Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights?
sasha
of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
granted??) Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of humans
rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?Isn't it
true that people whose everyday life is a struggle for survival couldn't
care less about animal rights or the environment??animal ethics is for the
wealthy leisure class. Only they have the time for it,and the money to spend
on it. The poor or the politically helpless certainly don't. Doesn't it make
sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
Shakingspear666
>Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred million
>of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
>granted??
Don't be fooled, Sasha. It's not because ARAs necessarily care more about
animals than people (although many do). The secret is... they don't really
care (or know) about animals all that much either. What they truly care
about is their own suffering egos. The animals are props, simple tools,
cudgels... all used in an attempt to boost their own self-esteem.
(snip)
>Doesn't it make
>sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
>humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
Of course it makes sense. But if you fail to aquire decent answers to
your questioning, perhaps it's because you are asking the wrong question. Try
asking yourself, "What really motivates these ARAs, what reward do they
actually seek"?
Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@
sasha wrote:
That's funny: those of us work to improve life for both humans and
nonhuman animals have never realized that we could do just one or
the other, not both. Thanks for the information!
--
http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
Jonathan Ball
> Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred million
> of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> granted??)
Because they're really not concerned with rights at
all. It's a subterfuge; they're concerned only with power.
sasha
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:dVGXa.859$Q63....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> sasha wrote:
>
> > Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
million
> > of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> > granted??)
>
> Because they're really not concerned with rights at
> all. It's a subterfuge; they're concerned only with power.
Is this power over life and death? political power? Do they wish to be able
to control who/what lives or dies? Is it power for powers sake??
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:dVGXa.859$Q63....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
million
> > of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
> > granted??)
>
> Because they're really not concerned with rights at
> all. It's a subterfuge; they're concerned only with power.
You've been caught by a fellow "troll" ~~Jonnie~~.
OK you are using him as a tool, good move, he's the biggest tool around
here.
-------------------------------------Snip
Garbage-----------------------------------------
Ray
"Shakingspear666" <shaking...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030804235734...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Try 'Decency'
Jonathan Ball
>
>>Try asking yourself, "What really motivates these ARAs, what reward do they
>>actually seek"?
>
>
> Try 'Decency'
Try cynical self flattery. Try sheer bloodymindedness.
Fuck off, Dump, you fucking shitworm.
Ray
"Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@ albany.net >" <"DESPAM> wrote in message
news:LOudnXsPO4h...@thebiz.net...
of decency.
I do not believe in KFs but I refuse to respond to his low class abuse. A
true 'guttersnipe'
Should do well for a day or two.
RS.
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@ albany.net >" <"DESPAM> wrote in message
> news:LOudnXsPO4h...@thebiz.net...
>
>>
>>sasha wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred
>
> million
>
>>>of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
>>>granted??) Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of
>
> humans
>
>>>rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?Isn't
>
> it
>
>>>true that people whose everyday life is a struggle for survival couldn't
>>>care less about animal rights or the environment??animal ethics is for
>
> the
>
>>>wealthy leisure class. Only they have the time for it,and the money to
>
> spend
>
>>>on it. The poor or the politically helpless certainly don't. Doesn't it
>
> make
>
>>>sense that if you improve the socio/economic lot of the vast majority of
>>>humans on earth then the environment would also improve???
>>
>> That's funny: those of us work to improve life for both humans and
>>nonhuman animals have never realized that we could do just one or
>>the other, not both. Thanks for the information!
>>
>>
>
> This guy has no interest in animals Michael.
Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
appear morally superior. You fool no one.
> He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
clearly has no sense of decency.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
That is a lie.
>
> > He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
>
> You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
> accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
> clearly has no sense of decency.
Two 'Someone's in one sentence ~~jonnie~~ is that OK? Never mind I'll put it
down to 'Jet Lag'. Please remember I'm not the only one on this NG suffering
from viruses. (3 today)
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Cocksucker wrote:
>
> >
> >>Try asking yourself, "What really motivates these ARAs, what reward do
they
> >>actually seek"?
> >
> >
> > Try 'Decency'
>
> Try cynical self flattery. Try sheer bloodymindedness.
Try helping the sorry plight of animals who suffer at the hands of people
such as yourself ~~jonnie~~.
>
> Fuck off, Dump, you fucking shitworm.
Such abuse!
It's not my fault you can't sit down to make your postings. You should take
'normal' holidays like the rest of us.
>
Jonathan Ball
>>>This guy has no interest in animals Michael.
>>
>>Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
>>appear morally superior. You fool no one.
>
>
> That is a lie.
It is the complete truth, Dump. You have no interest
in animals; you merely use them, abusively, in order to
portray yourself in a goofy moral light.
>
>>>He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
>>
>>You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
>>accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
>>clearly has no sense of decency.
>
>
> Two 'Someone's in one sentence ~~jonnie~~ is that OK? Never mind I'll put it
> down to 'Jet Lag'. Please remember I'm not the only one on this NG suffering
> from viruses. (3 today)
It's a damned shame you're receiving viruses. I didn't
send them to you, and you know it. If you had a shred
of evidence that I had sent them, you'd have publicized
it and taken action on it. You have nothing.
You are a liar with no sense of decency.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Shitwipe Slater wrote:
>
> >>>This guy has no interest in animals Michael.
> >>Nor do you. You merely feign it, in order to try to
> >>appear morally superior. You fool no one.
> >
> >
> > That is a lie.
>
> It is the complete truth, Dump. You have no interest
> in animals; you merely use them, abusively, in order to
> portray yourself in a goofy moral light.
That compounds your first lie. You have levelled this accusation against
every member of the side.
>
> >
> >>>He is a troll without one ounce of decency.
> >>
> >>You're defining yourself. Someone who makes false
> >>accusations against someone of sending computer viruses
> >>clearly has no sense of decency.
> >
> >
> > Two 'Someone's in one sentence ~~jonnie~~ is that OK? Never mind I'll
put it
> > down to 'Jet Lag'. Please remember I'm not the only one on this NG
suffering
> > from viruses. (3 today)
>
> It's a damned shame you're receiving viruses. I didn't
> send them to you, and you know it. If you had a shred
> of evidence that I had sent them, you'd have publicized
> it and taken action on it. You have nothing.
>
> You are a liar with no sense of decency.
I have never lied here - but:-
You forgot to address the Two Someone's question.
Now I consider this to be bad grammar, but as I am rather stupid, I am not
certain. Now own up ~~jonnie~~, otherwise I will repost the sentence *plus
the rest of your posting* to alt.english usage. This is not 'Usenet' abuse,
I have a grammar related question and I think that particular NG will
resolve the issue.
Shall we put it to the test?
>
rick etter
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ScSXa.5784$yl6....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:SOQXa.1349$Q63....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Cocksucker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>Try asking yourself, "What really motivates these ARAs, what reward do
> they
> > >>actually seek"?
> > >
> > >
> > > Try 'Decency'
> >
> > Try cynical self flattery. Try sheer bloodymindedness.
>
> Try helping the sorry plight of animals who suffer at the hands of people
> such as yourself ~~jonnie~~.
You'd be better off spending your time trying to help the animals that *you*
kill hypocrite. But then, it's far easier to focus on the animals your
think others are killing, and not mess around with your convenience or
entertaianment, eh killer? You really just displayed the reason, like he
said, cynical self-flattery. You do nothing for animals, as your continued
spew of lys and delusion to usenet proves.
>
snip..
sasha
"Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bgolni$f0a$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>
> >
> This guy has no interest in animals Michael. He is a troll without one
ounce
> of decency.
> I do not believe in KFs but I refuse to respond to his low class abuse. A
> true 'guttersnipe'
> Should do well for a day or two.
>
> RS.
> > --
> >
> >
do, and have no tolerance for others who think differently. Your attempt to
discredit my ideas stems from your fear that I may actually be correct. If
memory serves me, you and your buddy Malcolm started to attack me after I
wrote a harmless article about seeing the need to rid the world of Norway
and black rats, and English Starlings and Sparrows. Not too many people
care about rats, except perhaps lab rats or the ones kept as pets. I have no
problem with those. but wild ones? thats different...and fair game as far as
I'm concerned. They destroy native animals, carry diseases, and eat 100's of
thoudsands of tons of grain every year. You both also accused me of being
Jonathan Ball in disguise so to speak. Put it this way Ray, You call me
names? I call you names! it's as simple as that.My first post concerning
hunting was answered by someone named Pearl,who then proceeded to denounce
me as a Coldhearted,self-centered Prick, So,you'll have to beg my pardon if
I'm not as nice as you might wish As for an interest in animals? I'm very
interested in them,have been since I was a little boy. I watch them, feed
them, rescue them,protect them and kill them...I'm honest about it.
Which,obviously, you are not...
> >
> >
> > http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
> >
> >
>
>
sasha
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:SOQXa.1349$Q63....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Shakingspear666,and Jonathan, you were right, it's about power. nice article
here.
http://www.usanewsandviews.com/Happy Cows.htm
Ray
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:M1VXa.7967$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
Self-flattery is not part of my agenda Rick, as I have said many times. I do
not matter.
Like it or not, I am part of a team on these Newsgroups who just happen to
believe that animals get a raw deal in this evil world. One could go further
and talk of other issues like black kids who are born without a hope in hell
in living the first few weeks of their life, that is a sin.
Just because we do not address such issues here does not mean we do not
care, but the NGs I frequent are animal related and therefore that is my
topic.
Your topic is to *try* and degrade the AR movement at every verse end. But
every single time you fail.
Killers, yes we are all killers. Some do it for financial gain, some for
pleasure and others like myself do it by accident - your favourite subject
CDs.
That does not put us in the same league as say David Harrison, Michael
Saunby or the 'Canned Hunter' Ward Clark to name only a few. Even you must
see that there is a point where the term killer is far too broad to be of
any significance.
It is far too easy for you to label us 'Hypocrites' and accuse us of telling
'Lys', you have been doing it for years. You have no results as your own
personal agenda is itself based on lies and selective snips of information
which you distort and subsequently present as facts.
It may frighten the 'newbies' Rick, but I am not impressed.
>
>
rick etter
LOL Nor aparently do the animals you kill for no more reason than your
convenience and entertainment. You then focusing on the animals you think
others are killing is nothing but sanctimonious hypocricy.
> Like it or not, I am part of a team on these Newsgroups who just happen to
> believe that animals get a raw deal in this evil world. One could go
further
> and talk of other issues like black kids who are born without a hope in
hell
> in living the first few weeks of their life, that is a sin.
>
> Just because we do not address such issues here does not mean we do not
> care, but the NGs I frequent are animal related and therefore that is my
> topic.
>
> Your topic is to *try* and degrade the AR movement at every verse end. But
> every single time you fail.
================
Nope, every time I prove my point that you, and your fellow AR/vegan loons
on usenet are the ones that are flapping their lips and doing *nothing*.
Well, you are causing even more animal death and suffering with your idiocy,
but that just proves my point further.
>
> Killers, yes we are all killers. Some do it for financial gain, some for
> pleasure and others like myself do it by accident - your favourite subject
> CDs.
=======================
You do it for all the above reasons stupid! You access to usenet for this
group is purely for your entertainment, at the cost of animal lives.
>
> That does not put us in the same league as say David Harrison, Michael
> Saunby or the 'Canned Hunter' Ward Clark to name only a few. Even you must
> see that there is a point where the term killer is far too broad to be of
> any significance.
================
Actually, it puts at a disadvantage with anyone that supports part of their
diet with game. All the calories you gorge on come at the cost of those CDs
you like to ignore, whereas those that eat game don't have those CDs for
1000s of the calories they eat.
>
> It is far too easy for you to label us 'Hypocrites' and accuse us of
telling
> 'Lys', you have been doing it for years.
====================
Truth is truth, killer. That you pretend that you do more than those that
include meat in their diet is the ignorance of your position.
You have no results as your own
> personal agenda is itself based on lies and selective snips of information
> which you distort and subsequently present as facts.
>
> It may frighten the 'newbies' Rick, but I am not impressed.
==================
The animals you kill are just as dead. maybe you should really think about
them sometime, instead of your sanctimonious bltherings.
> >
> >
>
>
Ray
Another blatent lie, I do not kill animals for my convenience or
entertainment. You make it up as go along.
>
>
> > Like it or not, I am part of a team on these Newsgroups who just happen
to
> > believe that animals get a raw deal in this evil world. One could go
> further
> > and talk of other issues like black kids who are born without a hope in
> hell
> > in living the first few weeks of their life, that is a sin.
> >
> > Just because we do not address such issues here does not mean we do not
> > care, but the NGs I frequent are animal related and therefore that is my
> > topic.
> >
> > Your topic is to *try* and degrade the AR movement at every verse end.
But
> > every single time you fail.
> ================
> Nope, every time I prove my point that you, and your fellow AR/vegan loons
> on usenet are the ones that are flapping their lips and doing *nothing*.
> Well, you are causing even more animal death and suffering with your
idiocy,
> but that just proves my point further.
You prove nothing other than you are a liar. Not one thing you have said
thus far is the truth. Do you know the meaning of the word?
>
> >
> > Killers, yes we are all killers. Some do it for financial gain, some for
> > pleasure and others like myself do it by accident - your favourite
subject
> > CDs.
> =======================
> You do it for all the above reasons stupid! You access to usenet for this
> group is purely for your entertainment, at the cost of animal lives.
You are a crackpot. Little wonder you are on the KF of most people.
>
>
> >
> > That does not put us in the same league as say David Harrison, Michael
> > Saunby or the 'Canned Hunter' Ward Clark to name only a few. Even you
must
> > see that there is a point where the term killer is far too broad to be
of
> > any significance.
> ================
> Actually, it puts at a disadvantage with anyone that supports part of
their
> diet with game. All the calories you gorge on come at the cost of those
CDs
> you like to ignore, whereas those that eat game don't have those CDs for
> 1000s of the calories they eat.
There is no sense or truth in this either. You are a compulsive liar
>
>
> >
> > It is far too easy for you to label us 'Hypocrites' and accuse us of
> telling
> > 'Lys', you have been doing it for years.
> ====================
> Truth is truth, killer. That you pretend that you do more than those that
> include meat in their diet is the ignorance of your position.
I am aware of my position Rick. I never kill animals, except by accident,
neither do I subscribe to anyone doing it on my behalf. It is a firm
position Rick, one which you or any of the other bunch of tyrants can even
begin to errode.
>
>
> You have no results as your own
> > personal agenda is itself based on lies and selective snips of
information
> > which you distort and subsequently present as facts.
> >
> > It may frighten the 'newbies' Rick, but I am not impressed.
> ==================
> The animals you kill are just as dead. maybe you should really think
about
> them sometime, instead of your sanctimonious bltherings.
You should get your facts straight and learn the meaning of the word
*Truth*. There is *no* truth in anything you have posted. The only point you
have proved is that you are the second biggest liar on these groups.
Even your mentor backs up his lies with facts, unfortunately his 'facts' are
also lies - but at least he tries.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
rick etter
Yes, you do. You make up all your lys and delusions as you go. Your usenet
access kills animals. there is no *need* to be here, yet here you are. All
for your entertainment. I'd say you'd be better off taking up
bull-fighting. Fewer animals die for that than die for your usenet
connection.
> >=======================
Everything I have said is true. You just don't like it because it proves
you to be the hypocrite you are, and that you cannot refute anything that I
have said. You never have, and never will, killer.
> > >
> > > Killers, yes we are all killers. Some do it for financial gain, some
for
> > > pleasure and others like myself do it by accident - your favourite
> subject
> > > CDs.
> > =======================
> > You do it for all the above reasons stupid! You access to usenet for
this
> > group is purely for your entertainment, at the cost of animal lives.
>
> You are a crackpot. Little wonder you are on the KF of most people.
> >=======================
Because the delusional, ignorant loons like you don't like the truth,
stupid. They refuse to answer because they cannot refute what I say.
> >
> > >
> > > That does not put us in the same league as say David Harrison, Michael
> > > Saunby or the 'Canned Hunter' Ward Clark to name only a few. Even you
> must
> > > see that there is a point where the term killer is far too broad to be
> of
> > > any significance.
> > ================
> > Actually, it puts at a disadvantage with anyone that supports part of
> their
> > diet with game. All the calories you gorge on come at the cost of those
> CDs
> > you like to ignore, whereas those that eat game don't have those CDs for
> > 1000s of the calories they eat.
>
> There is no sense or truth in this either. You are a compulsive liar
====================
Then prove it wrong. You cannot, killer.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It is far too easy for you to label us 'Hypocrites' and accuse us of
> > telling
> > > 'Lys', you have been doing it for years.
> > ====================
> > Truth is truth, killer. That you pretend that you do more than those
that
> > include meat in their diet is the ignorance of your position.
>
> I am aware of my position Rick. I never kill animals, except by accident,
> neither do I subscribe to anyone doing it on my behalf. It is a firm
> position Rick, one which you or any of the other bunch of tyrants can even
> begin to errode.
==================
Nope, you kill animals daily, deliberatly causing more death and suffering
than is necessary for your survival. You do it because you are too lazy to
really do anything except focus on what you think others are doing.
> >
> >
> > You have no results as your own
> > > personal agenda is itself based on lies and selective snips of
> information
> > > which you distort and subsequently present as facts.
> > >
> > > It may frighten the 'newbies' Rick, but I am not impressed.
> > ==================
> > The animals you kill are just as dead. maybe you should really think
> about
> > them sometime, instead of your sanctimonious bltherings.
>
> You should get your facts straight and learn the meaning of the word
> *Truth*. There is *no* truth in anything you have posted.
=================
Then prove it wrong, ignorant fool. You cannot.
The only point you
> have proved is that you are the second biggest liar on these groups.
> Even your mentor backs up his lies with facts, unfortunately his 'facts'
are
> also lies - but at least he tries.
======================
As I have you ignorant dolt. try keeping up. Your diet kills, your
lifstyle kills. You kill. All for your convenience and entertainment. Go
ahead, refute it. Prove it wrong. Give it a go, that should be hilarious!
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Ray
Rather take up Ball Fighting, sorry to take the piss Rick but your reasoning
is incoherent. I am certain your stupidity is intentional.
It is only true in *your* mind Rick. I believe you are sincere in what you
say, you really do believe it.
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Killers, yes we are all killers. Some do it for financial gain, some
> for
> > > > pleasure and others like myself do it by accident - your favourite
> > subject
> > > > CDs.
> > > =======================
> > > You do it for all the above reasons stupid! You access to usenet for
> this
> > > group is purely for your entertainment, at the cost of animal lives.
> >
> > You are a crackpot. Little wonder you are on the KF of most people.
> > >=======================
> Because the delusional, ignorant loons like you don't like the truth,
> stupid. They refuse to answer because they cannot refute what I say.
I have refuted every word, but it fails to register.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That does not put us in the same league as say David Harrison,
Michael
> > > > Saunby or the 'Canned Hunter' Ward Clark to name only a few. Even
you
> > must
> > > > see that there is a point where the term killer is far too broad to
be
> > of
> > > > any significance.
> > > ================
> > > Actually, it puts at a disadvantage with anyone that supports part of
> > their
> > > diet with game. All the calories you gorge on come at the cost of
those
> > CDs
> > > you like to ignore, whereas those that eat game don't have those CDs
for
> > > 1000s of the calories they eat.
> >
> > There is no sense or truth in this either. You are a compulsive liar
> ====================
> Then prove it wrong. You cannot, killer.
You will not listen, it's a little like pissing in the wind.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It is far too easy for you to label us 'Hypocrites' and accuse us of
> > > telling
> > > > 'Lys', you have been doing it for years.
> > > ====================
> > > Truth is truth, killer. That you pretend that you do more than those
> that
> > > include meat in their diet is the ignorance of your position.
> >
> > I am aware of my position Rick. I never kill animals, except by
accident,
> > neither do I subscribe to anyone doing it on my behalf. It is a firm
> > position Rick, one which you or any of the other bunch of tyrants can
even
> > begin to errode.
> ==================
> Nope, you kill animals daily, deliberatly causing more death and suffering
> than is necessary for your survival. You do it because you are too lazy
to
> really do anything except focus on what you think others are doing.
That is a lie.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You have no results as your own
> > > > personal agenda is itself based on lies and selective snips of
> > information
> > > > which you distort and subsequently present as facts.
> > > >
> > > > It may frighten the 'newbies' Rick, but I am not impressed.
> > > ==================
> > > The animals you kill are just as dead. maybe you should really think
> > about
> > > them sometime, instead of your sanctimonious bltherings.
> >
> > You should get your facts straight and learn the meaning of the word
> > *Truth*. There is *no* truth in anything you have posted.
> =================
> Then prove it wrong, ignorant fool. You cannot.
I can not come to terms with your stupidity, I should be used to it by now.
>
>
> The only point you
> > have proved is that you are the second biggest liar on these groups.
> > Even your mentor backs up his lies with facts, unfortunately his 'facts'
> are
> > also lies - but at least he tries.
> ======================
> As I have you ignorant dolt. try keeping up. Your diet kills, your
> lifstyle kills. You kill. All for your convenience and entertainment.
Go
> ahead, refute it. Prove it wrong. Give it a go, that should be
hilarious!
One point at a time Rick.
How do I kill for entertainment? Go on, give it your best shot.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
rick etter
It's completely relevent. you are on usenet for your entertainment. That
demand for electricity and communications causes far more animal deaths than
bull-fighting. The only piss is what's pouring all over you in your
ignorant denials of complicity.
I am certain your stupidity is intentional.
==================
I know yours is.
====================
You know it is true. You're only hope is to repeat your lys to yourself
enough times that *you* believe the truth isn't the truth.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Killers, yes we are all killers. Some do it for financial gain,
some
> > for
> > > > > pleasure and others like myself do it by accident - your favourite
> > > subject
> > > > > CDs.
> > > > =======================
> > > > You do it for all the above reasons stupid! You access to usenet
for
> > this
> > > > group is purely for your entertainment, at the cost of animal lives.
> > >
> > > You are a crackpot. Little wonder you are on the KF of most people.
> > > >=======================
> > Because the delusional, ignorant loons like you don't like the truth,
> > stupid. They refuse to answer because they cannot refute what I say.
>
> I have refuted every word, but it fails to register.
================
You've yet tyo even try. Saying it isn't true isn't refuting it, you
ignorant hypocrite.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That does not put us in the same league as say David Harrison,
> Michael
> > > > > Saunby or the 'Canned Hunter' Ward Clark to name only a few. Even
> you
> > > must
> > > > > see that there is a point where the term killer is far too broad
to
> be
> > > of
> > > > > any significance.
> > > > ================
> > > > Actually, it puts at a disadvantage with anyone that supports part
of
> > > their
> > > > diet with game. All the calories you gorge on come at the cost of
> those
> > > CDs
> > > > you like to ignore, whereas those that eat game don't have those CDs
> for
> > > > 1000s of the calories they eat.
> > >
> > > There is no sense or truth in this either. You are a compulsive liar
> > ====================
> > Then prove it wrong. You cannot, killer.
>
> You will not listen, it's a little like pissing in the wind.
=================
LOL You've yet to say anything that backs up *any* of your lys and
delusions. Go ahead and try though. Better loons than you have failed
miserably.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is far too easy for you to label us 'Hypocrites' and accuse us
of
> > > > telling
> > > > > 'Lys', you have been doing it for years.
> > > > ====================
> > > > Truth is truth, killer. That you pretend that you do more than
those
> > that
> > > > include meat in their diet is the ignorance of your position.
> > >
> > > I am aware of my position Rick. I never kill animals, except by
> accident,
> > > neither do I subscribe to anyone doing it on my behalf. It is a firm
> > > position Rick, one which you or any of the other bunch of tyrants can
> even
> > > begin to errode.
> > ==================
> > Nope, you kill animals daily, deliberatly causing more death and
suffering
> > than is necessary for your survival. You do it because you are too lazy
> to
> > really do anything except focus on what you think others are doing.
>
> That is a lie.
==============
here you are proving it to be true, hypocrite! Dobn't you see the stupidity
in your satement? No, of course you don't, you're deliberately ignorant.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have no results as your own
> > > > > personal agenda is itself based on lies and selective snips of
> > > information
> > > > > which you distort and subsequently present as facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > It may frighten the 'newbies' Rick, but I am not impressed.
> > > > ==================
> > > > The animals you kill are just as dead. maybe you should really
think
> > > about
> > > > them sometime, instead of your sanctimonious bltherings.
> > >
> > > You should get your facts straight and learn the meaning of the word
> > > *Truth*. There is *no* truth in anything you have posted.
> > =================
> > Then prove it wrong, ignorant fool. You cannot.
>
> I can not come to terms with your stupidity, I should be used to it by
now.
================
You cannot refute my claims. All you have is "that's a lie". I hate to
tell you stupid, but that doesn't refute anything.
> >
> >
> > The only point you
> > > have proved is that you are the second biggest liar on these groups.
> > > Even your mentor backs up his lies with facts, unfortunately his
'facts'
> > are
> > > also lies - but at least he tries.
> > ======================
> > As I have you ignorant dolt. try keeping up. Your diet kills, your
> > lifstyle kills. You kill. All for your convenience and entertainment.
> Go
> > ahead, refute it. Prove it wrong. Give it a go, that should be
> hilarious!
>
> One point at a time Rick.
> How do I kill for entertainment? Go on, give it your best shot.
================
Usenet usage you ignorant dolt! You have no 'need' to be on usenet, you are
here for your entertainment. The production of your computer, and the power
and communications needs to supply your access kills animals. try to refute
it, go ahead. Just saying, 'that's a lie' won't hack it though, hypocrite.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Ray
Hey hacking is ~~jonnie's~~ department.
I am not here for entertainment, I am here to try and make an honest man out
of you, but alas, I fail.
Rick, you have just shot yourself in the foot. I have already said that I
accept that we all cause CDs. Nobody can live without causing CDs, you
preach to the converted.
Suppose I kill myself, apart from making you happy, it would again make me a
killer, then we have to address the issue of my disposal. Should I be
buried, that causes CDs, if cremated the smoke causes pollution which in
turn causes more CDs. Not much choice eh?
The only option left is to call you a self made maniac and depart from the
debate with blood drenched footsteps.
However I leave with the knowledge that my lifestyle is better than yours
and that of your stinking crowd of lack lustre *deliberate* animal killer
clapped out cronies. You have no shame, no decency and in this instance no
argument.
Every single thing you have said has been covered a thousand times.
Thanks for playing - even that's not original.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
rick etter
Nope, I already am, you on the other hand are still a sanctimonious
hypocrite trying to delude yourself and others with your typical lys.
>
> Rick, you have just shot yourself in the foot. I have already said that I
> accept that we all cause CDs. Nobody can live without causing CDs, you
> preach to the converted.
=====================
No, you're not. you still go on about how you kill fewer/less, and that
they are all accidental. You are still wrong, on both counts. Instead you
focus on what you think everyone else is doing, without even trying to
eliminate/reduce you unnecessary contributions. Your comment wasthat you
"...Try helping the sorry plight of animals who suffer at the hands of
people...", while accusing others of not trying anything. Again, you
prove that you are really doing *nothing* to help animals except flap your
lips. You prove with each posting that you care nothing about the animals
that die for your convenience and entertainment.
>
> Suppose I kill myself, apart from making you happy, it would again make me
a
> killer, then we have to address the issue of my disposal. Should I be
> buried, that causes CDs, if cremated the smoke causes pollution which in
> turn causes more CDs. Not much choice eh?
===============
No, there isn't, yet you, and the rest of your sanctimonious loonies insist
that you are 'doing more' than anybody else. It's a claim you cannot, and
have never been able to support. It's all about making *you* feel better,
and not helping animals.
>
> The only option left is to call you a self made maniac and depart from the
> debate with blood drenched footsteps.
>
> However I leave with the knowledge that my lifestyle is better than yours
> and that of your stinking crowd of lack lustre *deliberate* animal killer
> clapped out cronies. You have no shame, no decency and in this instance no
> argument.
======================
And you have yet to prove any of your assumptions. Again, I claim that my
diet kills fewer animals than yours.
>
> Every single thing you have said has been covered a thousand times.
==============
And you've never been able to refute it, or prove your delusions...
dh...@nomail.com
>Why are ARA's so concerned with animal rights when several hundred million
>of their fellow man don't have the same rights they cherish (or take for
>granted??) Shouldn't they be more concerned with improving the lot of humans
>rather than trying to force something on someone they may not want?
[...]
"AR" is a gross misnomer. What they want is to eliminate domestic
animals, and eliminate human wildlife population management. That's
pretty much all they want. Animals would still be killed in production
of wood, paper, electricity, construction, etc. "ARAs" don't mind
contributing to animal deaths, what they want to avoid are things
that provide them with life.
sasha
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:dxzYa.8158$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> >
> > "Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:j_tYa.7191$yl6....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > > news:TFqYa.8093$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:bgtb76$af8$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:DLeYa.8050$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com>
>
> Hey hacking is ~~jonnie's~~ department.
>
> I am not here for entertainment, I am here to try and make an honest man
out
> of you, but alas, I fail.
>
> Rick, you have just shot yourself in the foot. I have already said that I
> accept that we all cause CDs. Nobody can live without causing CDs, you
> preach to the converted.
>
> Suppose I kill myself, apart from making you happy, it would again make me
a
> killer, then we have to address the issue of my disposal. Should I be
> buried, that causes CDs, if cremated the smoke causes pollution which in
> turn causes more CDs. Not much choice eh?
Your carcass could be left out for the worms and birds to pick at, the way
ancient indian tribes did, that way you could give back what you consumed.
> The only option left is to call you a self made maniac and depart from the
> debate with blood drenched footsteps.
>
> However I leave with the knowledge that my lifestyle is better than yours
> and that of your stinking crowd of lack lustre *deliberate* animal killer
> clapped out cronies. You have no shame, no decency and in this instance no
> argument.
Your lifestyle is a sham, one of those self-gratifying, animal killing lives
designed to make you live long and consume even more animals and other
resources. You're a killer just like anyone else, But out of sight out of
mind right?!!
> Every single thing you have said has been covered a thousand times.
> Thanks for playing - even that's not original
>
The truth doesn't have to be original, just true.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Derek
"sasha" <sa...@clss.net> wrote in message news:bh01g...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Your lifestyle is a sham, one of those self-gratifying, animal killing lives
> designed to make you live long and consume even more animals and other
> resources.
Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
which collaterally kills and harms many times more
animals than his, and is responsible for the collateral
deaths and harms of people in the meat trade too.
Your lifestyle is the same as any other meatarian
addict's: a rediculous sham based on the lie that no
people die or suffer for your convenience.
So, rather than just repeatedly calling people childish
names, which anyone can do, why don't you try
discussing some of the issues raised here with me?
You've avoided every opportunity so far, so my
guess is that you have no valid argument and daren't
risk engaging me lest I expose your ignorance further.
While Zakhar was showing us how ignorant you are,
you excused your lack of an argument by stating;
"Because all vegans are you twit, It's almost a religion
with you types."
I responded to you by writing;
"The claim that vegetarianism and support for animal
rights is a religion is unsupported and undeniably false.
You, like most others merely state that it is without
providing any evidence or quotes to support your
nonsense claim. Nevertheless, if vegetarianism and
a support for animal rights were a religion, why are
you so willing to publicly show your ignorance and
intolerance to the basic "human right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public
or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
What other religions are you intolerant to?"
But you failed to reply and simply carried on calling
people childish names instead without even trying
to stand up for yourself, coward.
In the same thread you also stated;
"You think because you stuff veggies into your face
you are superior to everyone that doesn't subscribe
to your narrow field of view, most of your posts reek
of it."
And I replied;
"Then show me an example of it, and we'll take each
line at a time. Otherwise, you're merely expressing
another flaw in your character as well as your
intolerance to other's religion; paranoia. Like most
meatarians of your ilk, you are addicted to a product
you know is obtained unethically, and to head off any
criticism you intuitively feel you deserve, you attack
an assumed criticism before it's even been made. All
junkies defend their nasty habit similarly, so your
defensive is no surprise, but what you need to do
now is prove you aren't a liar on top of everything
else you've revealed about yourself, and provide
some evidence to this claim that Zakhar has
pronounced himself superior to you."
And like the coward you are, you failed to respond
to me again. Why do you keep running from me?
Let's see what you're made of and try engaging me
in a nice little discussion on the issues raised here.
Calling people names and then running away is
easy to do, but can you stand the heat and defend
what you write, or do you intend to continue acting
like a nebbish.
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:T7DYa.8204$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
>
mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
Ray
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:59b6jv8fkv12egbhh...@4ax.com...
Hey, the list goes on longer than that David.
I see you are now keeping the same company as ~~jonnie~~
extra service
PLONK.
rick etter
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bh0eb0$t55bf$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
You first, you ignorant dolt. the original claim was by vegan loons like
you that kill with sanctimonious hypocrisy.
My grass-fed beef and game involves the death of the one animal that is
eaten. No grains, no chemicals, no massive imports(like for your fruits and
veggies).
but, read on loser. Grass fed beef and game doesn't come close to your
death toll, killer.
here are some sites about some of your crops...
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f
To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agriculture.html
rick etter
>
> "sasha" <sa...@clss.net> wrote in message
news:bh01g...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> > Your lifestyle is a sham, one of those self-gratifying, animal killing
lives
> > designed to make you live long and consume even more animals and other
> > resources.
>
> Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
> a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
> which collaterally kills and harms many times more
> animals than his,
Again, the claim that cannot be proven. Why do you insist on this delusion
twits? Is that really all you have left, lys and delusions? Pity.
and is responsible for the collateral
> deaths and harms of people in the meat trade too.
===============
LOL And you cause no deaths in farming? Besides, I thought no was
responsible except the farmer! You really are too stupid to get in on this,
twits.
snippage of rest of blathering idiocy...
rick etter
"extra service" <e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3F34082D...@aol.com...
> Just a no life troll.
ROTFLMAO And you've added what? Thought so...
snips...
Ray
number.
rick etter
LOL The irony of your post escapes you, doesn't it loser?
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:RMUYa.8257$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
>
> > Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
> > a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
> > which collaterally kills and harms many times more
> > animals than his,
> ====================
> Again, the claim that cannot be proven.
As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.
The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
always lose when comparing the death counts in each
diet. Your best case is in GFB while mine is in glass
covered crops, so your diet will always include death
by default whereas mine does not. You lose, stupid.
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:9KUYa.8255$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:bh0eb0$t55bf$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:T7DYa.8204$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > >
> > > Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
> > >
> > Prove it, Rick. Instead of just running your ignorant
> > mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
> ====================
> You first, you ignorant dolt.
Just as we all knew: you haven't any proof to support
your wild claims, so you try insisting your opponent
has to find the proof for you.
Shifting the burden of proof.
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting
something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case
of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting
the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Your claim is that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's,
so when are you going to prove it?
> here are some sites about some of your crops...
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pdf
>
> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
> http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
> /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
>
> http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/ele_poison.htm
> http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
> http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
> http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
> http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agriculture.html
>
That's a nice list of poisons etc., but how does it prove
that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's? Grass fed
beef, which you lyingly claim to eat isn't CD free. They
don't slaughter and package themselves, and nor do they
use any less refrigeration than other meats, so to claim
grass fed beef is CD free is a lie.
As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:9KUYa.8255$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> >
> > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bh0eb0$t55bf$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:T7DYa.8204$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > >
> > > > Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
> > > >
> > > Prove it, Rick. Instead of just running your ignorant
> > > mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
> > ====================
> > You first, you ignorant dolt.
>
> Just as we all knew: you haven't any proof to support
> your wild claims, so you try insisting your opponent
> has to find the proof for you.
Read below you ignorant dolt...
>
> Shifting the burden of proof.
=================
Nope, that's what you do stupid!! You vegans made the original claims,
false as they are, and now you cannot support them. try again, little boy.
> The burden of proof is always on the person asserting
> something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case
> of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting
> the burden of proof on the person who denies or
> questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
> assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
>
> Your claim is that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's,
> so when are you going to prove it?
==================
Just did. Grass-fed beef and game cause less death and suffering than any
crops produced for his, and your diets, killer. Too bad, you lose again...
===============
Easy, All you food comes at the expemse of animals. A major portion of mine
comes from the death of 1 animal...
Grass fed
> beef, which you lyingly claim to eat isn't CD free.
=============
Another ly you cannot support. Try again, killer.
They
> don't slaughter and package themselves, and nor do they
> use any less refrigeration than other meats, so to claim
> grass fed beef is CD free is a lie.
====================
Yes, you do ly.
>
> As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock.
==================
Just as it has beeen pointed out to you that the vast majority of veggies is
from the above mentioned CD laden monoculture crop production. That causes
far more animal deaths and suffering than any of the grass-fed beef and game
that I eat. Too bad you cannot refute that, as usual, but have to keep
reverting back to your typical vegan lys and delusions.
That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths:
==================
ANother claim that you have yet to prove. My, that's several already that
you cannot back up there killer.
the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat.
=================
LOL There is no 'feed' produced for theBeef and game that I eat. You
really should try to pay attention and keep up hypocrite.
>
> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
ROTFLMAO Yet you still continue to die by the claims of your diet causing
less. You really are a hoot, killer.
>
> You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
> always lose when comparing the death counts in each
> diet
===========
Nope, I've already won. You cannot and willnot prove your ignorant claims
made yet again in this post. Besuides the fact that they cannot be proven,
since they are false anyway, the major hurtle you have is that you are too
stupid to even know how to go about proving your ignorant claims anyway.
You lose, kkller, even your pal Aristotle says so.(in english, btw)
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:RMUYa.8257$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> >
> >
> > > Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
> > > a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
> > > which collaterally kills and harms many times more
> > > animals than his,
> > ====================
> > Again, the claim that cannot be proven.
>
> As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
LOL I see you have nothing to say yourself anymore. What a hoot, resorting
to quoting Jonathan!! You really are too stupid to play.
> "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat.
>
> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
>
> You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
> always lose when comparing the death counts in each
> diet.
===============
Nope, you've already lost. You cannot even get into the game, killer. You
cannot even begin to prove the outragious claims you make!
Your best case is in GFB while mine is in glass
> covered crops, so your diet will always include death
> by default whereas mine does not. You lose, stupid.
====================
Nope. Because my diet is already fact. The 'glass-topped veggies is a pipe
dream, invented by vegans to try to salvage some shred of their delusions.
You still lose, dolt, because you, and Ray, do not come close to the fantasy
crop production that you try to cite as 'better'. Besides, if you had kept
up, unlikely for your minimun # of brain-cells after all your drug use,
you'd already know that I have siad that there is the possibility for a
vegan diet to cause less. You just don't eat it, and you are far too lazy
to even begin to live the lifestyle necessary to obtain it. You lose,
again, hypocrite. And yet again, you pal, Aristotle says so.
>
>
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:m88Za.8327$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bh2l87$tfiqn$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:9KUYa.8255$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > >
> > > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bh0eb0$t55bf$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:T7DYa.8204$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
> > > > >
> > > > Prove it, Rick. Instead of just running your ignorant
> > > > mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
> > > ====================
> > > You first, you ignorant dolt.
> >
> > Just as we all knew: you haven't any proof to support
> > your wild claims, so you try insisting your opponent
> > has to find the proof for you.
> ===============
> Read below you ignorant dolt...
>
didn't you put it right here under the particlar question?
> >
> > Shifting the burden of proof.
> =================
> Nope, that's what you do stupid!!
You have made a wild claim and expect me to be burdened
with finding the proof of it, but doing so invokes the well-
known fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, so find your
proof quickly else your claim will be dismissed as unsupported
speculation. The burden is upon you to provide evidence to
support your claim, but as usual you can't, so you just carry
on spewing your lies as if it were a virtue of some kind. You're
pathetic.
> > The burden of proof is always on the person asserting
> > something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case
> > of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting
> > the burden of proof on the person who denies or
> > questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
> > assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
> >
> > Your claim is that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's,
> > so when are you going to prove it?
> ==================
> Just did.
No, you might've thought you did, but there again you're
not very bright.
> Grass-fed beef and game cause less death and suffering than any
> crops produced for his, and your diets, killer.
Prove it, liar. I don't believe you.
> > That's a nice list of poisons etc., but how does it prove
> > that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's?
> ===============
> Easy, All you food comes at the expemse of animals.
No, it doesn't. Prove it.
> A major portion of mine comes from the death of 1 animal...
>
Prove it.
> > Grass fed
> > beef, which you lyingly claim to eat isn't CD free.
> =============
> Another ly you cannot support.
Wildlife Services seeks to diminish predator populations
in order to protect livestock belonging to ranchers and
farmers.
http://www.idausa.org/facts/animaldamage.html
ADC operates programs to kill predators in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. ADC's programs
operate on both private and public lands.
http://www.predatordefense.org/issues/adc.htm
Grass fed beef don't slaughter themselves in their
own bucolic pastures. They're slaughtered and
packaged just the same as any other steers. These
slaughter and packaging plants require all the things
you claim cause millions of collateral deaths, so
don't try claiming grass fed beef is CD free, because
it clearly isn't at all. In fact, because there are no
figures available, I could easily claim that grass fed
beef causes just as much as any other beef.
> > They
> > don't slaughter and package themselves, and nor do they
> > use any less refrigeration than other meats, so to claim
> > grass fed beef is CD free is a lie.
> ====================
> Yes, you do ly.
>
No, by you. Grass fed beef still accrue collateral deaths
by way of protection from predators and processing.
> >
> > As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
> > "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> > grain is grown to feed livestock.
> ==================
> Just as it has beeen pointed out to you that the vast majority of veggies is
> from the above mentioned CD laden monoculture crop production.
You've pointed it out but haven't proved it, stupid.
When are you going to do it?
> That causes
> far more animal deaths and suffering than any of the grass-fed beef and game
> that I eat.
Prove it. I don't believe you.
> Too bad you cannot refute that,
There's nothing to refute. Your claims haven't been
supported by anything, and so they remain as wild
claims, nothing more.
> >
> > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
>
> ROTFLMAO
Grow up, sonny.
> Yet you still continue to die by the claims of your diet causing
> less. You really are a hoot, killer.
>
Do you disagree with Jonathan when he says you are
doubly stupid? No, I didn't think you had the guts for
it.
> >
> > You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
> > always lose when comparing the death counts in each
> > diet
> ===========
> Nope, I've already won.
You lost before you started.
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:Bd8Za.8331$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bh2g6u$tg35n$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:RMUYa.8257$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
> > > > a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
> > > > which collaterally kills and harms many times more
> > > > animals than his,
> > > ====================
> > > Again, the claim that cannot be proven.
> >
> > As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
> ====================
> LOL
Grow up, sonny.
> I see you have nothing to say yourself anymore.
Do you disagree with Jonathan when he says
you are doubly stupid, Rick, or are you too
cowardly to take him on and defend your weak
counting game against him?
>
> > "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
> > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> > grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> > eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> > deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> > CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> > feed for the animals you eat.
> >
> > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
> >
> > You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
> > always lose when comparing the death counts in each
> > diet.
> ===============
> Nope, you've already lost.
So you say, but I've yet to see any proof of it. Why
don't you *try* defending your counting game
approach when Jonathan tells you you are doubly
stupid, Rick - too scared?
> You cannot even get into the game, killer.
I can, easily, and I'll beat you every time.
> You
> cannot even begin to prove the outragious claims you make!
>
I already did.
> >Your best case is in GFB while mine is in glass
> > covered crops, so your diet will always include death
> > by default whereas mine does not. You lose, stupid.
> ====================
> Nope.
Yep.
> Because my diet is already fact.
Prove it. I don't believe liars, so prove it.
rick etter
LOL No stupid, I expect you to prove *your* false claims. You cannot,
since thay are false to begin with, right hypocrite?
but doing so invokes the well-
> known fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, so find your
> proof quickly else your claim will be dismissed as unsupported
> speculation. The burden is upon you to provide evidence to
> support your claim, but as usual you can't, so you just carry
> on spewing your lies as if it were a virtue of some kind. You're
> pathetic.
> ======================
I already have. You, on the other hand have never come close to supporting
any of your claims. Even Aristotle says you haven't.
> > > The burden of proof is always on the person asserting
> > > something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case
> > > of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting
> > > the burden of proof on the person who denies or
> > > questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the
> > > assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
> > > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
> > >
> > > Your claim is that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's,
> > > so when are you going to prove it?
> > ==================
> > Just did.
>
> No, you might've thought you did, but there again you're
> not very bright.
================
Yep, read again, stupid. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it
false.
>
> > Grass-fed beef and game cause less death and suffering than any
> > crops produced for his, and your diets, killer.
>
> Prove it, liar. I don't believe you.
==================
Just did, read the sites again, killer.
>
> > > That's a nice list of poisons etc., but how does it prove
> > > that your diet kills fewer animals than Ray's?
> > ===============
> > Easy, All you food comes at the expemse of animals.
>
> No, it doesn't. Prove it.
====================
Yep, it does. just because you don't like it, too bad. It's still true,
killer.
>
> > A major portion of mine comes from the death of 1 animal...
> >
> Prove it.
=======================
LOL One caw, one animal. One deer, one animal. I can tell you there was
no other animal that got hit with the bolt, or the bullet. Now, if you want
to add bugs, a favoeite vegan loon deversion, maybe they fell on a couple,
but if you want to go that far, you'll lose even worse. Too bad, killer,
you haven't proven any of your claims.
>
> > > Grass fed
> > > beef, which you lyingly claim to eat isn't CD free.
> > =============
> > Another ly you cannot support.
>
> Wildlife Services seeks to diminish predator populations
> in order to protect livestock belonging to ranchers and
> farmers.
> http://www.idausa.org/facts/animaldamage.html
=======================
LOL Doesn't happen here. Too bad, You lose, yet again.
>
> ADC operates programs to kill predators in Arizona,
> California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana,
> Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
> Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
> Washington, and Wyoming. ADC's programs
> operate on both private and public lands.
> http://www.predatordefense.org/issues/adc.htm
==================
Nope, not here either, you lose, yet again.
>
> Grass fed beef don't slaughter themselves in their
> own bucolic pastures. They're slaughtered and
> packaged just the same as any other steers. These
> slaughter and packaging plants require all the things
> you claim cause millions of collateral deaths, so
> don't try claiming grass fed beef is CD free, because
> it clearly isn't at all. In fact, because there are no
> figures available, I could easily claim that grass fed
> beef causes just as much as any other beef.
================
Of course you could. But then, you make lots of claims that you *never*
backup. Too bad you're just too stupid to play the game little boy. Must
be the drugs that have eaten away at the too few braincells you started out
with.
>
>
> > > They
> > > don't slaughter and package themselves, and nor do they
> > > use any less refrigeration than other meats, so to claim
> > > grass fed beef is CD free is a lie.
> > ====================
> > Yes, you do ly.
> >
> No, by you. Grass fed beef still accrue collateral deaths
> by way of protection from predators and processing.
===================
Really? what predator protection? None of your avbove cites apply here.
You lose.
Now, prove your assertions t5hat your diet causes less. You can't, and you
don't even try, because you know you can't, killer.
> > >
> > > As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
> > > "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
> > > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> > > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> > > grain is grown to feed livestock.
> > ==================
> > Just as it has beeen pointed out to you that the vast majority of
veggies is
> > from the above mentioned CD laden monoculture crop production.
>
> You've pointed it out but haven't proved it, stupid.
> When are you going to do it?
===============
LOL Already did. Just bacause you don't like the proof doesn't mean it
isn't true. Too bad for you, killer.
>
> > That causes
> > far more animal deaths and suffering than any of the grass-fed beef and
game
> > that I eat.
>
> Prove it. I don't believe you.
=================
Already did.
>
> > Too bad you cannot refute that,
>
> There's nothing to refute. Your claims haven't been
> supported by anything, and so they remain as wild
> claims, nothing more.
======================
Just as I thought, you can't. Too bad killer. you lose, again.
> > >
> > > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> > > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> > > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> > > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> > > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
> >
> > ROTFLMAO
>
> Grow up, sonny.
=================
Already ahead of you, little boy.
>
> > Yet you still continue to die by the claims of your diet causing
> > less. You really are a hoot, killer.
> >
> Do you disagree with Jonathan when he says you are
> doubly stupid? No, I didn't think you had the guts for
> it.
=============================
You don't have the guts for this stupid. You can't even say anything of
your own that makes any sense.
> > >
> > > You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
> > > always lose when comparing the death counts in each
> > > diet
> > ===========
> > Nope, I've already won.
>
> You lost before you started.
================
Nope, you're projecting again, loser.
> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
==================
Try reading what you keep quoting you ignorant dolt. You are just too
stupid for this, killer.
>
>
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:Bd8Za.8331$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> >
> > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:bh2g6u$tg35n$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > news:RMUYa.8257$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Rather than Ray's life being a sham, it is you who lives
> > > > > a lifestyle which is dependant on an addictive product
> > > > > which collaterally kills and harms many times more
> > > > > animals than his,
> > > > ====================
> > > > Again, the claim that cannot be proven.
> > >
> > > As your style guru, Jonathan Ball puts it;
> > ====================
> > LOL
>
> Grow up, sonny.
Ah, the wit of a brain dead loser... what a pity.
>
> > I see you have nothing to say yourself anymore.
>
> Do you disagree with Jonathan when he says
> you are doubly stupid, Rick, or are you too
> cowardly to take him on and defend your weak
> counting game against him?
======================
You are just too stupid to know what you are quoting. try reading the whole
statement you ignorant fool.
> >
> > > "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
> > > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> > > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> > > grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> > > eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> > > deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> > > CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> > > feed for the animals you eat.
> > >
> > > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> > > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> > > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> > > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> > > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
> > >
> > > You're doubly stupid, according to Jon, and you will
> > > always lose when comparing the death counts in each
> > > diet.
> > ===============
> > Nope, you've already lost.
>
> So you say, but I've yet to see any proof of it. Why
> don't you *try* defending your counting game
> approach when Jonathan tells you you are doubly
> stupid, Rick - too scared?
======================
Try reading your quote, you ignorant fool. It doesn't support your
ignorance and stupidity.
>
> > You cannot even get into the game, killer.
>
> I can, easily, and I'll beat you every time.
> ================
Not yet you haven't. You can't even read with comprehension what you keep
quoting. You really are that stupid, twit.
> > You
> > cannot even begin to prove the outragious claims you make!
> >
> I already did.
===============
ROTFLMAO Not in this lifetime, hypocrite. better try again.
>
> > >Your best case is in GFB while mine is in glass
> > > covered crops, so your diet will always include death
> > > by default whereas mine does not. You lose, stupid.
> > ====================
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
> ======================
Prove it.
> > Because my diet is already fact.
>
> Prove it. I don't believe liars, so prove it.
====================
Prove what? That I eat meat? You really are too stupid!
>
>
Ray
Derek
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Prove it, Rick. Instead of just running your ignorant
> > > > > > mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
Prove this claim, liar. I can't be bothered to waste my time
with aaev's simpleton, so be quick.
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:JU8Za.8344$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bh348c$tmgl8$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > you are doubly stupid, Rick, or are you too
> > cowardly to take him on and defend your weak
> > counting game against him?
> ======================
> You are just too stupid to know what you are quoting.
Jonathan says that;
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.
"The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
Aren't you going to stand up to him and tell him he's
wrong, Rick, or are to much of a nebbish to even dare?
My guess is that you wouldn't know where to start.
Jonathan Ball
>
> "The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
The moral issue isn't about counting, asshole. It is
about whether or not you are "respecting" the rights of
animals, as you claim. The fact of MASSIVE animal CDs,
for which you share responsibility yet suffer no
consequences, shows that you are not.
You lose.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:SP9Za.4164$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> > Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
>
> The moral issue isn't about counting, asshole.
I know that, oh so very well, but the rest of the
idiots here don't, heh heh, and aren't doing as you
bid them, so I'll let them continue wasting their time
if that's alright with you.
> It is about whether or not you are "respecting" the
> rights of animals, as you claim.
Oh, really?
> The fact of MASSIVE animal CDs,
> for which you share responsibility yet suffer no
> consequences, shows that you are not.
No, it doesn't.
>
> You lose.
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:SP9Za.4164$M6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>>"The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
>>>meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
>>>the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
>>>hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
>>>Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22
>>
>>The moral issue isn't about counting, asshole.
>
>
> I know that, oh so very well,
You don't. You keep trying to redirect the focus, just
as you do with the slavery issue.
I set the rules, Dreck, not you.
>
>>It is about whether or not you are "respecting" the
>>rights of animals, as you claim.
>
>
> Oh, really?
Yes.
>
>
>> The fact of MASSIVE animal CDs,
>>for which you share responsibility yet suffer no
>>consequences, shows that you are not.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
It does. You share responsibility for a massive,
consequence-free slaughter of animals that shows you do
not respect the rights of animals.
You lose.
rick etter
Already did. I kill one cow and get 100s of 1000s of calories that are part
of 100s of meals. just look at the overwhelming evedense that all your crop
production causes massive amounts of death and suffering. Look at it, don't
just snip it away because you don't like the truth, killer. The beef and
game i eat doesn't need any plowing, seeding, spraying, or harvesting with
large machines. Too bad all your food does, hypocrite. that just means
that *all* your food comes at the expense of animal death and suffering.
Now, why can't you even begin to support yopur claim that your deit causes
none/less?
rick etter
No, because you aren't quoting anything that applies to the discussion we
are having you ignorant fool!
We aren't talking about grain fed beef, we are talking about the exception
he even states in the quote you keep trying to use. you really are too
stupid to play the game, killer. We are discussing game and home grown,
grass fed beef. man, you really are just too ignorant.
>
rick etter
"Ray" <camco...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bh37i8$ruc$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
yes it did. you're too stupid to se that. It's like all your other posts,
you don't say anything that means anything. You can't, you have nothing but
lys and delusions, like twitless.
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:DlaZa.8354$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bh393f$ud2s4$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > > > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:T7DYa.8204$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, I claim that my diet kills fewer animals than yours.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Prove it, Rick. Instead of just running your ignorant
> > > > > > > > mouth, provide evidence to support your claim.
> >
> > Prove this claim, liar. I can't be bothered to waste my time
> > with aaev's simpleton, so be quick.
> =================
> Already did. I kill one cow and get 100s of 1000s of calories that are part
> of 100s of meals. just look at the overwhelming evedense that all your crop
> production causes massive amounts of death and suffering.
Where?
> Look at it,
There isn't any.
Derek
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message news:ooaZa.8355$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
I thought so, coward.
rick etter
what you keep ignoring by snipping out, fruit cake.
>
> > Look at it,
>
> There isn't any.
==============
there's lots of it. you just don't like it because you are complicit. even
your pal Aristotle has told you that.
>
>
>
rick etter
Why the cowardly snip of my answer killer? Without annotation, I might
add. Still the sleazy liar you've always been, eh hypocrite?
"...No, because you aren't quoting anything that applies to the discussion
we
are having you ignorant fool!..."
As I said, his post has nothing to do, except that it agrees with my
assertions, with our discussion at hand. Since you don't have anything to
prove your claims, and keep snipping what I provide for you, just means you
are getting very desperate. Especially since you have to quote Jonathan as
your sources! What a hoot!!
>
>