
>
>>>>Look at the newspapers one day and you'll find
>>>>that our cowardly and murderous so-called
>>>>soldiers have been dropping bombs on large
>>>>cities in Iraq killing innocents. You can deny
>>>>it if you want. Be my guest.
>>>
>>>'U.S'
>>>Citation, PLEASE. My papers haven't had any such story
>>>since the war started, I've yet to see or hear or read of any
>>>evidence supporting such claims.
>>>(16 July 2003)
>>
>>Still waiting for you to produce a source for wholesale collateral
>>bombing of civilians.
>
>
> AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles killed more civilians in
> the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according
> to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid
> agencies and independent study groups.
> - May 23rd
> http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-5-19103-23-48-54.html.
"Sorry... page not found"
You're a FAKE.
Anyway, it's more civilians than in any *American* war
since Vietnam. The Russians killed more Afghanis
during their illegal occupation of that country, Hutus
killed hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, and many more
than 10,000 civilians were killed in the Balkans.
You're a two-bit whore and liar.
>
>>All you've done so far is give a link to some
>>radical organization's website.
>
>
> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
And that's just another: not credible.
Derek
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:0QP2b.4694$Pn6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> filthy skag wrote:
> >>Look at the newspapers one day and you'll find
> >>that our cowardly and murderous so-called
> >>soldiers have been dropping bombs on large
> >>cities in Iraq killing innocents. You can deny
> >>it if you want. Be my guest.
> >
> > 'U.S'
> > Citation, PLEASE. My papers haven't had any such story
> > since the war started, I've yet to see or hear or read of any
> > evidence supporting such claims.
> > (16 July 2003)
>
> Still waiting for you to produce a source for wholesale collateral
> bombing of civilians.
Likewise, we're still waiting for you to produce evidence
supporting the absurd claim that trillions of CD are caused
in agriculture.
> All you've done so far is give a link to some
> radical organization's website.
Likewise, all you've done so far is give a bunch of links
to websites selling pesticides.
While denying the deaths of Iraqi children during the west's
bombing raids on their cities, don't you feel a bit stupid
insisting the vegan lives in denial of the CD caused in ag?
--
"At the period and place, whenever and wherever it
was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably
inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for
the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he
subsisted." Charles Darwin
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
You've even twisted that message.
You are so bent, it a wonder you don't sleep on a curved bed.
>
Ray
What you posted a virus?
~~jonnie~~ will not like that.
>
>
>
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:yGW2b.5342$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not half as dumb as you wish ~~jonnie~~
Not one of them has actually entered my system.
Try to be a litle more original.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "filthy useless suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:0QP2b.4694$Pn6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > <..>
> >
> >>>>Look at the newspapers one day and you'll find
> >>>>that our cowardly and murderous so-called
> >>>>soldiers have been dropping bombs on large
> >>>>cities in Iraq killing innocents. You can deny
> >>>>it if you want. Be my guest.
> >>>
> >>>'U.S'
> >>>Citation, PLEASE. My papers haven't had any such story
> >>>since the war started, I've yet to see or hear or read of any
> >>>evidence supporting such claims.
> >>>(16 July 2003)
> >>
> >>Still waiting for you to produce a source for wholesale collateral
> >>bombing of civilians.
>
>
> > AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles killed more civilians in
> > the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according
> > to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid
> > agencies and independent study groups.
> > - May 23rd
> > http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-5-19103-23-48-54.html.
>
> "Sorry... page not found"
'If you were looking for an old story, it may be available
on Back Issue, our subscription archive.'
I didn't make it up, stupid ball. Read it all here;
http://www.worldcitizens.org/civiliandeaths.html
> You're a FAKE.
No, you're a LIAR.
> Anyway, it's more civilians than in any *American* war
> since Vietnam. The Russians killed more Afghanis
> during their illegal occupation of that country, Hutus
> killed hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, and many more
> than 10,000 civilians were killed in the Balkans.
You're nit-picking, so.. AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles.
'AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles killed more civilians
in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam.'
> You're a two-bit whore and liar.
'It is only the self-destructive psychopath that refuses to
accept normal human standards, and by doing so reduces
himself to a sub-human state. '
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
> >>All you've done so far is give a link to some
> >>radical organization's website.
> >
> >
>
> > http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
>
> And that's just another: not credible.
Says the biggest liar, and one of the more biased
and logic-impaired participants ..
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
pearl
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "useless dipstick" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> > news:WQP2b.4695$Pn6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >
> >>>You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
> >>>You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
> >>
> >>WTF do you call the following?
> >
> >
> > Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
>
> Nope. Your core beliefs.
No, your collaborative fraudulent mess.
> You are crazy.
assume and hate some more
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
rick etter
"Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bihql7$dq6$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> news:4HR2b.20177$f76.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Malcolm wrote:
> > >>you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
> > >>once....
> > >
> > > Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think canine herpes can yet be
> > > transmitted via usenet, or at least I have seen no warnings on the
> > > Symantec website.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Hmmm, are you saying pearl has canine herpes?
>
> You've even twisted that message.
nope, that's just what was said...
usual suspect
>>>You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
>>>You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
>>
>>WTF do you call the following?
>
>
> Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
Mine? Those are all your beliefs, you little charlatan.
usual suspect
>>Still waiting for you to produce a source for wholesale collateral
>>bombing of civilians.
>
> AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles killed more civilians in
> the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according
> to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid
> agencies and independent study groups.
> - May 23rd
> http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/23-5-19103-23-48-54.html.
Note: PRELIMINARY assessments. What were the methodologies used? Were
they like your wild-assed extrapolations about extinction?
As for the story above:
Sorry... page not found
We are sorry but the page you have requested is not available.
How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient.
> Adding indifference to injury
> At least 20,000 civilians were injured in the Iraq war: Why are
> the occupiers ignoring their suffering and their needs?
> August 7th 2003
> Extraction of media-reported civilian injuries from the Iraq Body
> Count database and archive of war reports provides evidence of
> at least 20,000 civilian injuries on top of the maximum reported
> 7798 (now 7830) deaths. 8,000 of these injuries were in the
> Baghdad area alone, suggesting that the full, countrywide picture,
> as with deaths, is yet to emerge. ........'
> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_aug0703.htm
Does that include some double and triple counting of articles? Does that
include Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence? Does that include the bombing of the
marketplace for which Saddam's own government took credit?
>>All you've done so far is give a link to some
>>radical organization's website.
>
> 'Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with
> web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further
> sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project
> standards (see below). ..'
> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
Face it, dummy, your "source" simply culls newspapers and adds numbers
together. It's not accurate, it's not even close.
> What did you imagine would happen? Not death and horror?
Actually, quite little of it from reporters on the ground. Remember, the
Iraqi troops didn't put up much struggle. We didn't have to drop nearly
as many bombs as planned. Other than "shock and awe," of course.
> How many generations are going to be affected by your DU?
Not sure. How many DU bombs did we actually drop this time around? I
thought Clinton nearly exhausted the supply in liberating Kosovo.
usual suspect
>>>>you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
>>>>once....
>>>
>>>Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think canine herpes can yet be
>>>transmitted via usenet, or at least I have seen no warnings on the
>>>Symantec website.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Hmmm, are you saying pearl has canine herpes?
>
> You've even twisted that message.
Maybe you should learn to read, Ray. That or stay off the bottle for
longer than three hours at a time.
> You are so bent, it a wonder you don't sleep on a curved bed.
Your grammar and punctuation is atrocious. Did you complete your education?
pearl
news:_n13b.5248$Pn6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
<..>
> >>>You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
> >>>You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
> >>
> >>WTF do you call the following?
> >
> >
> > Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
>
> Mine? Those are all your beliefs, you little charlatan.
Ipse dixit, you nasty ignorant lying stupid fraud.
pearl
news:Iu13b.5249$Pn6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
<snip endless evasion>
> > How many generations are going to be affected by your DU?
>
> Not sure. How many DU bombs did we actually drop this time around? I
> thought Clinton nearly exhausted the supply in liberating Kosovo.
FOFG.
pearl
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:wZW2b.5352$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Anyway, it's more civilians than in any *American* war
> > since Vietnam. The Russians killed more Afghanis
> > during their illegal occupation of that country, Hutus
> > killed hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, and many more
> > than 10,000 civilians were killed in the Balkans.
>
> You're nit-picking, so..
Forget nit-picking, liar ball deliberately misinterpreted it.
'AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles killed more civilians
in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam.'
C. James Strutz
"Useless Subject" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:0gP2b.4683$Pn6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> C. James Putz wrote:
> >>>True, they don't usually start threads but they ARE noxious trolls.
> >>
> >>They're not trolls. "A TROLL is a person who posts messages to usenet
> >>with the intent of getting people to answer it. Posts are usually off
> >>topic. Trolls do this for any number of reasons. Just to see who
> >>answers, or all the way to trying to find email addresses to send them
> >>spam."
> >>http://www.smr-usenet.com/def/index.shtml
> >>
> >>Since their posts are responses, they're on topic insofar as the threads
> >>are actually on topic. Just because they're not in goose-step agreement
> >>with vegans doesn't make them trolls.
> >
> > Screw you and your definitions. They are trolls by any popular
definition of
> > the term.
>
> accepted. Yours isn't.
I suppose you think the likes of Jon Bald are good, clean contributors to
this newsgroup? You are delusional at best.
> >>They're not morons. They make plenty of sense in their posts. A moron is
> >>clinically defined as having an IQ between 50 and 70. As for their
> >>contributions to society, they all appear to have gainful employment,
> >>they don't seem to get in much trouble with the law, and they appear to
> >>have loving families.
> >
> > I never said they were morons, the other guy did. You don't even know
who
> > you are responding to!
>
> I do know to whom I'm responding. You said it was a very precarious and
> subjective statement without identifying or narrowing down what I said.
> By defining "moron" accurately, I demonstrated whom the capricious and
> subjective parties are.
>
> >>As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
> >>a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
> >>time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
> >>last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
> >>constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
> >>haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
>
> What's this, no response?
Okay, there have been plenty of radical right wingers who have just as much
time on their hands to engage in destruction for their causes: KKK, Timothy
McVeigh & Terry Nichols in this country, Nazi Germany, the "Skinhead"
movement in Europe, Islamic fundamantalists everywhere, paramilitary
assaults in Columbia, and Hindu violence in India to name a few. The truth
is that there are extremists at both ends. You are a right wing conservative
and you are stereotyping people on the other end of the continuum as
"underacheivers" and destructive "activists". What does this have to do with
trolls in this newsgroup anyway??
> >>>>Veg-ns have cornered the market on sanctimony. Your post is a fine
> >>>>example of it.
> >>>
> >>>You would know a lot about sanctimony.
> >>
> >>I learned it from you.
> >
> > How unoriginal. I haven't heard such a childish response since I was in
> > gradeschool. Funny, I have the urge to stick my tougue out at you and
say
> > "nya, nya, nya"! Grow up...
>
> Thank heavens you haven't succumbed to such immature antics yourself and
> have taken the high road in responding as you have. Putz.
>
> >>I don't have to separate myself from ARAs, because I've never been for
> >>animal rights (I am for humane treatment, though). I'm pro-hunting. I'm
> >>pro-angling. What part of that don't you understand?
> >
> > Who said I didn't understand? Oh, I see...you're lashing out again.
>
> It's clear you didn't. While digging through all my old posts, did you
> ever find any anti-hunting ones? Did you ever find any that were in
> support of animal rights?
I never accused you of being a supporter of animal rights, etc. I produced
quotes that YOU WROTE saying that you were vegan. You didn't distinguish
between diet and ideology then as you admitted elsewhere in this thread. You
conveniently manipulate issues with deception and deceit.
> >>As for what I really know, I was born and raised on a ranch. I worked in
> >>agriculture during summers and fall harvests even after we moved to the
> >>city. I still have family involved in agriculture, including ranching. I
> >>have friends with farming and dairy interests. I've had my own endeavors
> >>in agriculture, including goat milk production, in my younger adulthood.
> >>I've castrated bulls, pigs, and goats, and never had an incident
> >>involving bleeding or sustained pain. I've raised and slaughtered those
> >>species plus chickens, ducks, deer, feral hogs, you name it. Our animals
> >>always had lots of space, plenty to eat, plenty to drink, immediate
> >>veterinarian care when sick or injured, etc.
> >>
> >>I know that healthy animals gain weight faster than sickly ones: time is
> >>money in agriculture. I know that healthy animals bring significantly
> >>more cash at auction that sickly ones. In other words, it's not in a
> >>farmer's or rancher's economic interest to treat his income in a shoddy,
> >>haphazard manner. Those who mistreat or malnourish their livestock pay a
> >>double price for it if caught, and pay heavily for it even if not
caught.
> >
> > Finally, an answer to my question after lots of unnecessary graphic
> > testimony. Or maybe you were trying to prop yourself up as an expert on
the
> > matter?
>
> Look, asshole, you asked, "Do you really know...?" I only explained that
> I do.
Your name calling demonstrates that you are grasping at straws. You are
showing your true colors.
> > So you think that cattle who are forced to eat food they can't
> > easily digest as well as antibiotics and growth hormones is healthy?
>
> Our cattle weren't force-fed, given unnecessary antibiotics, or injected
> with or fed growth hormones. I know many ranchers engage in some or all
> those practices (except force-feeding), but not on the scale to which
> you seem to think it's done.
>
> > Sure,
> > it's within the letter of the law but your "healthy" animal rationale is
> > nothing but a facade.
>
> It's not a facade, it's an economic fact.
I think your "economic fact" is heavily weighted by your anti-AR attitude.
You are not credible.
> >>What else would you like to know, asshole?
> >
> > You don't do anger very well, do you?
>
> Oh, I do anger very well. I just don't suffer fools at all.
Take a hard look in the mirror, pal.
Ray
"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
> >>>>you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
> >>>>once....
> >>>
> >>>Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think canine herpes can yet be
> >>>transmitted via usenet, or at least I have seen no warnings on the
> >>>Symantec website.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>Hmmm, are you saying pearl has canine herpes?
> >
> > You've even twisted that message.
>
> Maybe you should learn to read, Ray. That or stay off the bottle for
> longer than three hours at a time.
>
> > You are so bent, it a wonder you don't sleep on a curved bed.
Useless Subject, unemployed and bored Wrote:-
>
> Your grammar and punctuation is atrocious. Did you complete your
education.
Ray got his dicktionery out and writted:-
I know, to compound matters even further, I don't even care.
You should see my spelling!
You may put newbies off the group by trying to embarrass them by
highlighting their mistakes but it holds little water with me. You should
know that by now. (Shocking sentence construction eh?).
The drinking comes later - you *will* know when I'm pissed.
Now go and shove your nose up ~~jonnie's~~ bottom.
Watch out for Mr. Natural on his way out:-)
>
Jonathan Ball
I actually wish you weren't so dumb, Dump. But there's
no avoiding the obvious: you're a dumb fat pillock.
Rick posted the notice of the virus-sending whore
Lesley sending him one in response to YOU, and she
confessed to it at the time, yet you now ask him for
"evidence".
You are too stupid to use a computer. Repack them in
the boxes in which they shipped, and return them to the
dealer.
Jonathan Ball
That's another leftwing extremist organization.
Give a CREDIBLE citation, if you have one. Oh, right;
you NEVER have any.
>
>
>>You're a FAKE.
>
>
> No, you're a LIAR.
No. You're a FAKE, a massive, smelly, STD-infected FAKE.
>
>
>>Anyway, it's more civilians than in any *American* war
>>since Vietnam. The Russians killed more Afghanis
>>during their illegal occupation of that country, Hutus
>>killed hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, and many more
>>than 10,000 civilians were killed in the Balkans.
>
>
> You're nit-picking, so.. AMERICAN guns, bombs and missiles.
Not nit-picking. The point is stupid. America hasn't
been in any significant wars since Vietnam, apart from
the first and second wars against Iraq.
The point is, that stupid leftwing citation is, as
ever, trying to find an angle to criticize the U.S. for
doing the right thing. Leftists always criticize the
west, especially the U.S., for doing the right thing.
How many German civilians were killed by American and
BRITISH bombs during WW II?
>
>>You're a two-bit whore and liar.
>>
>>>>All you've done so far is give a link to some
>>>>radical organization's website.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm
>>
>>And that's just another: not credible.
>>
>>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:VWW2b.5351$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"useless dipstick" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
>>>news:WQP2b.4695$Pn6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You NEVER write the truth. You're incapable of it.
>>>>>You're a rotten liar, and a fraud through and through.
>>>>
>>>>WTF do you call the following?
>>>
>>>
>>>Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
>>
>>Nope. Your core beliefs.
>
>
> No, your collaborative fraudulent mess.
No; your core beliefs:
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
>
>
>>You are crazy.
You really ARE crazy.
Jonathan Ball
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:bii2lv$jmc$1...@kermit.esat.net...
Always having to go back and revise your earlier
lies..."what a tangled web we weave, when first we
practice to deceive."
Jonathan Ball
> Ray wrote:
>
>>>>> you should talk to pearly-lys about sending viruses. She sent me one
>>>>> once....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think canine herpes can yet be
>>>> transmitted via usenet, or at least I have seen no warnings on the
>>>> Symantec website.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, are you saying pearl has canine herpes?
>>
>>
>> You've even twisted that message.
>
>
> Maybe you should learn to read, Ray. That or stay off the bottle for
> longer than three hours at a time.
Oh, you can forget about that. Ray has been in and out
of at least half a dozen NHS alcoholism treatment
centers since the age of 15. He's on the wait list for
a liver transplant, but that's the NHS for you. He'd
have his new liver in a few weeks' time here, but in
Yorkshire he's had to wait over 4 years.
Jonathan Ball
[whining]
Let's get back to the real topic, SeeJames. Why can't
you explain why you aren't "vegan", even though your
reasons for being vegetarian are the same as theirs?
C. James Strutz
"Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:cH33b.5614$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Oh, so THAT'S the real topic, is it? You already think you know all the
answers so why are you so bent on having me respond? You are looking for
entertainment value (the real reason you're here in this NG anyway). I won't
bite.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Bald" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:cH33b.5614$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>See James Strut wrote:
>>
>>[whining]
>>
>>Let's get back to the real topic, SeeJames. Why can't
>>you explain why you aren't "vegan", even though your
>>reasons for being vegetarian are the same as theirs?
>
>
> Oh, so THAT'S the real topic, is it? You already think you know all the
> answers so why are you so bent on having me respond?
Why won't you or why can't you respond, SeeJames?
It's really only a rhetorical question, as I believe we
already know the answer. I thought I might learn
something if you responded in your own words.
Jonathan Ball
[...]
Fix your system clock. It's at least 5 minutes fast.
usual suspect
>>No, only by YOUR peculiar definition. The one I pasted is commonly
>>accepted. Yours isn't.
>
> I suppose you think the likes of Jon Bald are good, clean contributors to
> this newsgroup? You are delusional at best.
Jonathan has provided more recipes to afv than you have. Jonathan has
attempted to help others who have questions about ingredients at afv.
What have YOU done besides belittle others?
>>>>As was pointed out by Jon's reply, AR people are leftists. Leftists have
>>>>a lot of time on their hands because they're underachievers. They had
>>>>time to raze Seattle a few years ago, they burned a bunch of Hummers
>>>>last week, and their "activism" is always more destructive rather than
>>>>constructive. To my knowledge, the three men accused of being trolls
>>>>haven't engaged in that kind of behavior.
>>
>>What's this, no response?
>
> Okay, there have been plenty of radical right wingers who have just as much
> time on their hands to engage in destruction for their causes: KKK, Timothy
> McVeigh & Terry Nichols in this country, Nazi Germany, the "Skinhead"
> movement in Europe, Islamic fundamantalists everywhere, paramilitary
> assaults in Columbia, and Hindu violence in India to name a few. The truth
> is that there are extremists at both ends. You are a right wing conservative
> and you are stereotyping people on the other end of the continuum as
> "underacheivers" and destructive "activists". What does this have to do with
> trolls in this newsgroup anyway??
Nazis were national SOCIALISTS. So, too, are their misguided followers
in the skinhead movement. The GOP was the party that ended slavery and
helped LBJ pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the Democrats are the
historic party of the KKK. Indeed, Senator Robert Byrd and other former
KKK members remain IN the Democrat party. Don't forget (cuz I won't let
you) that before David Duke first ran for president in 1988 as a
Democrat. Did you know he got more votes in the Democrat primary than he
did when he ran as a Republican in 1992? You probably didn't, you putz.
As for McVeigh and Nichols, last time I checked both of them were
offended by the American right. Islamofascists, too, are
unrepresentative of the American right. Of course you wouldn't know this
because you're a clueless fuck who only wants to smear others rather
than accurately portray them.
>>>Who said I didn't understand? Oh, I see...you're lashing out again.
>>
>>It's clear you didn't. While digging through all my old posts, did you
>>ever find any anti-hunting ones? Did you ever find any that were in
>>support of animal rights?
>
> I never accused you of being a supporter of animal rights, etc. I produced
> quotes that YOU WROTE saying that you were vegan. You didn't distinguish
> between diet and ideology then as you admitted elsewhere in this thread. You
> conveniently manipulate issues with deception and deceit.
Yes I did distinguish between diet and ideology. I alluded to the normal
reasons given for veganISM as completely unintended secondary
"benefits." Funny that you seem to know more about my motivations than I
do, lame asshole.
>>Look, asshole, you asked, "Do you really know...?" I only explained that
>>I do.
>
> Your name calling demonstrates that you are grasping at straws. You are
> showing your true colors.
No, you're the one who started up with "useless subject" and ascribing
false representations of my views. You've yet to prove anything about
me, putz.
>>>Sure,
>>>it's within the letter of the law but your "healthy" animal rationale is
>>>nothing but a facade.
>>
>>It's not a facade, it's an economic fact.
>
> I think your "economic fact" is heavily weighted by your anti-AR attitude.
No, economic principles are evident in the free market. My "attitude"
has no bearing on supply and demand or other market forces.
> You are not credible.
And YOU are? Ha.
<snip prattle>
usual suspect
>>>>WTF do you call the following?
>>>
>>>Your collaborative fraudulent mess.
>>
>>Mine? Those are all your beliefs, you little charlatan.
>
> Ipse dixit, you nasty ignorant lying stupid fraud.
No, you've made numerous posts over the last few years in support of
such nonsense. I can document your follies if you like.
>>>>"inner earth beings"
>>>>"hollow earth"
>>>>that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
>>>>your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>>>>rain forest destruction
>>>>Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>>>>Stolen French flying saucer.
>>>>Zapper.
>>>>Foot massage.
>>>>Leprechauns.
>>>>Channeling.
>>>>Polar fountains.
>>>>Sun gazing.
>>>>Chemtrails.
>>>>AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory.
>>>>Crop circles.
Ageless wonders in Vilcabamba, et al