Another small(?) step toward the extinction of pets
dh...@nomail.com
Zakhar
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6ffcc....@news.mindspring.com...
>
>
> http://www.timesdispatch.com/vametro/archive/MGBLSKB7TKC.html
A law that encourages the prevention of unwanted litters does not mean
extinction of pets. It would be like saying 'condoms will lead to the
extinction of the human population'.
(Have you been searching news archives for 'animal rights' in an attempt to
make an anti ARA statement?)
--
Zakhar
All defamatory, off topic and diversionary posts will be ignored.
Persistent offenders will be permanently ignored.
firstoftwins
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac6ffcc....@news.mindspring.com...
>
>
> http://www.timesdispatch.com/vametro/archive/MGBLSKB7TKC.html
It's just a stealth tax.
Jonathan Ball
interpreted to mean a move towards the
"extinction" of pets. As usual, you demonstrate
your venality.
Unwanted dogs and cats that must be destroyed are
costly for local government to deal with, and the
millions of deaths bother most people. That's
more than sufficient reason for people to want to
take steps to cut down on "unplanned" puppies and
kittens.
But reading farther into the story, we see a line
that particularly has to stick in the craw of the
ignorant redneck hillbilly fuckwit ~~David~~:
The council's decision was applauded by
members of animal-rights organizations
and veterinarians, who said they think it
will cut down on the number of animals bred
for illegal fights.
First, anything that pleases "members of
animal-rights organizations necessarily displeases
~~David~~, as if there is *nothing* on which he
can agree with them without feeling he is
betraying some principle. But more to the point,
~~David~~ the breeder of fighting cocks is
particularly exercised by something that attempts
to cut down on breeding animals for fighting.
You breed or have bred dogs for fights, haven't
you, ~~Fuckwit~~?
firstoftwins
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3AC75430...@earthlink.net...
> I read your "story", and it can't reasonably be
> interpreted to mean a move towards the
> "extinction" of pets. As usual, you demonstrate
> your venality.
>
> Unwanted dogs and cats that must be destroyed are
> costly for local government to deal with, and the
> millions of deaths bother most people. That's
> more than sufficient reason for people to want to
> take steps to cut down on "unplanned" puppies and
> kittens.
>
> But reading farther into the story, we see a line
> that particularly has to stick in the craw of the
> ignorant redneck hillbilly fuckwit ~~David~~:
Who's ~~David~~:?? I read the article & found no references to any David's.
>
> The council's decision was applauded by
> members of animal-rights organizations
> and veterinarians, who said they think it
> will cut down on the number of animals bred
> for illegal fights.
>
> First, anything that pleases "members of
> animal-rights organizations necessarily displeases
> ~~David~~, as if there is *nothing* on which he
> can agree with them without feeling he is
> betraying some principle. But more to the point,
> ~~David~~ the breeder of fighting cocks is
> particularly exercised by something that attempts
> to cut down on breeding animals for fighting.
>
> You breed or have bred dogs for fights, haven't
> you, ~~Fuckwit~~?
Who's ~~David~~:?
Jonathan Ball
firstoftwins wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3AC75430...@earthlink.net...
> > I read your "story", and it can't reasonably be
> > interpreted to mean a move towards the
> > "extinction" of pets. As usual, you demonstrate
> > your venality.
> >
> He didn't actually pen it himself, he just posted a link
I know that; give me *some* credit, will you?
[...]
> Who's ~~David~~:?? I read the article & found no references to any David's.
[...]
> Who's ~~David~~:?
David Harrison: dh...@nomail.com
He's sort of the ~~Budell~~ (aka ~~Marginal~~,
~~Evolutionary~~, etc.) of the "AR" opponents'
side, except he *can* occasionally produce a
coherent English sentence; something utterly
beyond ~~Marginal~~'s reach.
He's an ignorant redneck inbred hillbilly living
somewhere down near Atlanta, Georgia - but not
*too* near. He's the one responsible for close to
two years of publishing that horseshit refrain
about "meat animals" "getting to experience life";
the "getting" is supposed to justify their
existence.
firstoftwins
Ah, the one I criticised for repeat sending of that useless crap. And he's
into dog fight as well? I'd love to meet him.
MARL 45 70
You really lack the basic ability to speak don't you..
MARL 45 70
>somewhere down near Atlanta, Georgia - but not
>*too* near.
Gee you must be one of the inner city white trash uneducated morons.
>He's the one responsible for close to
>two years of publishing that horseshit refrain
>about "meat animals" "getting to experience life";
>the "getting" is supposed to justify their
In other words you cannot refute what he has said so you attack.
Another pathetic limp wristed pot head sitting behind your Mom's computer eh.
Go get a job and maybe you won't have time to site behind a computer for two
years loser.
MARL 45 70
Ohhh another big boy sitting behind the computer.
Jonathan Ball
You're sort of a masochist, aren't you?
Actually, I don't know if he is or has been "into"
dogfighting. But he has admitted to being "into"
cockfighting in the past. He says it was only as
a breeder, but he displayed intimate knowledge of
cockfighting that seems unlikely to have come
about only by hearing or reading about it. At the
very least, he had to have been a spectator, if
not a handler.
BTW, he applies his "getting to experience life"
bullshit argument to the fighting cocks, as well.
Go to
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and
do a search on "cockfighting" with author
"dh...@excite.com" (he had a different address
back then). When Google gets the complete archive
up (?), you can also do a search on
"dh...@yahoo.com", a still earlier address.
firstoftwins
> BTW, he applies his "getting to experience life"
> bullshit argument to the fighting cocks, as well.
> Go to
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and
What an intriguing search link. I can now trawl through everything you've
mailed & report back on all your QED's & grammatical errors ( after maybe
loading them onto my Lotus Word app. & get a Flesch Reading Score, I
wouldn't assume myself as being up to the task). I noticed this search
machine even shows the other NG's one posts to.
> do a search on "cockfighting" with author
> "dh...@excite.com" (he had a different address
> back then). When Google gets the complete archive
> up (?), you can also do a search on
> "dh...@yahoo.com", a still earlier address.
You really are quite thorough.
Jonathan Ball
firstoftwins wrote:
[...]
> > BTW, he applies his "getting to experience life"
> > bullshit argument to the fighting cocks, as well.
> > Go to
> > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and
>
> What an intriguing search link. I can now trawl through everything you've
> mailed & report back on all your QED's & grammatical errors ( after maybe
> loading them onto my Lotus Word app. & get a Flesch Reading Score, I
> wouldn't assume myself as being up to the task).
Sure, I make the occasional typo or grammaro; seldom a
thoughto. What happens, in my case, is I write
something, reread it, don't like the way it reads, and
attempt to change it. But frequently, I neglect to
change something about a word, often a form (adjective to
noun, or vice versa), or frequently the tense of a verb,
and the result is grammatically incorrect.
In ~~David~~'s case, he just doesn't know how to write to
begin with. He truly is semi-literate. And yet, he's
still a veritable Shakespeare to your ~~Budell~~. Now,
*that* guy really is the poster boy of rotten public
(state) school instruction.
> I noticed this search
> machine even shows the other NG's one posts to.
> > do a search on "cockfighting" with author
> > "dh...@excite.com" (he had a different address
> > back then). When Google gets the complete archive
> > up (?), you can also do a search on
> > "dh...@yahoo.com", a still earlier address.
>
> You really are quite thorough.
Of course!
firstoftwins
>
>
> firstoftwins wrote:
> [...]
> > > BTW, he applies his "getting to experience life"
> > > bullshit argument to the fighting cocks, as well.
> > > Go to
> > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and
> >
> > What an intriguing search link. I can now trawl through everything
you've
> > mailed & report back on all your QED's & grammatical errors ( after
maybe
> > loading them onto my Lotus Word app. & get a Flesch Reading Score, I
> > wouldn't assume myself as being up to the task).
>
> Sure, I make the occasional typo or grammaro; seldom a
> thoughto. What happens, in my case, is I write
> something, reread it, don't like the way it reads, and
> attempt to change it.
Interesting. You need to proof your post, i.e.read it allowed in your head
to hear how it sounds, yet you claim your written word would be more
persuasive in AR brow beating. My profile on you has you down as probably a
mumbler or mutterer with thick twitching eyebrows.
>But frequently, I neglect to
> change something about a word, often a form (adjective to
> noun, or vice versa), or frequently the tense of a verb,
> and the result is grammatically incorrect.
>
> In ~~David~~'s case, he just doesn't know how to write to
> begin with. He truly is semi-literate. And yet, he's
> still a veritable Shakespeare to your ~~Budell~~. Now,
> *that* guy really is the poster boy of rotten public
> (state) school instruction.
>
> > I noticed this search
> > machine even shows the other NG's one posts to.
> > > do a search on "cockfighting" with author
> > > "dh...@excite.com" (he had a different address
> > > back then). When Google gets the complete archive
> > > up (?), you can also do a search on
> > > "dh...@yahoo.com", a still earlier address.
> >
> > You really are quite thorough.
>
> Of course!
I wonder if Rick ever did sell that Fort Knox training manual in the
collectables NG. That search engine is a bit of an invasion don't you think?
How can a vegan keep his tropical fish hobby away from prying eyes &
spiteful innuendo? Good job I didn't subscribe to that weightwatchers NG or
anything degrading.
Jonathan Ball
firstoftwins wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3AC77EE5...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > firstoftwins wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > BTW, he applies his "getting to experience life"
> > > > bullshit argument to the fighting cocks, as well.
> > > > Go to
> > > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and
> > >
> > > What an intriguing search link. I can now trawl through everything
> you've
> > > mailed & report back on all your QED's & grammatical errors ( after
> maybe
> > > loading them onto my Lotus Word app. & get a Flesch Reading Score, I
> > > wouldn't assume myself as being up to the task).
> >
> > Sure, I make the occasional typo or grammaro; seldom a
> > thoughto. What happens, in my case, is I write
> > something, reread it, don't like the way it reads, and
> > attempt to change it.
>
> Interesting. You need to proof your post, i.e.read it allowed
"Aloud", not "allowed".
> in your head
> to hear how it sounds, yet you claim your written word would be more
> persuasive in AR brow beating.
What makes you think the good written word is always written down just
right the first time? I think most good writers revise their work quite
a lot.
> My profile on you has you down as probably a
> mumbler or mutterer with thick twitching eyebrows.
Wrong all the way around. I actually *wish* my eyebrows were a little
bushier (but they're steady as the pavement, and that part's fine). And
I speak very clearly.
>
> >But frequently, I neglect to
> > change something about a word, often a form (adjective to
> > noun, or vice versa), or frequently the tense of a verb,
> > and the result is grammatically incorrect.
> >
> > In ~~David~~'s case, he just doesn't know how to write to
> > begin with. He truly is semi-literate. And yet, he's
> > still a veritable Shakespeare to your ~~Budell~~. Now,
> > *that* guy really is the poster boy of rotten public
> > (state) school instruction.
> >
> > > I noticed this search
> > > machine even shows the other NG's one posts to.
> > > > do a search on "cockfighting" with author
> > > > "dh...@excite.com" (he had a different address
> > > > back then). When Google gets the complete archive
> > > > up (?), you can also do a search on
> > > > "dh...@yahoo.com", a still earlier address.
> > >
> > > You really are quite thorough.
> >
> > Of course!
>
> I wonder if Rick ever did sell that Fort Knox training manual in the
> collectables NG. That search engine is a bit of an invasion don't you think?
No; why would I? You say something in a completely public forum, you
lose any privacy over what was said. Watch what you say if you don't
like it.
> How can a vegan keep his tropical fish hobby away from prying eyes &
> spiteful innuendo? Good job I didn't subscribe to that weightwatchers NG or
> anything degrading.
There *are* legitimate privacy issues concerning the internet, but
usenet posts aren't involved.
dh...@nomail.com
>If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
Maybe you could never appreciate that, but that's how it
happened whether you could or not. I wouldn't have
done so if I liked their meat btw, but I like the taste and
texture of fryers better than what I raised myself.
Something that apparently no one in the ngs likes to
think much about is the reasons I believe cock fighting
is not necessarily more cruel than the fryer or egg industry.
Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
over and over...again, it was nice to find a copy from
previous discussions in my news reader's outbox. You
might end up seeing it posted again in the future, and if
so I urge you to try not to take it personally, since my
dislike for writing the same ideas over and over and over
have got nothing at all to do with you personally. In case
you want to do a search for some reason it was first
posted in talk.politics.animals at 10/17/00 5:03 PM
according to my records. Here is part of the post:
Cocks that are fought in a cockfight are allowed to reach a certain
level of maturity before they are fought. Even stags get 6 months or
more, and some people don't fight their birds until they are cocks--
giving them over a year. Birds raised as broilers get 6-8 weeks and
that is all. Cockfighting allows the birds a longer life than raising
broilers, so in that regard I don't see it as being worse than eating
commercially raised chicken.
Game chickens are usually raised for some part of their life running
free to some degree, and are almost always kept in a way that allows
them to get some exercise and at least scratch, flap their wings, take
a dust bath, and perch. Birds raised as commercial layers are kept in
*pathetically* small battery cages in which they cannot exercise, scratch,
flap their wings, take a dust bath, perch, or escape from an aggressive
hen. In that regard I think that battery farming commercial layers is *much
crueler* than raising Game chickens, and would vote to outlaw that
practice before I would cockfighting.
Cocks that are fought in a cockfight can give up any time they want to
and the fight is over. They will often/usually be killed if they run, but since
they don't know that, that fact has nothing to do with whether or not they
choose to run. If they choose to leave the fight, they can do so. Broilers
and commercial layers who are no longer productive are hung by their legs
and their throats are cut, and they are not given the option to leave. In
that regard cockfighting is no worse than raising broilers and commercial
egg producers imo. (I am not opposed to raising broilers or commercial egg
producers, but I am *very* opposed to restricting animals in such a way as
battery hens are restricted).
Cocks that are fought in cockfights have the opportunity to live a long
and easy life. If they do well in the pit, they will live for many years, and if
they are selected as a brood cock they will live many years with hens to
share life with. The hens are not fought, and if hens are selected as brood
hens they live long easy lives (if a fox or owl don't get 'em ;-), and even
many who are not are allowed to run free on yards to keep tied out cocks
and stags amused. And then there are a lot of odd cases like yours in which
someone acquires some Game chickens from somewhere, and just keeps
them around because they are exceptionally beautiful, proud and impressive
creatures. Broilers and commercial egg layers have a set limited life span,
so in that regard I don't see cockfighting as being worse than commercially
raising broilers and egg layers.
The cocks are bred to want to fight, and they do. They die fighting for
their lives instead of hanging helplessly by their legs as their blood flows
from their throat over their face, and chokes them as they die. The cocks
will run as soon as they become scared imo, so in most cases even when
the cocks are killed in the fight I don't believe they become afraid. The birds
killed commercially are terrified as they die. In all of these regards cockfighting
is no more inhumane than commercially raising broilers and egg producers. I
believe the thing that makes it seem worse to most people is the preconceived
feelings and beliefs they have about it, and not based on a logical consideration
and examination of all the facts.
firstoftwins
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac81889....@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:43:49 +0100, "firstoftwins"
<firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
>
> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
That's very considerate of you, philanthropic even.
> Maybe you could never appreciate that, but that's how it
> happened whether you could or not. I wouldn't have
> done so if I liked their meat btw, but I like the taste and
> texture of fryers better than what I raised myself.
Hideous
> Something that apparently no one in the ngs likes to
> think much about is the reasons I believe cock fighting
> is not necessarily more cruel than the fryer or egg industry.
They've heard of your sort many many times & are so agahst they just go on
to the next post. They probably aren't interested in your self
justifications & repentence by proxy on the usenet. Like me, most sane
people will only tolerate you in this way in the first place.
> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
> over and over...again,
Then why do you keep pasting that drivel on the so-called need for
vivisection?
I've never been able to use the phrase "out of the frying pan and into the
fire" with such accuracy as when I consider the plight you put your birds.
How on Earth can you justify violence, pain & death. I really do not
understand your admiration of the "kill to live, live to kill" philosophy.
Can't you just admire an animal or bird for what it is capable of without a
demonstration? While watching a TV documentary about this chap who fosters
an enormous brown bear, I was staggered by it's restraint. This chap was an
ex wrestler but quite at it's mercy. This bear was so capable of even
accidently killing his surrogate father that the viewer was held spellbound
in awe at the nobility of it. If the documentary was of bears scrapping each
other in the woods I doubt it would have had that much impact. It was the
restraint shown by this awsome brute of a bear that was noteable, not his
demonstration of power. You're missing something very important about human
nature too.
You seriously think you are doing nothing wrong
Jonathan Ball
sight.
If you're unfamiliar with Uncle Remus stories, do an internet search on
"Brer Rabbit and the tar-baby".
firstoftwins
I went to http://www.drlamay.com/brer_rabbit_and_the_tar_baby.htm & didn't
understand any of it I'm afraid. If you think I'm leaning on an open door,
spell it out.
Jonathan Ball
Oh, my god! What a page!
"Uncle Remus" stories were a whole series of didactic fables told in
19th century southern U.S. black dialect. I imagine the politically
correct crowd condemns them today as racist, especially if they're told
as the story was on the page you cite. It's pretty easy to make a
defence of them, though, as the stories reflect a culture specific
wisdom about the world, just using a black rural dialect (I wouldn't be
surprised if the original compilation were done by whites.)
Anyway...the story is that Brer ("brother") Rabbit has been acting
"uppity", so Brer Fox (who doesn't respect Brer Rabbit's inherent rights
to begin with, and wants to eat him) builds a "tarbaby" out of tar and
"turkentime" (turpentine), and sets it out along the road. Brer Rabbit
comes along and talks to the tarbaby, and of course gets no response, so
after several attempts to engage him in conversation, he punches him,
which gets his paw stuck; he ultimately punches him with all four paws,
and is held fast (y'see, it just ain't no good to have a white suburban
boy tellin' these rural stories).
Brer Fox is trying to think how he's going to commit the ultimate rights
violation and kill Brer Rabbit, so he can eat him, but he keeps getting
stuck: can't hang him, because he has no string or rope; can't drown
him, because there's no water. As he's thinking these problems out
aloud, Brer Rabbit keeps telling Brer Fox that he (fox) can kill Brer
Rabbit any way he wants, just so long as he doesn't throw the rabbit
into a briar patch to do it. Of course, that's actually exactly what
Brer Rabbit wants, as the briar plants will pull the tar off him. Brer
Fox is fooled, of course, and wanting to cause Brer Rabbit as much pain
and suffering as possible, throws him into the briar patch; the briar
plants scrape the tar off Brer Rabbit, who escapes and mocks Brer Fox.
"Punching the tarbaby" is a metaphor in American English (at least, it
is to people who don't imagine "Friends" and WWF to be high culture) for
getting into a really sticky mess of a situation, from which it appears
there may be no escape. If there's no briar patch around, then you
really are up shit's creek without a paddle.
firstoftwins
>
>
> firstoftwins wrote:
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AC8EB6C...@earthlink.net...
> > > Oh, lord! Now you've punched the tarbaby, and there's no briarpatch
in
> > > sight.
> > >
> > > If you're unfamiliar with Uncle Remus stories, do an internet search
on
> > > "Brer Rabbit and the tar-baby".
> >
> > I went to http://www.drlamay.com/brer_rabbit_and_the_tar_baby.htm &
didn't
> > understand any of it I'm afraid. If you think I'm leaning on an open
door,
> > spell it out.
>
> Oh, my god! What a page!
>
> "Uncle Remus" stories were a whole series of didactic fables told in
> 19th century southern U.S. black dialect. I imagine the politically
> correct crowd condemns them today as racist, especially if they're told
> as the story was on the page you cite. It's pretty easy to make a
> defence of them, though, as the stories reflect a culture specific
> wisdom about the world, just using a black rural dialect (I wouldn't be
> surprised if the original compilation were done by whites.)
>
scholar in literature that you read this sort of prose as some kind of
gramatical gymnastic excercise. Small wonder I found it such hard going.
> Anyway...the story is that Brer ("brother") Rabbit has been acting
> "uppity", so Brer Fox (who doesn't respect Brer Rabbit's inherent rights
> to begin with, and wants to eat him) builds a "tarbaby" out of tar and
> "turkentime" (turpentine), and sets it out along the road. Brer Rabbit
> comes along and talks to the tarbaby, and of course gets no response, so
> after several attempts to engage him in conversation, he punches him,
> which gets his paw stuck; he ultimately punches him with all four paws,
> and is held fast (y'see, it just ain't no good to have a white suburban
> boy tellin' these rural stories).
Makes a bit more sense so far though.
>
> Brer Fox is trying to think how he's going to commit the ultimate rights
> violation and kill Brer Rabbit, so he can eat him, but he keeps getting
> stuck: can't hang him, because he has no string or rope; can't drown
> him, because there's no water. As he's thinking these problems out
> aloud, Brer Rabbit keeps telling Brer Fox that he (fox) can kill Brer
> Rabbit any way he wants, just so long as he doesn't throw the rabbit
> into a briar patch to do it. Of course, that's actually exactly what
> Brer Rabbit wants, as the briar plants will pull the tar off him. Brer
> Fox is fooled, of course, and wanting to cause Brer Rabbit as much pain
> and suffering as possible, throws him into the briar patch; the briar
> plants scrape the tar off Brer Rabbit, who escapes and mocks Brer Fox.
>
> "Punching the tarbaby" is a metaphor in American English (at least, it
> is to people who don't imagine "Friends" and WWF to be high culture) for
> getting into a really sticky mess of a situation, from which it appears
> there may be no escape. If there's no briar patch around, then you
> really are up shit's creek without a paddle.
Rather cryptic, but no less an excellent analogy once you get the gyst of
it. But I think I've got the cock fighting fiend by the wattle this time. No
right minded person can advocate pit fighting & remain plausible. He pulled
a healthy tooth in revealing his blood lust & you're right, there's no briar
patch around to scrape the shite off his argument for humane vivisection
now. Fools mate I believe. Zipidi do dah zipidi a, my oh my what a wonderful
day.
Jonathan Ball
You should read "Huckleberry Finn" sometime. Ernest Hemingway said,
perhaps a little hyperbolically (but only a little), that "all" American
literature begins with it. The runaway slave Jim, going down the
Mississippi River with Huck, speaks a lot like the Uncle Remus
character; not quite as hard to read.
>
> > Anyway...the story is that Brer ("brother") Rabbit has been acting
> > "uppity", so Brer Fox (who doesn't respect Brer Rabbit's inherent rights
> > to begin with, and wants to eat him) builds a "tarbaby" out of tar and
> > "turkentime" (turpentine), and sets it out along the road. Brer Rabbit
> > comes along and talks to the tarbaby, and of course gets no response, so
> > after several attempts to engage him in conversation, he punches him,
> > which gets his paw stuck; he ultimately punches him with all four paws,
> > and is held fast (y'see, it just ain't no good to have a white suburban
> > boy tellin' these rural stories).
>
> Makes a bit more sense so far though.
Make me feel a little like the jive translating nun in the spoof
"Airplane".
> >
> > Brer Fox is trying to think how he's going to commit the ultimate rights
> > violation and kill Brer Rabbit, so he can eat him, but he keeps getting
> > stuck: can't hang him, because he has no string or rope; can't drown
> > him, because there's no water. As he's thinking these problems out
> > aloud, Brer Rabbit keeps telling Brer Fox that he (fox) can kill Brer
> > Rabbit any way he wants, just so long as he doesn't throw the rabbit
> > into a briar patch to do it. Of course, that's actually exactly what
> > Brer Rabbit wants, as the briar plants will pull the tar off him. Brer
> > Fox is fooled, of course, and wanting to cause Brer Rabbit as much pain
> > and suffering as possible, throws him into the briar patch; the briar
> > plants scrape the tar off Brer Rabbit, who escapes and mocks Brer Fox.
> >
> > "Punching the tarbaby" is a metaphor in American English (at least, it
> > is to people who don't imagine "Friends" and WWF to be high culture) for
> > getting into a really sticky mess of a situation, from which it appears
> > there may be no escape. If there's no briar patch around, then you
> > really are up shit's creek without a paddle.
>
> Rather cryptic, but no less an excellent analogy once you get the gyst of
> it. But I think I've got the cock fighting fiend by the wattle this time. No
> right minded person can advocate pit fighting & remain plausible. He pulled
> a healthy tooth in revealing his blood lust & you're right, there's no briar
> patch around to scrape the shite off his argument for humane vivisection
> now.
I was thinking more that *you* have punched the tarbaby: trying to
argue with the nitwit ~~David~~ is just a quagmire.
BTW...I am not sure I think cockfighting, dogfighting and the like
necessarily ought to be illegal. I have contempt for anyone who
participate in it, but there's a lot of stuff I don't like that I don't
want the state banning.
firstoftwins
Then I certainly shall. I've been at such a loss at what to read lately (I'm
not that much into best sellers), that I've had to return to some of the old
stuff I read years ago. After I've finished "The Ragged Trousered
Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell for the second time I shall need
something a little more up beat.
Actually, because of the Europe wide ban on vivisection for cosmetics today,
I'm pretty up beat already. With a ban like this in place & the new laws
being set up to enforce it, would it be incredibly stupid of me to suggest
that animals have had a certain right bestowed upon them, at least within
the cosmetics industry. Nevertheless what a wonderful step forward for this
ng, anti & pro alike.
Btw, doesn't Bush look miffed. The very thought that his state of the art
technology & data are being mulled over must be driving him mad. From where
I see it, the Chinese have right on their side over this, & if Bush aint man
enough to at least appologise, then he's a bigger twerp than his old man.
>
> >
> > > Anyway...the story is that Brer ("brother") Rabbit has been acting
> > > "uppity", so Brer Fox (who doesn't respect Brer Rabbit's inherent
rights
> > > to begin with, and wants to eat him) builds a "tarbaby" out of tar and
> > > "turkentime" (turpentine), and sets it out along the road. Brer
Rabbit
> > > comes along and talks to the tarbaby, and of course gets no response,
so
> > > after several attempts to engage him in conversation, he punches him,
> > > which gets his paw stuck; he ultimately punches him with all four
paws,
> > > and is held fast (y'see, it just ain't no good to have a white
suburban
> > > boy tellin' these rural stories).
> >
> > Makes a bit more sense so far though.
>
> Make me feel a little like the jive translating nun in the spoof
> "Airplane".
Was that Helen Reddy?
In the same vein, would you ban non violent hunt saboteurs with pepper
sprays etc., or would you prefer them both to run alongside each other
pitting their wits. I think it may enhance the sport all round.
dh...@nomail.com
>I've never been able to use the phrase "out of the frying pan and into the
>fire" with such accuracy as when I consider the plight you put your birds.
How can you consider it when I feel sure you don't know anything
much about it? For example you don't know what percentage of them
actually ever had to fight, or what percentage of those who did fight
won or lost, or how long and hard the fights were on those who won,
or how many times they fought, or how they were kept, or how the
hens (who never had to fight) were kept, or how many of them were
killed by invading predators, or how many of them are still alive living
decent lives today... You can't consider their plight in the least, but
you apparently think you know all about it.
>How on Earth can you justify violence, pain & death. I really do not
>understand your admiration of the "kill to live, live to kill" philosophy.
>Can't you just admire an animal or bird for what it is capable of without a
>demonstration?
Of course. But since game cocks want to fight every time they
are provided with the opportunity, I think it's better for them to
let them fight for their life than to kill and eat them. And if they
win a few fights they are often kept to breed from and live a long
(sometimes 20+ years) life without having to fight any more.
>While watching a TV documentary about this chap who fosters
>an enormous brown bear, I was staggered by it's restraint. This chap was an
>ex wrestler but quite at it's mercy. This bear was so capable of even
>accidently killing his surrogate father that the viewer was held spellbound
>in awe at the nobility of it. If the documentary was of bears scrapping each
>other in the woods I doubt it would have had that much impact.
If you relate that idea, to the comparison of cockfighting with the raising
and killing of broiler chickens, you could consider that movies about
gladiators have a different impact than would movies about thousands of
kids being hung by their feet and having their throats slit.
>It was the
>restraint shown by this awsome brute of a bear that was noteable, not his
>demonstration of power. You're missing something very important about human
>nature too.
No I'm not. I've let plenty of animals go free that I've caught in humane
traps over the years, and understand how to restrain my ability to kill, as well
as how to use that ability. I also appreciate the fact that animals restrain
their ability to badly injure or kill humans *much!* of the time...not just bears,
but dogs, cattle, horses and swine as well.
>You seriously think you are doing nothing wrong
I have mixed feelings about it (and am not involved with it at all any
more). But the things I mentioned are true none the less, and I will
always feel that my experience is a better source on which to base
my thoughts than are the opinions of people who have less or no
experience with such things. I'm aware that there is good and bad in
all situations, and that there is suffering involved in all animal populations.
That includes humans, pets, research animals, the animals we raise to
eat, and wild animals. Some animals in all of those groups have very
good lives, and some have very bad ones. But you appear to think that
all animals raised for meat and involved in medical research have bad
lives, which is as distorted an interpretation as it would be to think that
none of them do. And the worst part about it is that you appear to want
to cling to that distorted interpretation... you can't even begin to develop
a realistic view as long as you continue to do that, just as a person who
thinks there is no suffering in those areas could never do it either.
MARL 45 70
>enough to at least appologise, then he's a bigger twerp than his old
Oh yeah, the US was in international airspace, the Chinese sent two fighter one
which hits the American plane. A slower plane can hardly run into a fighter jet
and yet they are right.
The there is a treaty known as International Sovereignty so when a plane from
another nation is in need of help they may land.
The yellow man with no respect to human rights violated this after knocking
the plane out of the sky.
We should have sent fighter to intercept those planes.
Screw China..
I would talk about twirps. If Tony Blaire is the best the Brits can do Lord
help ya.
By the way Bush has only been in office for a few months genus so the E-3 is
not his state of the art technology..Its no wonder the Brits can't even raise
animals without screwing up the world..
Dutch
"firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
>
> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
What is morally reprehensible is using deadly animal-on-animal aggression as a form of
entertainment.
[..]
> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
> over and over...again,
You posted the same reply to every message for about two years, so I guess it gets
tiring after a while.
[..]
> Cocks that are fought in a cockfight are allowed to reach a certain
> level of maturity before they are fought. Even stags get 6 months or
> more, and some people don't fight their birds until they are cocks--
> giving them over a year. Birds raised as broilers get 6-8 weeks and
> that is all. Cockfighting allows the birds a longer life than raising
> broilers, so in that regard I don't see it as being worse than eating
> commercially raised chicken.
When a decent person takes a life, s/he gives a silent prayer, not a cheer for more
blood.
> Game chickens are usually raised for some part of their life running
> free to some degree, and are almost always kept in a way that allows
> them to get some exercise and at least scratch, flap their wings, take
> a dust bath, and perch. Birds raised as commercial layers are kept in
> *pathetically* small battery cages in which they cannot exercise, scratch,
> flap their wings, take a dust bath, perch, or escape from an aggressive
> hen. In that regard I think that battery farming commercial layers is *much
> crueler* than raising Game chickens, and would vote to outlaw that
> practice before I would cockfighting.
This is a false dichotomy, it's two different behaviours against different groups of
animals. There is no *either-or*. Both are reprehensible for different reasons. You
are attempting to use one unethical practice to excuse a worse one.
<-snip more false dichotomy->
You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour which is
sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do. Because the treatment of
battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to fight cocks.
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> Of course. But since game cocks want to fight every time they
> are provided with the opportunity,
I suppose it was their idea to strap on the spurs and knives that make
their blows more deadly?
ะต Doug K ะต
"firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9ad57f$a85$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
> In the same vein, would you ban non violent hunt saboteurs with pepper
> sprays etc., or would you prefer them both to run alongside each other
> pitting their wits. I think it may enhance the sport all round.
They are already banned in many places, including most of the ones I hunt in.
BTW, how is a sabbee with pepper spray "non-violent" ?
Jonathan Ball
You never know with First and his mangled syntax. He might have been
asking, would we use pepper spray as a means of banning the hunt sabs?
Sure, sounds reasonable to me; no need to shoot them.
MARL 45 70
>their blows more deadly?
More proof that ARA are city dwelling morons. Strap on the spurs and
knives..LOL...
Education: I have been to many cock fights yet have seen to knives.
The metal spurs are strapped on to make a fight fair as some cocks may grow
spurs 3 inches long while other may only reach 1.
The metal spurs make a sharp upwards sweep (Curved up..LOL).Hmmm now if this
was a blood sport why then would they not be straight spurs?Hmmm. Organized
bird fighting (in states where legal) use pinned matches. Very few birds die
from being cut or stabbed by spurs (another big AR myth) but since you have so
much experience in cockfighting you know that,right?
Now as soon as you get the cockfight ban passed and legalized and regulated
cockfighting is stopped you can pat yourself on the back for contributing to
many deaths of cocks.
Just like in my state as soon as it was made illegal the illegal cockfights
sprung up all over and have been here since. They are usually accompanied by
dog fights they would not be aloud if legal.
Good job moron.
mrfalafel
Pepper spray on hunt sabs? I always used super loud air horns and whistles
when I sabbed. Loads of fun scaring off the critters and watching hunters
get
angry. What a bunch of cowards. They only shoot little furry critters and
don't have the nerve to shoot humans. What a joke!
I miss hunt sabbing...especially the 'adornment' of hunters cars!
oops! I'm crossposting! Sorry folks!
ะต Doug K ะต
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message news:3ACB2FFD...@earthlink.net...
>You never know with First and his mangled syntax. He might have been
>asking, would we use pepper spray as a means of banning the hunt sabs?
>Sure, sounds reasonable to me; no need to shoot them.
Why would I carry pepper spray while hunting?
That'd be like a brain surgeon packing aspirin into the OR.
--
Hunting begat ritual. Ritual begat Spirituality. Spirituality begat Religion. Religion begat Morals. Morals begat Ethics.
โข Doug K โข
(4 email, sub da โข's wit d's)
--
Dutch
> <-snip more false dichotomy->
>
> You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour
which is
> sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do. Because the
treatment of
> battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to fight
cocks.
I meant to say, cock fighting is NOT sanctioned (faces sanctions) (gawd
that's confusing), IOW it's universially condemned, and illegal in most
jurisdictions. Take the time to try to understand why that is.
Jonathan Ball
opposite things, but I can't remember it. Depending on context, and
part of speech, "sanction" can imply approval of disapproval. Usually,
if used as a verb, it means to approve; but "sanctions" are usually
*against* something.
Sometimes it's a British/American language difference. In British
parliamentary usage, to table a proposal means to put it on the table,
open for discussion; in American usage, it means to bury it to ensure
that it never gets discussed.
Jonathan Ball
since the ramifications of just blowing you away with a shotgun or rifle
would be too unpleasant.
Jonathan Ball
"ยฅ Doug K ยฅ" wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message news:3ACB2FFD...@earthlink.net...
>
> >You never know with First and his mangled syntax. He might have been
> >asking, would we use pepper spray as a means of banning the hunt sabs?
> >Sure, sounds reasonable to me; no need to shoot them.
>
> Why would I carry pepper spray while hunting?
To spray on would-be hunt saboteurs, of course. What's wrong with you?
ะต Doug K ะต
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message news:3ACB5543...@earthlink.net...
"โข Doug K โข" wrote:
>> Why would I carry pepper spray while hunting?
>To spray on would-be hunt saboteurs, of course. What's wrong with you?
Nah, that's why I carry Tinks #10 in a handy squeeze bottle applicator. Far more effective than pepper spray, and probably more
legal than PS as an anti-sab repellant.
Jonathan Ball
"ยฅ Doug K ยฅ" wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message news:3ACB5543...@earthlink.net...
>
> "ยฅ Doug K ยฅ" wrote:
> >> Why would I carry pepper spray while hunting?
>
> >To spray on would-be hunt saboteurs, of course. What's wrong with you?
>
> Nah, that's why I carry Tinks #10...
What is it?
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote...
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
>>
>> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
>> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
>> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
>> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
>> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
>
>What is morally reprehensible is using deadly animal-on-animal aggression as a form of
>entertainment.
It doesn't bother the birds in the least, and in fact they are completely
unaware of that aspect of the situation. They are the ones whose asses
are on the line, so what is significant to them is what's important imo,
not what is significant to people who aren't involved with it in any way,
or even those who are. I've often been disgusted when people have
said things like: he killed me in the third pitting... it's insulting to the
birds to even think that way.
>[..]
>> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
>> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
>> over and over...again,
>
>You posted the same reply to every message for about two years, so I guess it gets
>tiring after a while.
Which reply is that?
[...]
>You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour which is
>sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
That's what "ARAs" do also.
>Because the treatment of
>battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to fight cocks.
Whether it does or not, the things I pointed out are true. We all make
what we want to from the facts that we learn about, though some people
try to hide from the truth, or say that it is irrelevant, or even say it is not
the truth. In your case I guess you're using the "say that it is irrelevant"
technique, but the truth will remain regardless of what anyone says or
does about it. Both groups of birds would not exist if humans didn't raise
them, and imo the lives of game chickens are usually (though certainly
*not always!*) better than those of battery hens, and as good or better
than those of fryers.
dh...@nomail.com
No. But they have the option to leave the fight if they want to.
Since you brought it up, can you think of any advantages for
the birds to using gaffs instead of their natural spurs?
Jonathan Ball
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:11:39 GMT, frlpwr <frl...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> >>
> >(snip)
> >>
> >> Of course. But since game cocks want to fight every time they
> >> are provided with the opportunity,
> >
> >I suppose it was their idea to strap on the spurs and knives that make
> >their blows more deadly?
>
> No. But they have the option to leave the fight if they want to.
And be killed, 100% of the time. That's not a choice.
Dutch
> I think there's a word to describe words that can mean diametrically
> opposite things, but I can't remember it. Depending on context, and
> part of speech, "sanction" can imply approval of disapproval. Usually,
> if used as a verb, it means to approve; but "sanctions" are usually
> *against* something.
That seems to be the usage all right. I can't think of another example of this
offhand. Flammable/Inflammable comes to mind as similiar..
MARL 45 70
>when I sabbed. Loads of fun scaring off the critters and watching hunters
>get
>angry. What a bunch of cowards. They only shoot little furry critters and
>don't have the nerve to shoot humans. What a joke!
>
>I miss hunt sabbing...especially the 'adornment' of hunters cars!
>
>oops! I'm crossposting! Sorry folks!
>
land. The hunters found out and made the Sabs look the idiots they are.
One hunter lead 15 Sabs through the woods for eight hours getting them lost
and sneaking off. & were treated for Hypothermia, they tried to sue but the
judge said that if they were stupid enough to mess with those who know the land
that's what they get.
P{lease come Sab in Ky..We don't mind shooting idiots.
Jonathan Ball
Dutch wrote:
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote...
> > I think there's a word to describe words that can mean diametrically
> > opposite things, but I can't remember it. Depending on context, and
> > part of speech, "sanction" can imply approval of disapproval. Usually,
> > if used as a verb, it means to approve; but "sanctions" are usually
> > *against* something.
>
> That seems to be the usage all right. I can't think of another example of this
> offhand. Flammable/Inflammable comes to mind as similiar..
No, that's different. There are two distinct prefixes "in-", both from
Latin, one meaning "not", the other meaning "in" or "into".
Jonathan Ball
MARL 45 70 wrote:
>
> >Pepper spray on hunt sabs? I always used super loud air horns and whistles
> >when I sabbed. Loads of fun scaring off the critters and watching hunters
> >get
> >angry. What a bunch of cowards. They only shoot little furry critters and
> >don't have the nerve to shoot humans. What a joke!
> >
> >I miss hunt sabbing...especially the 'adornment' of hunters cars!
> >
> >oops! I'm crossposting! Sorry folks!
> >
> Yeah like when the Loony crown planed a sab last year for deer season on public
> land. The hunters found out and made the Sabs look the idiots they are.
> One hunter lead 15 Sabs through the woods for eight hours getting them lost
> and sneaking off.
That's pretty damned funny!
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> No. But they have the option to leave the fight if they want to.
Do you expect us to believe that owners/handlers of fighting cocks are
going to let a losing bird live? Why would they?
> Since you brought it up, can you think of any advantages for
> the birds to using gaffs instead of their natural spurs?
Sure, they can't keep fighting if they leave a natural spur in the chest
of their opponent. But it is a real stretch to call this an "advantage"
since there is nothing about cockfighting that is, imo, advantageous to
the birds.
I know, I know, they "get to live" because people like to see them
bloody each other.
MARL 45 70
Wow..another example on No knowledge. How many fights have you been to? be
truthful and the answer is no. Tell me how much a proven bird run. anywhere
from $500 to a few thousand. Less than 10% would be killed by a few idiots
that's about it. Again you show that there is no bases (knowledge) to back your
beliefs.
Jonathan Ball
I've been to no cockfights. ~~David~~ Harrison, the cock breeder to
whom I was responding, is the source of my information that cocks that
"give up" are killed.
Zakhar
Jim Powlesland <powl...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.05.101040...@srv1.calcna.ab.ca...
X-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jonathan Ball wrote:
> "ฤ Doug K ฤ" wrote:
> >
> > Nah, that's why I carry Tinks #10...
>
> What is it?
See http://www.wellingtoninc.com/tinks/tinks1.htm
I thought you just took the piss. I never thought you'd pay for the stuff.
--
Zakhar
All defamatory, off topic and diversionary posts will be ignored.
Persistent offenders will be permanently ignored.
lilweed
[...]
> The real joke is ponitificating AR-loons like yourself who support an
> extremist doctrine that both loathes humanity and shows a distinct
> fondness for the true coward's weapons (bombs and arson) while
> simultaneously denegrating hunters' commendable aversion to murder.
What a joke, hypocrite, you are defending the use of pepper spray
on humans in order to support vicious barbaric killing.
MARL 45 70
>going to let a losing bird live? Why would they?
Oh I don't know maybe because in legal fighting and illegal fighting they pay
big bucks for birds. Again by your own statement you have proven you base your
knowledge on what you here goes on, not what you have seen.
>Sure, they can't keep fighting if they leave a natural spur in the chest
>of their opponent.
LOL.. Another example.
>an "advantage"
>since there is nothing about cockfighting that is, imo, advantageous to
>the birds.
I refer you to PETA when they confiscated fighting Cocks and like yourself had
not the least bit of knowledge. They put the birds in a pen and couldn't figure
out why 2 thirds where dead the next day.Duh? they then destroyed the rest fo
the birds and blamed theose who raised them, you know they trained them to
fight..LOL
You guys are really some morons.
Now if two old farmers are sitting around and two cocks start fighting(since
all cocks will fight) is that ilegal.
How about when one says,hey I bet five on the gray. Again the birds are doing
it. Ever try and grab to seperate fighting cocks? Ever been to a farm? Ever
been out of a city? Ever hear all you read is not the truth?
Of course I ask questions that require thought..
Graham Burnett
Jonathan Ball
firstoftwins wrote:
[...]
> Btw, doesn't Bush look miffed. The very thought that his state of the art
> technology & data are being mulled over must be driving him mad. From where
> I see it, the Chinese have right on their side over this, & if Bush aint man
> enough to at least appologise, then he's a bigger twerp than his old man.
[...]
WTF are you talking about? Their plane, a fast and maneuverable jet
fighter, crashed into ours, a slow-moving, lumbering four-engine
propeller plane, in international airspace - about 65 miles out to sea
from any Chinese territory. There has been much discussion since about
the Chinese military encouraging their pilots to engage in provocative,
"hot dog" maneuvers close to foreign military aircraft. The Chinese
were trying to provoke and incident, and they've done it. They're
completely at fault.
The Chinese are the ones who owe an apology, and as a totalitarian
regime who have to worry about their legitimacy with their own oppressed
people, particularly now that they've insanely staked out a bad
position, they won't do it.
Jonathan Ball
list. Wake up.
Graham Burnett
scumbag on a vegan
list????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3acb7dff....@news.mindspring.com...
Graham Burnett
because nobody here is especially interested in the self justifying views of
cock fighters- they might do better to seek counselling in the real world.
Never mind wake up, get a life.
Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3ACBCBC3...@earthlink.net...
Jonathan Ball
the address list.
MARL 45 70
Another DUMB ASSS city slicker......
Dutch
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote...
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
> >>
> >> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
> >> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
> >> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
> >> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
> >> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
> >
> >What is morally reprehensible is using deadly animal-on-animal aggression as a form
of
> >entertainment.
>
> It doesn't bother the birds in the least,
Not while they are getting ripped to shreds even? That part must be really
interesting,. Do they peck each other's eyes out? Would that be considered instant
replay material?
> and in fact they are completely
> unaware of that aspect of the situation.
>They are the ones whose asses
> are on the line, so what is significant to them is what's important imo,
> not what is significant to people who aren't involved with it in any way,
> or even those who are. I've often been disgusted when people have
> said things like: he killed me in the third pitting... it's insulting to the
> birds to even think that way.
You're a fucking cretin, I hope you get rabies.
> >[..]
> >> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
> >> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
> >> over and over...again,
> >
> >You posted the same reply to every message for about two years, so I guess it gets
> >tiring after a while.
>
> Which reply is that?
You're kidding right?
> [...]
> >You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour which is
> >sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
>
> That's what "ARAs" do also.
Are you defending yourself by claiming that "ARAs" also do it? How are you better than
them then?
> >Because the treatment of
> >battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to fight cocks.
>
> Whether it does or not,
Not so fast. You do NOT have permission. That means you must either recant and reform
or be damned with you.
>the things I pointed out are true.
That's a strawman DH. I never said they were false. I said you do not have the moral
authority to fight cocks. If you continue you can just consider yourself another
NAMBLA member pal, make up your own morality to gets your jollies.
We all make
> what we want to from the facts that we learn about, though some people
> try to hide from the truth, or say that it is irrelevant, or even say it is not
> the truth. In your case I guess you're using the "say that it is irrelevant"
> technique, but the truth will remain regardless of what anyone says or
> does about it. Both groups of birds would not exist if humans didn't raise
> them, and imo the lives of game chickens are usually (though certainly
> *not always!*) better than those of battery hens, and as good or better
> than those of fryers.
What a load of crap
MrFalafel
>X-no-archive: yes
>
>
>> What a bunch of cowards. They only shoot little furry critters and
>> don't have the nerve to shoot humans. What a joke!
>
I said I used air horns and whistles. I've never seen an exploding whistle or
a flaming air horn. Please try and pay attention!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
MrFalafel
>No, twit - I was talking about the hunters using pepper spray on *you*,
>since the ramifications of just blowing you away with a shotgun or rifle
>would be too unpleasant.
I guess that would mean we could use pepper spray on hunters? Isn't that
rather barbaric? Oh, yes I see...I am talking to a hunt supporter aren't I?
Barbarity is a way of life for you...
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Take it up with the twit who began the thread and added your group to
.> the address list.
Or, you could just reply after deleting alt.food.vegan from
the newsgroup line. Like this.
--
Dutch
> well perhaps you might be kind enough to stop cross posting to this ng,
> because nobody here is especially interested in the self justifying views of
> cock fighters-
I suppose you would rather exchange ideas for making tofu edible. <YAWN>
> they might do better to seek counselling in the real world.
Then again this might just be what turns their head around, stranger things have
happened. Don't you find that a little intriguing, challenging? C'mon be honest.
[..]
Jonathan Ball
different entry in the thread.
MARL 45 70
>interesting,. Do they peck each other's eyes out? Would that be considered
>instant
>replay material?
Another dumb ass who would rather walk through life listening to some morons
than think on his/her own.
I truly wish you idiots would realize just how damned ignorant you sound when
you use emotions based on false accusation by the AR groups who feed you this
crap.
And you cannot figure out why the public don't support you, maybe its because
they know the truth.
>You're a fucking cretin, I hope you get rabies.
More proof of a total idiot..I hope you get rabies,LOL, my 6 yr old daughter
has more orginality than that.
>I said you do not have the moral
>authority to fight cocks.
Who the hell are you to set morals. Like I want the morals of some pot smoking
idiot who puts the life of an animal over that of a human.
>What a load of crap
Yes you are full of shit..
Dutch
> >Not while they are getting ripped to shreds even? That part must be really
> >interesting,. Do they peck each other's eyes out? Would that be considered
> >instant
> >replay material?
>
> Another dumb ass who would rather walk through life listening to some morons
> than think on his/her own.
What is that supposed to mean? Is that some obtuse denial that fighting cocks peck
eyes out? Or is it just meaningless prattle?
> I truly wish you idiots would realize just how damned ignorant you sound when
> you use emotions based on false accusation by the AR groups who feed you this
> crap.
Are you having a good time with that strawman?
> And you cannot figure out why the public don't support you, maybe its because
> they know the truth.
I wasn't running for office.
> >You're a fucking cretin, I hope you get rabies.
>
> More proof of a total idiot..I hope you get rabies,LOL, my 6 yr old daughter
> has more orginality than that.
I've never seen anyone else post that comment, which makes it original for me, and
makes you wrong, again..
> >I said you do not have the moral
> >authority to fight cocks.
>
> Who the hell are you to set morals. Like I want the morals of some pot smoking
> idiot who puts the life of an animal over that of a human.
I don't set morals, I just know about them and respect them, more than I can say for
you and the bloodthirsty cock-fighter~Harrison~
[..]..
Are you another lowlife bloodthirsty cock-fighter?
Jonathan Ball
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote...
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
> >>
> >> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
> >> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
> >> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
> >> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
> >> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
> >
> >What is morally reprehensible is using deadly animal-on-animal aggression as a form of
> >entertainment.
>
> It doesn't bother the birds in the least, and in fact they are completely
> unaware of that aspect of the situation.
So? We're talking about human reaction to it.
> They are the ones whose asses
> are on the line, so what is significant to them is what's important imo,
They don't understand "significance".
> not what is significant to people who aren't involved with it in any way,
> or even those who are. I've often been disgusted when people have
> said things like: he killed me in the third pitting... it's insulting to the
> birds to even think that way.
You idiot - "the birds" are incapable of being insulted. This is
further proof that you project your values onto animals:
"significance", "insults", etc.. Not just any animals - exceptionally
stupid animals, even to people who love animals.
>
> >[..]
> >> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
> >> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
> >> over and over...again,
> >
> >You posted the same reply to every message for about two years, so I guess it gets
> >tiring after a while.
>
> Which reply is that?
Up your pipe. You know what he's talking about. Don't play dumb(er).
>
> [...]
> >You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour which is
> >sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
>
> That's what "ARAs" do also.
>
> >Because the treatment of
> >battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to fight cocks.
>
> Whether it does or not, the things I pointed out are true.
And, as always, trivial.
> We all make what we want to from the facts that we learn about,
Some people make an honest effort to try to consider "facts" in as broad
a context as possible. You, just like a dishonest "ARA", try to adjust
them to fit your wishes.
> though some people
> try to hide from the truth, or say that it is irrelevant, or even say it is not
> the truth. In your case I guess you're using the "say that it is irrelevant"
> technique, but the truth will remain regardless of what anyone says or
> does about it.
Most of what you say is not "truth"; it is a projection of your values
onto animals - just like "ARAs".
> Both groups of birds would not exist if humans didn't raise
> them,
There is no *moral* reason for either group to exist. There is no
objective moral benefit from either group existing.
They exist because humans want them to exist, for practical reasons
(food) or aesthetic reasons (watching them fight). If they never
existed, there would be no moral loss whatsoever.
> and imo the lives of game chickens are usually (though certainly
> *not always!*) better than those of battery hens, and as good or better
> than those of fryers.
Your opinion is shit.
Jonathan Ball
Dutch wrote:
>
> "MARL 45 70" <marl...@aol.com> wrote ...
> > >Not while they are getting ripped to shreds even? That part must be really
> > >interesting,. Do they peck each other's eyes out? Would that be considered
> > >instant
> > >replay material?
> >
> > Another dumb ass who would rather walk through life listening to some morons
> > than think on his/her own.
>
> What is that supposed to mean? Is that some obtuse denial that fighting cocks peck
> eyes out? Or is it just meaningless prattle?
>
> > I truly wish you idiots would realize just how damned ignorant you sound when
> > you use emotions based on false accusation by the AR groups who feed you this
> > crap.
>
> Are you having a good time with that strawman?
A better time than we need to know. See, there's a little hole in the
back of the strawman's Osh-Kosh, B'Gosh, and Marl...oh, you can figure
it out.
>
> > And you cannot figure out why the public don't support you, maybe its because
> > they know the truth.
>
> I wasn't running for office.
>
> > >You're a fucking cretin, I hope you get rabies.
> >
> > More proof of a total idiot..I hope you get rabies,LOL, my 6 yr old daughter
> > has more orginality than that.
>
> I've never seen anyone else post that comment, which makes it original for me, and
> makes you wrong, again..
>
> > >I said you do not have the moral
> > >authority to fight cocks.
> >
> > Who the hell are you to set morals. Like I want the morals of some pot smoking
> > idiot who puts the life of an animal over that of a human.
>
> I don't set morals, I just know about them and respect them, more than I can say for
> you and the bloodthirsty cock-fighter~Harrison~
Cock-whatter? Oh...fighter. OK.
>
> [..]..
>
> Are you another lowlife bloodthirsty cock-fighter?
Cock-whatter? Wait...I said that already. Never mind.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> No. But they have the option to leave the fight if they want to.
>
>Do you expect us to believe that owners/handlers of fighting cocks are
>going to let a losing bird live? Why would they?
Some birds that lose do survive, and there's no reason for their
owners to kill them if they did ok in the pit. What you probably are
asking about is a bird that runs, which in many cases will be killed
so it doesn't pass that characteristic on. But there are times when
they run that doing so is acceptable to the owner. It is up to the
individual owner more than anything. Some will kill any bird that
runs, some will not kill any of them, some will kill about all of them
except for the ones they think got hit in the balls...and all kinds of
various thinking in that area.
>> Since you brought it up, can you think of any advantages for
>> the birds to using gaffs instead of their natural spurs?
>
>Sure, they can't keep fighting if they leave a natural spur in the chest
>of their opponent.
That wouldn't be likely to happen, but they could break them off
if they hit the side of the pit wall, if there happens to be a pit wall.
Gaffs are needle shaped, and the advantage for the birds is that
they go in and out fairly cleanly, whereas their natural spurs are
cone shaped coming to a needle sharp point, and they tend to
rip the birds more than gaffs. They are also more prone to break
the other birds beak and do more damage to their eyes and their
head in general.
>But it is a real stretch to call this an "advantage"
>since there is nothing about cockfighting that is, imo, advantageous to
>the birds.
>
>I know, I know, they "get to live"
That's right, and that's as much as the birds are familiar with
in that area. They don't know why they are alive, and it couldn't
be explained to the smartest one of them if a person devoted
his entire life to trying to do so... So, there is no reason at all for
you to add the last part, but no, you've just gotta' throw it in
there...
>because people like to see them
>bloody each other.
Which the birds don't know or care about. What is cruel
to the birds is what is important when considering cruelty
to animals, and what you just mentioned is not.
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote...
>> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
>> >>
>> >> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
>> >> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
>> >> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
>> >> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
>> >> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
>> >
>> >What is morally reprehensible is using deadly animal-on-animal aggression as a form
>of
>> >entertainment.
>>
>> It doesn't bother the birds in the least,
>
>Not while they are getting ripped to shreds even?
They might notice crowd noise once in a while, but when they
are getting ripped to shreds their main concentration is most likely
on the other bird.
>That part must be really
>interesting,.
It is rather interesting. Many of those birds don't ever see more
a few humans at a time except during the times that they are
in a pit surrounded by the spectators, and it's interesting that they
don't seem more conscious of a bunch of yelling humans.
>Do they peck each other's eyes out?
I've never seen it. They do knock them out with their spurs
sometimes though. In fact that's what probably happens to
many of the wild cocks that all chickens originated from--the
jungle fowlลก-- imo... After a few years their spurs grow too long
to be efficient weapons, and a younger cock comes along who
overcomes the older one often by simply blinding him.
>Would that be considered instant
>replay material?
Probably. But not as good as a human getting killed in a
car race.
>> and in fact they are completely
>> unaware of that aspect of the situation.
>>They are the ones whose asses
>> are on the line, so what is significant to them is what's important imo,
>> not what is significant to people who aren't involved with it in any way,
>> or even those who are. I've often been disgusted when people have
>> said things like: he killed me in the third pitting... it's insulting to the
>> birds to even think that way.
>
>You're a fucking cretin, I hope you get rabies.
Then fuck you too Dutch.
>> >[..]
>> >> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
>> >> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
>> >> over and over...again,
>> >
>> >You posted the same reply to every message for about two years, so I guess it gets
>> >tiring after a while.
>>
>> Which reply is that?
>
>You're kidding right?
No.
>> [...]
>> >You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour which is
>> >sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
>>
>> That's what "ARAs" do also.
>
>Are you defending yourself by claiming that "ARAs" also do it? How are you better than
>them then?
Which ones?
>> >Because the treatment of
>> >battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to fight cocks.
>>
>> Whether it does or not,
>
>Not so fast. You do NOT have permission. That means you must either recant and reform
>or be damned with you.
Reform what? I don't have anything at all to do with game chickens any more,
and I think I only personally fought one or two birds myself even though I raised
hundreds of them. My opinion remains the same though, and if you can't do any
better than you're doing in an attempt to make me feel differently then be damned
with your own lame self.
>>the things I pointed out are true.
>
>That's a strawman DH. I never said they were false. I said you do not have the moral
>authority to fight cocks. If you continue you can just consider yourself another
>NAMBLA member pal, make up your own morality to gets your jollies.
>
> We all make
>> what we want to from the facts that we learn about, though some people
>> try to hide from the truth, or say that it is irrelevant, or even say it is not
>> the truth. In your case I guess you're using the "say that it is irrelevant"
>> technique, but the truth will remain regardless of what anyone says or
>> does about it. Both groups of birds would not exist if humans didn't raise
>> them, and imo the lives of game chickens are usually (though certainly
>> *not always!*) better than those of battery hens, and as good or better
>> than those of fryers.
>
>What a load of crap
It's all true. For some reason I thought you were at least partly honest,
and it's a damn shame to learn otherwise.
ลก jungle fowl:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA04/protochicken.html
http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/kingdom/bird002d.html
http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKRedJF.html
http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKGJF.html
dh...@nomail.com
>well perhaps you might be kind enough to stop cross posting to this ng,
>because nobody here is especially interested in the self justifying views of
>cock fighters-
Probably none of you veg*ns can appreciate the lives of any domestic
animals other than some pets who you enjoy exploiting, so I believe you
are more than right.
Graham Burnett
Jonathan Ball
So, they can't possibly "appreciate" that they "get to live", either.
Therefore, they necessarily can't possibly consider it to be a benefit.
> So, there is no reason at all for
> you to add the last part, but no, you've just gotta' throw it in
> there...
There is a reason. You write as if "getting to live" has some kind of
objective importance beyond the importance subjectively assigned to it
by humans. It doesn't. The benefit is to you, but because you're a
dishonest scumbag, and you're embarrassed and defensive about your use
of animals, you try to pretend the benefit is objective.
>
> >because people like to see them
> >bloody each other.
>
> Which the birds don't know or care about. What is cruel
> to the birds
"Cruelty" is a human construct, and humans decide what is cruel and what
isn't, and why. Once again, you are bullshitting your way around,
talking nonsense about what is "important" or "cruel" "to the birds".
> is what is important when considering cruelty
> to animals, and what you just mentioned is not.
Humans define it to be. You, being a dishonest person, think you have
some kind of insight into what "the birds" find cruel. But because
cruelty is a completely human concept, "the birds" would never consider
*anything* to be cruel - and you know this. Therefore, for you to
bullshit about what is cruel "to the birds" is proof of your cynical
dishonesty.
Dutch
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:45:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:37:50 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote...
> >> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >If he's reading this post, I'd like him to clarify if he would.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've raised a lot of game chickens in the past, and gave
> >> >> a lot of them to people I knew would fight them (the cocks
> >> >> only of course, the hens they just raised more birds from).
> >> >> By doing that I gave them a chance to fight for a long
> >> >> life instead of just cutting their heads off and eating them.
> >> >
> >> >What is morally reprehensible is using deadly animal-on-animal
aggression as a form
> >of
> >> >entertainment.
> >>
> >> It doesn't bother the birds in the least,
> >
> >Not while they are getting ripped to shreds even?
>
> They might notice crowd noise once in a while, but when they
> are getting ripped to shreds their main concentration is most likely
> on the other bird.
I meant are the birds "bothered" by being ripped with razor blades or having
their eyes gouged out?
> >That part must be really
> >interesting,.
>
> It is rather interesting. Many of those birds don't ever see more
> a few humans at a time except during the times that they are
> in a pit surrounded by the spectators, and it's interesting that they
> don't seem more conscious of a bunch of yelling humans.
A bunch of yelling bloodthirsty subhumans you mean..
> >Do they peck each other's eyes out?
>
> I've never seen it. They do knock them out with their spurs
> sometimes though. In fact that's what probably happens to
> many of the wild cocks that all chickens originated from--the
> jungle fowlลก-- imo...
Jungle fowl have razor sharp spurs on?
After a few years their spurs grow too long
> to be efficient weapons, and a younger cock comes along who
> overcomes the older one often by simply blinding him.
>
> >Would that be considered instant
> >replay material?
>
> Probably. But not as good as a human getting killed in a
> car race.
You enjoy that do you? Did you get a charge when you viewed the tape where
Dale Ernhardt died?
>
> >> and in fact they are completely
> >> unaware of that aspect of the situation.
> >>They are the ones whose asses
> >> are on the line, so what is significant to them is what's important
imo,
> >> not what is significant to people who aren't involved with it in any
way,
> >> or even those who are. I've often been disgusted when people have
> >> said things like: he killed me in the third pitting... it's insulting
to the
> >> birds to even think that way.
> >
> >You're a fucking cretin, I hope you get rabies.
>
> Then fuck you too Dutch.
>
> >> >[..]
> >> >> Since I hate to write the same things over and over and
> >> >> over and over when the issues keep coming up over and
> >> >> over and over...again,
> >> >
> >> >You posted the same reply to every message for about two years, so I
guess it gets
> >> >tiring after a while.
> >>
> >> Which reply is that?
> >
> >You're kidding right?
>
> No.
Here's a clip from this very message "Both groups of birds would not exist
if humans didn't raise them, "
>
> >> [...]
> >> >You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour
which is
> >> >sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
> >>
> >> That's what "ARAs" do also.
> >
> >Are you defending yourself by claiming that "ARAs" also do it? How are
you better than
> >them then?
>
> Which ones?
Stop evading and answer, the ones YOU referred to.
>
> >> >Because the treatment of
> >> >battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to
fight cocks.
> >>
> >> Whether it does or not,
> >
> >Not so fast. You do NOT have permission. That means you must either
recant and reform
> >or be damned with you.
>
> Reform what? I don't have anything at all to do with game chickens any
more,
Stop rationalizing a practice which is immoral and illegal.
--snip--
dh...@nomail.com
>so why did you cross post to the alt.food.vegan ng?
Just in case someone reading there does care about them. It's not
*only* read by veg*ns ya' know. And don't forget that the thread didn't
begin about cockfighting--that was a contamination intentionally begun
by someone else.
dh...@nomail.com
[...]
>Jungle fowl have razor sharp spurs on?
They are needle sharp. How can you criticize a subject
you know so little about? Because people often feel they
are an authority about something when they don't know
enough about it to know that they're not...maybe that's
why. In case you aren't opposed to learning a little more
about this particular aspect of the issue, you can see them
in the painting and also the photos above and below the
painting at:
http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKRedJF.html
(the one below is of a young stag, as is evident by his
immature spurs, comb and wattles)
> After a few years their spurs grow too long
>> to be efficient weapons, and a younger cock comes along who
>> overcomes the older one often by simply blinding him.
>>
>> >Would that be considered instant
>> >replay material?
>>
>> Probably. But not as good as a human getting killed in a
>> car race.
>
>You enjoy that do you? Did you get a charge when you viewed the tape where
>Dale Ernhardt died?
I never saw it, but that's what I was referring to because I know a lot
of people (like yourself probably) did.
You mean the fact that there are groups of animals which exist only
because humans raise them, not that there is some "same reply" that
I post to every message. Exaggeration, distortion, outright lies and
disregard for facts that are unappealing are about all that any of you
can come up with in your attempts to "refute" the idea, or whatever
you're trying to do.
>> >> >You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour
>which is
>> >> >sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
>> >>
>> >> That's what "ARAs" do also.
>> >
>> >Are you defending yourself by claiming that "ARAs" also do it? How are
>you better than
>> >them then?
>>
>> Which ones?
>
>Stop evading and answer, the ones YOU referred to.
The ones I referred to commit terrorist acts and are responsible
for more suffering than I ever will be. Whether that makes me
"better" than them is a matter of opinion.
>> >> >Because the treatment of
>> >> >battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to
>fight cocks.
>> >>
>> >> Whether it does or not,
>> >
>> >Not so fast. You do NOT have permission. That means you must either
>recant and reform
>> >or be damned with you.
>>
>> Reform what? I don't have anything at all to do with game chickens any
>more,
>
>Stop rationalizing a practice which is immoral and illegal.
>
>--snip--
I accept the facts as I learn them and then apply them to the way
I perceive reality. You haven't provided any facts that I was unaware
of, nor is it likely that you are capable, so you are not likely to change
my perception. I don't LIKE the fact that I think game chickens have
better lives than battery hens, in fact I wish it were the other way
around, but it's not imo so I accept the fact...what else am I going to
do? Deny it? Pretend that it doesn't matter? I guess that's how you
handle stuff like that, but I don't want to let myself get into such a
terrible habit if I can help it.
Jonathan Ball
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:23:29 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Jungle fowl have razor sharp spurs on?
>
> They are needle sharp. How can you criticize a subject
> you know so little about? Because people often feel they
> are an authority about something when they don't know
> enough about it to know that they're not...maybe that's
> why.
No, that's not why.
If you could read a little more closely, you'd see that what is really
being criticized is *you* and sense of delight at watching two birds
mutilate each other.
No one has exaggerted or distorted or lied about anything in criticizing
your appetite for bloody, *contrived* animal combat.
Your tired wheeze about the birds' "getting to live because humans raise
them" is bullshit, and has been rightly criticized without use of
exaggeration, distortion, lies, or disregard for "facts".
>
> >> >> >You are not allowed to make up your own rules to rationalize behaviour
> >which is
> >> >> >sanctioned by the social contract, that's what pedophiles do.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's what "ARAs" do also.
> >> >
> >> >Are you defending yourself by claiming that "ARAs" also do it? How are
> >you better than
> >> >them then?
> >>
> >> Which ones?
> >
> >Stop evading and answer, the ones YOU referred to.
>
> The ones I referred to commit terrorist acts and are responsible
> for more suffering than I ever will be.
You can't prove that any more than they can. You also have not
undertaken a count.
> Whether that makes me
> "better" than them is a matter of opinion.
>
> >> >> >Because the treatment of
> >> >> >battery hens is appalling does not in any way give you permission to
> >fight cocks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Whether it does or not,
> >> >
> >> >Not so fast. You do NOT have permission. That means you must either
> >recant and reform
> >> >or be damned with you.
> >>
> >> Reform what? I don't have anything at all to do with game chickens any
> >more,
> >
> >Stop rationalizing a practice which is immoral and illegal.
> >
> >--snip--
>
> I accept the facts as I learn them
Invent some of them, you mean; assign significance to trivial others, as
well.
> and then apply them to the way I perceive reality.
That's false. Your pre-existing perception of "reality" colors your
selection of "facts" as significant.
> You haven't provided any facts that I was unaware
> of, nor is it likely that you are capable,
You grossly overestimate your ability to see importance in "facts".
> so you are not likely to change my perception.
Only because you are a closed-minded bigot.
> I don't LIKE the fact that I think game chickens have
> better lives than battery hens, in fact I wish it were the other way
> around, but it's not imo so I accept the fact...what else am I going to
> do? Deny it? Pretend that it doesn't matter? I guess that's how you
> handle stuff like that, but I don't want to let myself get into such a
> terrible habit if I can help it.
You have a whole set of other bad habits to worry about first.
Dutch
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:23:29 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Jungle fowl have razor sharp spurs on?
>
> They are needle sharp.
So why the spurs? Not enough gore for your bloodthirsty pals with the
factory equipment?
> How can you criticize a subject
> you know so little about? Because people often feel they
> are an authority about something when they don't know
> enough about it to know that they're not...maybe that's
I know all I need to know about blood sports to form the same opinion as
99.9999% of decent people in the US and Canada. They are despicable examples
of animal exploitation.
[..]
> >You enjoy that do you? Did you get a charge when you viewed the tape
where
> >Dale Ernhardt died?
>
> I never saw it, but that's what I was referring to because I know a
lot
> of people (like yourself probably) did.
I was horrified.
> >> >> Which reply is that?
> >> >
> >> >You're kidding right?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Here's a clip from this very message "Both groups of birds would not
exist
> >if humans didn't raise them, "
>
> You mean the fact that there are groups of animals which exist only
> because humans raise them, not that there is some "same reply" that
> I post to every message.
That's it, the same old tired refrain, over an over again like a broken
record.
Exaggeration, distortion, outright lies and
> disregard for facts that are unappealing are about all that any of you
> can come up with in your attempts to "refute" the idea, or whatever
> you're trying to do.
I haven't lied and I don't need refute anything. I am trying to expose your
acceptance of cock fighting for the immoral behaviour that it is.
[..]
> >Stop rationalizing a practice which is immoral and illegal.
> >
> >--snip--
>
> I accept the facts as I learn them and then apply them to the way
> I perceive reality. You haven't provided any facts that I was unaware
> of, nor is it likely that you are capable, so you are not likely to change
> my perception.
You are aware that blood sports are universally despised as evil
exploitation yet you prefer to make up your own rules. Do you dig dog
fighting too?
I don't LIKE the fact that I think game chickens have
> better lives than battery hens, in fact I wish it were the other way
> around, but it's not imo so I accept the fact...what else am I going to
> do? Deny it? Pretend that it doesn't matter? I guess that's how you
> handle stuff like that, but I don't want to let myself get into such a
> terrible habit if I can help it.
It IS irrelevant. It's a transparent rationalization (your stock in trade)
What have battery hens got to do with fighting cocks, except they are the
same species? Some dogs are treated badly, does that give anyone an excuse
to abuse other dogs?
Richard Bishop
MARL 45 70 <marl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010404222659...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >I thought you just took the piss. I never thought you'd pay for the
stuff.
>
> Another DUMB ASSS city slicker......
We have more than a few of those around this group.
Sue
Dutch
<!>
> >What a load of crap
>
> It's all true. For some reason I thought you were at least partly honest,
> and it's a damn shame to learn otherwise.
What dishonesty are you referring to?
> เธ jungle fowl:
> http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA04/protochicken.html
> http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/kingdom/bird002d.html
> http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKRedJF.html
> http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKGJF.html
Why are you posting bird pictures?
Dutch
[..]
> > Are you having a good time with that strawman?
>
> A better time than we need to know. See, there's a little hole in the
> back of the strawman's Osh-Kosh, B'Gosh, and Marl...oh, you can figure
> it out.
Ohh jeez, is there liver involved ?
[..]
> Cock-whatter? Wait...I said that already. Never mind.
;^)
MARL 45 70
>
>Sue
So true and really amazing how many people live such an isolated life.
Though I would never wish it you have to wonder that if there is ever a great
natural disaster just how few city dwellers would survive.
Every year we sell veggies. Our biggest seller are what the (City slicked
yuppies call Patio Plants) LOL.. These idiots pay $8.00 to $10.00 dollars for a
tomato plant grown in a $1.00 plastic pot.
Why? Because they are truly to dumb to grow a plant on their own. I have had
many ask,"Is it hard to grow these?" LOL..Well duh, just add water...LOL
We really have a generation of degenerates.
Our ancestors must be proud..Not!!
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:23:29 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >Jungle fowl have razor sharp spurs on?
>>
>> They are needle sharp.
>
>So why the spurs? Not enough gore for your bloodthirsty pals with the
>factory equipment?
There is less with gaffs than with their natural spurs.
>> How can you criticize a subject
>> you know so little about? Because people often feel they
>> are an authority about something when they don't know
>> enough about it to know that they're not...maybe that's
>
>I know all I need to know about blood sports to form the same opinion as
>99.9999% of decent people in the US and Canada. They are despicable examples
>of animal exploitation.
You don't know enough to even have the slightest clue how much
you don't know.
>[..]
>> >You enjoy that do you? Did you get a charge when you viewed the tape
>where
>> >Dale Ernhardt died?
>>
>> I never saw it, but that's what I was referring to because I know a
>lot
>> of people (like yourself probably) did.
>
>I was horrified.
Yeah sure.
>> >> >> Which reply is that?
>> >> >
>> >> >You're kidding right?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Here's a clip from this very message "Both groups of birds would not
>exist
>> >if humans didn't raise them, "
>>
>> You mean the fact that there are groups of animals which exist only
>> because humans raise them, not that there is some "same reply" that
>> I post to every message.
>
>That's it, the same old tired refrain, over an over again like a broken
>record.
>
> Exaggeration, distortion, outright lies and
>> disregard for facts that are unappealing are about all that any of you
>> can come up with in your attempts to "refute" the idea, or whatever
>> you're trying to do.
>
>I haven't lied and I don't need refute anything.
You have both exaggerated and lied, and you can not refute
anything I've said.
>I am trying to expose your
>acceptance of cock fighting for the immoral behaviour that it is.
You don't know enough about it to judge, much less have an
impact on the way I feel about it or "expose" any part of my
beliefs concerning the issue. If I was trying to hide anything that
you could expose, I would have never mentioned that I used to
be involved with it in the first place.
>[..]
>
>> >Stop rationalizing a practice which is immoral and illegal.
>> >
>> >--snip--
>>
>> I accept the facts as I learn them and then apply them to the way
>> I perceive reality. You haven't provided any facts that I was unaware
>> of, nor is it likely that you are capable, so you are not likely to change
>> my perception.
>
>You are aware that blood sports are universally despised as evil
>exploitation yet you prefer to make up your own rules. Do you dig dog
>fighting too?
>
>I don't LIKE the fact that I think game chickens have
>> better lives than battery hens, in fact I wish it were the other way
>> around, but it's not imo so I accept the fact...what else am I going to
>> do? Deny it? Pretend that it doesn't matter? I guess that's how you
>> handle stuff like that, but I don't want to let myself get into such a
>> terrible habit if I can help it.
>
>It IS irrelevant. It's a transparent rationalization (your stock in trade)
I don't have to rationalize a damn thing. When I was a kid I used
to hunt birds with a BB gun and I don't try to rationalize that, because
it was cruel and inconsiderate in the worst way. There was no good
in it all. There is good in raising animals, and there is good in cockfighting
as well as bad. If you can't see it then all you care to see is bad, but
that doesn't mean I should try to join you in ignorance, and it would
be impossible anyway.
>What have battery hens got to do with fighting cocks, except they are the
>same species? Some dogs are treated badly, does that give anyone an excuse
>to abuse other dogs?
I just made a comparison between something that is accepted, and
something that is not, and the lives of the animals in the two situations.
You don't care about such things, but only about your own feelings.
Apparently you aren't going to learn anything from this Dutch, and you
damn sure have no new info to offer me, so we should quit wasting
each others' time don't you think?
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>
><!>
>> >What a load of crap
>>
>> It's all true. For some reason I thought you were at least partly honest,
>> and it's a damn shame to learn otherwise.
>
>What dishonesty are you referring to?
That what I said is crap. You don't like to think about it, but what I've
said is all true it's not crap, so apparently you are dishonest since you
said that it is.
>> ลก jungle fowl:
>> http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA04/protochicken.html
>> http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/kingdom/bird002d.html
>> http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKRedJF.html
>> http://www.cyborganic.com/People/feathersite/Poultry/NDG/BRKGJF.html
>
>Why are you posting bird pictures?
I didn't post any bird pictures. You are turning out to be pretty lame.
The links I posted were in case anyone actually does care about these
animals, and it says quite a lot about you that you couldn't figure it out.
Maybe it should teach you something about where your own interest
really lies...it ain't with the animals no matter what you think you think.
Jonathan Ball
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:01:27 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:23:29 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >Jungle fowl have razor sharp spurs on?
> >>
> >> They are needle sharp.
> >
> >So why the spurs? Not enough gore for your bloodthirsty pals with the
> >factory equipment?
>
> There is less with gaffs than with their natural spurs.
>
> >> How can you criticize a subject
> >> you know so little about? Because people often feel they
> >> are an authority about something when they don't know
> >> enough about it to know that they're not...maybe that's
> >
> >I know all I need to know about blood sports to form the same opinion as
> >99.9999% of decent people in the US and Canada. They are despicable examples
> >of animal exploitation.
>
> You don't know enough to even have the slightest clue how much
> you don't know.
He knows all he needs to know about *you* and your bloodlust.
There's nothing to refute.
>
> >I am trying to expose your
> >acceptance of cock fighting for the immoral behaviour that it is.
>
> You don't know enough about it to judge,
We don't need to know all that much about cockfighting. We do know
enough about you, your morals, and your motivation, to judge *you* on
your bloodlust, and condemn you for it.
The real topic here is not the intricacies of cockfighting - it's your
love of it, and why you consider it acceptable to stage the fights.
> much less have an
> impact on the way I feel about it or "expose" any part of my
> beliefs concerning the issue. If I was trying to hide anything that
> you could expose, I would have never mentioned that I used to
> be involved with it in the first place.
>
> >[..]
> >
> >> >Stop rationalizing a practice which is immoral and illegal.
> >> >
> >> >--snip--
> >>
> >> I accept the facts as I learn them and then apply them to the way
> >> I perceive reality. You haven't provided any facts that I was unaware
> >> of, nor is it likely that you are capable, so you are not likely to change
> >> my perception.
> >
> >You are aware that blood sports are universally despised as evil
> >exploitation yet you prefer to make up your own rules. Do you dig dog
> >fighting too?
I strongly suspect Harrison has been involved in dogfighting.
> >
> >I don't LIKE the fact that I think game chickens have
> >> better lives than battery hens, in fact I wish it were the other way
> >> around, but it's not imo so I accept the fact...what else am I going to
> >> do? Deny it? Pretend that it doesn't matter? I guess that's how you
> >> handle stuff like that, but I don't want to let myself get into such a
> >> terrible habit if I can help it.
> >
> >It IS irrelevant. It's a transparent rationalization (your stock in trade)
>
> I don't have to rationalize a damn thing. When I was a kid I used
> to hunt birds with a BB gun and I don't try to rationalize that, because
> it was cruel and inconsiderate in the worst way. There was no good
> in it all. There is good in raising animals,
"Good" for you, not for them. The animals are not aware that they "get
to live"; they can't consider an alternative.
Your rationalization occurs in believing, falsely, that you have made
the animals better off by "making" them live in order to provide you
some benefit. The rationalization is that your benefit is justified by
theirs, which they would not have had except for your pursuit of your
own. That's dishonest rationalization, no matter how you try to conceal
it.
> and there is good in cockfighting as well as bad.
There is nothing but bad in your motivation to participate in
cockfighting. It represents a disgusting side of human thought.
> If you can't see it then all you care to see is bad, but
> that doesn't mean I should try to join you in ignorance, and it would
> be impossible anyway.
Right - because you are about as low as one can go in being ignorant.
>
> >What have battery hens got to do with fighting cocks, except they are the
> >same species? Some dogs are treated badly, does that give anyone an excuse
> >to abuse other dogs?
>
> I just made a comparison between something that is accepted, and
> something that is not, and the lives of the animals in the two situations.
> You don't care about such things, but only about your own feelings.
All *you* care about is your own feelings. Your dishonest and failed
attempt to try to talk about what is "important to the birds", and to
try to pretend that they benefit from "getting to live" only because
humans want to satisfy some bloodlust, simply doesn't work. Everyone
sees it for the cynical, dishonest rationalization it is.
> Apparently you aren't going to learn anything from this Dutch, and you
> damn sure have no new info to offer me, so we should quit wasting
> each others' time don't you think?
You can't learn anything, because you're an ignorant, closed-minded
bigot.
Zakhar
Don't you all know what "taking the piss" means in the UK?
--
Zakhar
All defamatory, off topic and diversionary posts will be ignored.
Persistent offenders will be permanently ignored.
MARL 45 70
>> >99.9999% of decent people in the US and Canada. They are despicable
>examples
>> >of animal exploitation.
That's funny, the reason the ARA have gone to the senate for a vote is because
in every state they tried to make it illegal it got shot down by a high
majority.HmMMMMM only 1% of the decent people shot down 99%..Your a real dumb
ass aren't you? Math and statistics 101
Jonathan Ball
MARL 45 70 wrote:
>
> >I know all I need to know about blood sports to form the same opinion as
> >> >99.9999% of decent people in the US and Canada. They are despicable
> >examples
> >> >of animal exploitation.
>
> That's funny, the reason the ARA have gone to the senate for a vote is because
> in every state they tried to make it illegal it got shot down by a high
> majority.
Can you provide a specific example? The state; the year; the
legislative bill number or the ballot initiative number, as applicable;
the title of the proposed legislation?
> HmMMMMM only 1% of the decent people shot down 99%..Your a real dumb
> ass aren't you? Math and statistics 101
No, pal, even though you and I are ostensibly on the same "side" of the
"AR" debate, I'd say you are the real dumb ass. A dumber, more
ignorant, less literate, lamer fat fuck than you is difficult to
imagine.
Richard Bishop
> >We have more than a few of those around this group.
> >
> >Sue
>
> So true and really amazing how many people live such an isolated life.
> Though I would never wish it you have to wonder that if there is ever a
great
> natural disaster just how few city dwellers would survive.
They'd die like flies. It always amazes me how many of them also haven't
the
slightest clue how to cook. And so many don't even have any food on hand,
they eat out all the time, refrigerator and cupboards are bare.
>
> Every year we sell veggies. Our biggest seller are what the (City slicked
> yuppies call Patio Plants) LOL.. These idiots pay $8.00 to $10.00 dollars
for a
> tomato plant grown in a $1.00 plastic pot.
> Why? Because they are truly to dumb to grow a plant on their own. I have
had
> many ask,"Is it hard to grow these?" LOL..Well duh, just add water...LOL
> We really have a generation of degenerates.
> Our ancestors must be proud..Not!!
I'm a tomato addict. NOTHING tastes better than a big juicy tomato just
pulled
off the vine.
Sadly, that's months away right now.
Sue, starving for fresh tomatos
Jonathan Ball
Richard Bishop wrote:
>
> MARL 45 70 <marl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010406000822...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> > >We have more than a few of those around this group.
> > >
> > >Sue
> >
> > So true and really amazing how many people live such an isolated life.
> > Though I would never wish it you have to wonder that if there is ever a
> great
> > natural disaster just how few city dwellers would survive.
>
> They'd die like flies. It always amazes me how many of them also haven't
> the
> slightest clue how to cook. And so many don't even have any food on hand,
> they eat out all the time, refrigerator and cupboards are bare.
That's as preposterous and unsupportable a stereotype as the ones Slick
complains about in his bogus "common misconceptions" sack-o-crap.
Do all you hayseeds form your impressions of urban life from watching
episodes of "Friends" or "Seinfeld"?
Dutch
check these links
http://tahoe.com/appeal/stories.8.7.98/news/a4cockfight07Aug1898.html
Fighting roosters seized by Lyon animal control
MARL 45 70
>episodes of "Friends" or "Seinfeld"?
Don't have to, all the dumb asses come to the farm and show me right up front.
I live close to Cincy Ohio, so please don't bother telling my how smart city
dwellers are..We already know..
I spent two wks in NY city on business. First hand account of massive
stupidity. I think you need to get out and see the real world.
Dutch
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:13:23 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> >
> ><!>
> >> >What a load of crap
> >>
> >> It's all true. For some reason I thought you were at least partly honest,
> >> and it's a damn shame to learn otherwise.
> >
> >What dishonesty are you referring to?
>
> That what I said is crap. You don't like to think about it, but what I've
> said is all true it's not crap, so apparently you are dishonest since you
> said that it is.
Here's the paragraph in question...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> We all make
> what we want to from the facts that we learn about, though some people
> try to hide from the truth, or say that it is irrelevant, or even say it is not
> the truth. In your case I guess you're using the "say that it is irrelevant"
> technique, but the truth will remain regardless of what anyone says or
> does about it. Both groups of birds would not exist if humans didn't raise
> them, and imo the lives of game chickens are usually (though certainly
> *not always!*) better than those of battery hens, and as good or better
> than those of fryers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's crap because it's a strawman. Nobody has ever claimed that fighting cocks are
ill treated by their handlers. What angers me is knowing that people of my species
enjoy watching animals injure one another. I know these kind of people exist, I used
to be an Animal Control Officer so I know about dog fights, but I've never spoken to a
cock-****er before.
[...]
> >Why are you posting bird pictures?
>
> I didn't post any bird pictures.
They sure look like bird pictures.
> You are turning out to be pretty lame.
At least I'm not a cock-****er
> The links I posted were in case anyone actually does care about these
> animals, and it says quite a lot about you that you couldn't figure it out.
I figured it out all right. Slimballs in secret barns betting on cock-fights. Why
should people care what the birds look like? How is that relevant to the morality of
staging armed bloodbaths between animals? Racing pigs is bad enough but fighting
animals is depraved. It's something that a disturbed 9 year old boy would do.
> Maybe it should teach you something about where your own interest
> really lies...it ain't with the animals no matter what you think you think.
My interests lie primarily with the human species, of which cock-****ers are poor
specimens.
Jonathan Ball
MARL 45 70 wrote:
>
> >Do all you hayseeds form your impressions of urban life from watching
> >episodes of "Friends" or "Seinfeld"?
>
> Don't have to, all the dumb asses come to the farm and show me right up front.
> I live close to Cincy Ohio,
Oh, lord...
> so please don't bother telling my how smart city
> dwellers are..We already know..
No, you don't. Cincinnatans are not city dwellers. They're probably
not really even Ohians; too close to Kentucy.
> I spent two wks in NY city on business.
Hee-yuk!
You mean "bidness". And wow! Two whole weeks! Betcha had a tough time
findin' fatback and hoppin' john in them Manhattan diners, huh?
> First hand account of massive
> stupidity. I think you need to get out and see the real world.
I'm sorry...I have a tough time taking travel advice from a semi
literate rube who figures two weeks off'n the farm qualifies him as a
sophisto.
MARL 45 70
>
>http://tahoe.com/appeal/stories.8.7.98/news/a4cockfight07Aug1898.html
>Fighting roosters seized by Lyon animal control
>
>
>http://www.league.uk.com/cruelsports/other/index.htm
>
nothing more than feel good and will prevent nothing.
Richard Bishop
Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3ACE49EC...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Richard Bishop wrote:
> >
> > MARL 45 70 <marl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010406000822...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> > > >We have more than a few of those around this group.
> > > >
> > > >Sue
> > >
> > > So true and really amazing how many people live such an isolated life.
> > > Though I would never wish it you have to wonder that if there is ever
a
> > great
> > > natural disaster just how few city dwellers would survive.
> >
> > They'd die like flies. It always amazes me how many of them also
haven't
> > the
> > slightest clue how to cook. And so many don't even have any food on
hand,
> > they eat out all the time, refrigerator and cupboards are bare.
>
> That's as preposterous and unsupportable a stereotype as the ones Slick
> complains about in his bogus "common misconceptions" sack-o-crap.
>
It's from personal experience while helping with disasters. No food at all
in the
house but they always have their beer and cigarettes.
> Do all you hayseeds form your impressions of urban life from watching
> episodes of "Friends" or "Seinfeld"?
>
Friends and Seinfeld are typical high city highrise dwellers. I'm
describing regular
urban dwellers who have no idea how to fend for themselves without a
cookstove,
a supermarket two blocks away, and a McDonalds nearby so they can buy all
their
food.
Jonathan Ball
How would you know?
> I'm
> describing regular
> urban dwellers who have no idea how to fend for themselves without a
> cookstove,
> a supermarket two blocks away, and a McDonalds nearby so they can buy all
> their
> food.
You're describing your own narrow, prejudiced view of people you know
nothing about. For all the pissing and moaning you do about people have
misconceptions about farmers, why on earth would you turn around and
exhibit even worse misconceptions about urban dwellers?
MARL 45 70
>poor
>specimens.
>
The same could be said for the ARA. An even lower form of life.
MARL 45 70
>literate rube who figures two weeks off'n the farm qualifies him as a
>sophisto.
>
Sorry el-Dumbo but I traveled a lot while working for Fidelity Investments.I
don't live on a farm, I lease a farm and grow in green houses. I grew up in the
inner city el-rubo so I know first hand how damned dumb they/you are.
Of course this 32yr old farmboy who has owned his own business for some 11yrs
now don't know too much..
You must first pull your head from your ass before you can see things for what
they are. I spent two wks in NY because thats all of the sesspool I could
handle.
Oh yes I forgot you are probably one of the proud participants of the anualy
celebrated GAY PRIDE PARADE..Sorry I up set you.
Did I say everyone in the large city's are dumb asses? No..Did I say most? Yes
and its true. Any city that voted overwhelmingly for Hildabeast Clinton only
supports my view that much more..But hey you probably voted for Gore and still
think he won and the election was stolen..Right?
Lets see now:
The Justice dept. (Clintons) said that 80% of all homocides happen in the inner
cities.
I guess the smarter you are the more you kill.Hmmmm.. The worse schools in the
nation are all in the largest cities..Hmmmmm I guess to be smart school is not
needed. The highest drop out rate is in the cities. The highest unemployment,
drug use, gang activity, HSUS and PETA did various studies that showed that
over 70% of the ARA come from NY,LA,Seatle. HSUS and PETA have since focused
more and more on getting animal bans in the states who's population is centered
in a major city.. Hmmm I guess you gotta be smart to be lead around by the
nose...
I have a tough time taking any advice from a rube who has little knowledge in
anything other than telling the different makes and models of cars from horn
beeps.
MARL 45 70
>>literate rube who figures two weeks off'n the farm qualifies him as a
>>sophisto.
Sorry el-Dumbo but I traveled a lot while working for Fidelity Investments.I
don't live on a farm, I lease a farm and grow in green houses. I grew up in the
inner city el-rubo so I know first hand how damned dumb they/you are.
Of course this 32yr old farmboy who has owned his own business for some 11yrs
now don't know too much..
You must first pull your head from your ass before you can see things for what
they are. I spent two wks in NY because that's all of the cesspool I could
handle.
Oh yes I forgot you are probably one of the proud participants of the annually
celebrated GAY PRIDE PARADE..Sorry I up set you.
Did I say everyone in the large city's are dumb asses? No..Did I say most? Yes
and its true. Any city that voted overwhelmingly for Hildabeast Clinton only
supports my view that much more..But hey you probably voted for Gore and still
think he won and the election was stolen..Right?
Lets see now:
The Justice dept. (Clintons) said that 80% of all homicides happen in the inner