Zakhar; the liar who fooled us all
the liar finder general
under the guise of an animal rights advocate, but
he's now been outed as yet another lying anti who
favours vivisection. For years, he's been feigning
an abhorrence to it and took on a false stance
to fool the genuine opponents of it into believing
he was part of their movement against it. Unlike
the known pro-vivisection lobby on these animal
related groups, Zakhar saw fit to keep his real
stance on this vile practice a secret. Not only is
he a liar, he is also an intellectual coward who
daren't even try making a coherent defence for
his pro-vivisection stance and tries to fend of
any enquiry by stating he takes each case on its
own merit, whatever that's supposed to mean,
and relies on using "highly contrived hypothetical
scenarios" instead of answering the basic questions
put to him.
He states, "I believe in animal rights as much as
human rights.", but when asked why he allows
one set of rights holders to be spared from the
vivisectionists lab he then goes on to claim he's
answered the question, hoping he'll never have
to do so.
Zakhar is the anti within and has lied to us all.
Jonathan Ball
> Zakhar has been posting here for some years now
> under the guise of an animal rights advocate
Cut the shit, Dreck, you fucking lying twat. "Zakhar"
- not his real name - never pretended to believe in
animal "rights". He is a mushy utilitarian who has
never really read utilitarian theory. Utilitarians
don't believe in "rights". One of the most famous
utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham, wrote, "The idea of
rights is nonsense and the idea of natural rights is
nonsense on stilts". The thought usually is
abbreviated (mangled?) today to say that the idea of
"rights" is nonsense on stilts.
the liar finder general
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:tomdb.658$NX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> the liar finder general wrote:
>
> > Zakhar has been posting here for some years now
> > under the guise of an animal rights advocate
>
> Cut the shit, Dreck, you fucking lying twat. "Zakhar"
> - not his real name - never pretended to believe in
> animal "rights".
"Be careful. I consider myself as an active advocate
of animal rights."
Zakhar Date: 2002-07-19
Zakhar
"the liar finder general" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message
news:bl4k1b$2qi$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
This is not a response to you Derek. We all know you have an "anger
management issue", but it doesn't work with me, and I won't be drawn into
any more debate with you, I will only point out your lies and weaknesses.
You are a weak man who relies on his temper to avoid difficult situations.
If anyone wants to take up the vivisection issues with me, please do so.
I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
The real life case of a 19 year old with vCJD being experimented on without
his consent, is a form of vivisection. Most of us can accept that it was the
right thing to do, in this sad case. We can take the same decision making
process, independent of species.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1050656,00.html
>
>
Ray
"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message
news:h5Adb.42$kA.1...@wards.force9.net...
Please guys,
Get together and resolve this issue.
You are the cornerstone of 'the side', and the last thing we want. to see is
a major rift in the ranks.
Easy food for the vultures! (Def: Vulture - a bald headed bird.). Come-on,
sort it.
>
> >
> >
>
>
Ray
Please guys,
Zakhar
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6CAdb.1709$QH3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Thanks Ray. Even though I've been called 'CNUT' on more than one occasion
and an inaccurate new post has been sent, I am prepared to "build bridges".
Even one of 'pretend it never happened', I hope Derek can do the same.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Ray
Right Derek,
Job half done,
It's not a 'backing off' scenario, it's a subject for negotiation. You are
the most experienced poster on this NG, you have taught me a hell of lot. In
fact I feel more than a little upset and uneasy with the present situation.
In blunt 'Yorkshire terms' a continuance of the present dispute means we are
"fucked", and only one side can benefit.
I hope I know you well enough to say "Come on - you miserable old (sorry
middle aged) fuck - talk to the man. I'll have a word with you missus if you
don't! - that's a threat.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Jonathan Ball
Heh heh heh...
>
> You are the cornerstone of 'the side',
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!
Stop it, Dump. You're killing me.
> and the last thing we want. to see is
> a major rift in the ranks.
Excellent!
Dutch
[..]
> I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
Easy to say, hard to back up.
> The real life case of a 19 year old with vCJD being experimented on
without
> his consent, is a form of vivisection. Most of us can accept that it
was the
> right thing to do, in this sad case. We can take the same decision
making
> process, independent of species.
Can we? Are we willing to accept the consequences? You asked why it's OK
to kill fleas on a dog but not OK to kill them to obtain medical
advances. Ask yourself why is it OK to exterminate mice in lodging
houses but not to obtain medical advances. Both cases involve the
killing of animals to advance the cause of human health. In research the
mice are killed humanely in a controlled manner. In the lodging house
they die in the walls slowly and painfully of poisoning. There is no
such thing as species neutrality, the very idea is corrupt. It's
conflated with the ideal of compassion, but the two are polar opposites.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1050656,00.html
>
> >
> >
>
>
Dutch
Please Ray, why don't you give an opinion on the issue?
>
> Get together and resolve this issue.
How about you coming up with a proposal for a resolution Ray?
Not going to happen, there is no resolution to "this issue". The only
thing that might happen is Derek might come back and make some maudlin
speech, Zakhar will swallow it without chewing, and "the issue" will get
swept under the carpet.
> You are the cornerstone of 'the side', and the last thing we want. to
see is
> a major rift in the ranks.
pffhhhttt
> Easy food for the vultures! (Def: Vulture - a bald headed bird.).
Come-on,
> sort it.
The only question remains, does Zakhar value solidarity of this "side"
above his own intellectual and moral integrity?
Dutch
[..]
> > Get together and resolve this issue.
> >
> > You are the cornerstone of 'the side', and the last thing we want.
to see
> is
> > a major rift in the ranks.
> >
> > Easy food for the vultures! (Def: Vulture - a bald headed bird.).
> Come-on,
> > sort it.
>
> Thanks Ray. Even though I've been called 'CNUT' on more than one
occasion
> and an inaccurate new post has been sent, I am prepared to "build
bridges".
> Even one of 'pretend it never happened', I hope Derek can do the same.
Pretending things never happened should be a snap for members of "the
side'.
Jonathan Ball
Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar? You claim you do not
"support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
later you say it was the right thing to do.
You are hopelessly confused.
Dutch
> > > Easy food for the vultures! (Def: Vulture - a bald headed bird.).
> > Come-on,
> > > sort it.
> >
> > Thanks Ray. Even though I've been called 'CNUT' on more than one
occasion
> > and an inaccurate new post has been sent, I am prepared to "build
> bridges".
> > Even one of 'pretend it never happened', I hope Derek can do the
same.
>
>
> Right Derek,
>
> Job half done,
>
> It's not a 'backing off' scenario, it's a subject for negotiation.
How can one negotiate a rigid principle like anti-vivisection? Doesn't
it bother you that Zakhar accepts that vivisection might be justified in
some cases? I described the process that went into the development of
open heart surgery using pound dogs, he did not condemn it. How do you
feel about that? Are you so desperate for allies that you will
compromise this principle?
> You are
> the most experienced poster on this NG, you have taught me a hell of
lot. In
> fact I feel more than a little upset and uneasy with the present
situation.
> In blunt 'Yorkshire terms' a continuance of the present dispute means
we are
> "fucked", and only one side can benefit.
The truth shall set you free.
[..]
Zakhar
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:UpGdb.40032$TM4.37426@pd7tw2no...
My integrity is and will remain firm.
Much more than I can say of you.
>
>
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
>You claim you do not
> "support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
> later you say it was the right thing to do.
>
> You are hopelessly confused.
No, you can't read.
Zakhar
> "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
>
> [..]
> > I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
>
> Easy to say, hard to back up.
>
> > The real life case of a 19 year old with vCJD being experimented on
> without
> > his consent, is a form of vivisection. Most of us can accept that it
> was the
> > right thing to do, in this sad case. We can take the same decision
> making
> > process, independent of species.
>
> Can we? Are we willing to accept the consequences? You asked why it's OK
> to kill fleas on a dog but not OK to kill them to obtain medical
> advances.
No, I asked for a person's view on that.
>Ask yourself why is it OK to exterminate mice in lodging
> houses but not to obtain medical advances. Both cases involve the
> killing of animals to advance the cause of human health. In research the
> mice are killed humanely in a controlled manner
Many mice are killed in awful ways.
> In the lodging house
> they die in the walls slowly and painfully of poisoning.
Many mice are killed quickly.
>There is no
> such thing as species neutrality,
Not in your mind, you are constrained.
>the very idea is corrupt. It's
> conflated with the ideal of compassion, but the two are polar opposites.
Species neutral, yes. Interest neutral no.
It's not 'OK' to kill mice in houses or for any other reason. Take all
interests into account and then make a decision.
>
>
>
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1050656,00.html
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Zakhar
BTW Here's a definition for you:
systemat'ic or systemat'ical adjective pertaining to, consisting of, for the
purpose of, observing, or according to system; methodical; habitual;
intentional.
Jonathan Ball
>>>I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
>>
>>Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
>>accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
>>case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar?
>
>
> Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
It's a weasel word. You thought you were buying some
wriggle room with it, but you weren't.
In fact, you have no principles to guide you for where
to draw the line. That's your overall problem: no
principles. You do everything in your life ad hoc.
>
>
>>You claim you do not
>>"support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
>>later you say it was the right thing to do.
>>
>>You are hopelessly confused.
>
>
> No, you can't read.
I can read. I can read you trying, and failing, to
create some room for yourself.
You are morally incoherent.
Jonathan Ball
> It's not a 'backing off' scenario, it's a subject for negotiation. You are
> the most experienced poster on this NG, you have taught me a hell of lot. In
> fact I feel more than a little upset and uneasy with the present situation.
> In blunt 'Yorkshire terms' a continuance of the present dispute means we are
> "fucked", and only one side can benefit.
It isn't supposed to be a case of supporting The Side,
you fucking swine. You're supposed to be supporting
the truth. Of course, you can't even get out of bed on
that issue.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
>
>
> >>>I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
> >>
> >>Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
> >>accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
> >>case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar?
> >
> >
> > Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
>
> It's a weasel word. You thought you were buying some
> wriggle room with it, but you weren't.
No, it's a word with a specific meaning.
You are trying to wriggle out of your demonstration of laziness in not
seeing it the first time.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:axHdb.6856$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
>>>>
>>>>Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
>>>>accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
>>>>case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar?
>>>
>>>
>>>Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
>>
>>It's a weasel word. You thought you were buying some
>>wriggle room with it, but you weren't.
>
>
> No, it's a word with a specific meaning.
A word with a specific meaning that you are trying to
misappropriate.
>
> You are trying to wriggle out of your demonstration of laziness in not
> seeing it the first time.
I saw it. I also saw the dishonest intent, the attempt
to weasel.
>
>
>>In fact, you have no principles to guide you for where
>>to draw the line. That's your overall problem: no
>>principles. You do everything in your life ad hoc.
Your silence is deafening, GregGeorg...WankHar.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>You claim you do not
>>>>"support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
>>>>later you say it was the right thing to do.
>>>>
>>>>You are hopelessly confused.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, you can't read.
>>
>>I can read. I can read you trying, and failing, to
>>create some room for yourself.
>>
>>You are morally incoherent.
In fact, your silence is thunderous.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:axHdb.6856$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Zakhar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
> >>>>accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
> >>>>case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
> >>
> >>It's a weasel word. You thought you were buying some
> >>wriggle room with it, but you weren't.
> >
> >
> > No, it's a word with a specific meaning.
>
> A word with a specific meaning that you are trying to
> misappropriate.
So, according to you ~~jonnie_fucked _brains~~. I'm trying to misappropriate
a weasel word with a specific meaning, thinking I was buying some "wriggle
room". When really, it's known that you missed it the first time. You are a
twat ~~jonnie_fucked _brains~~.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > The only question remains, does Zakhar value solidarity of this
"side"
> > above his own intellectual and moral integrity?
>
> My integrity is and will remain firm.
As long as you say so?
> Much more than I can say of you.
What do you mean by that?
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ziGdb.37799$I36.29399@pd7tw3no...
> > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
> >
> > Easy to say, hard to back up.
> >
> > > The real life case of a 19 year old with vCJD being experimented
on
> > without
> > > his consent, is a form of vivisection. Most of us can accept that
it
> > was the
> > > right thing to do, in this sad case. We can take the same decision
> > making
> > > process, independent of species.
> >
> > Can we? Are we willing to accept the consequences? You asked why
it's OK
> > to kill fleas on a dog but not OK to kill them to obtain medical
> > advances.
>
> No, I asked for a person's view on that.
That's what I said. Are you declining to take a position on your own
question?
> >Ask yourself why is it OK to exterminate mice in lodging
> > houses but not to obtain medical advances. Both cases involve the
> > killing of animals to advance the cause of human health. In research
the
> > mice are killed humanely in a controlled manner
>
> Many mice are killed in awful ways.
Non sequitor.
> > In the lodging house
> > they die in the walls slowly and painfully of poisoning.
>
> Many mice are killed quickly.
You exploited the slightest opportunity to avoid taking a position. As I
have said before, that personifies you.
> >There is no
> > such thing as species neutrality,
>
> Not in your mind, you are constrained.
Only in your mind, you are deluded.
> >the very idea is corrupt. It's
> > conflated with the ideal of compassion, but the two are polar
opposites.
>
> Species neutral, yes. Interest neutral no.
Interest neutral yes. You're only saying words.
> It's not 'OK' to kill mice in houses or for any other reason.
Again, you're deliberately equivocating to avoid taking a position. How
can you live like that?
Take all
> interests into account and then make a decision.
You're retreating into vague generalities. What do you think we're doing
when we exterminate pests in lodging houses?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1050656,00.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:laIdb.6941$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:axHdb.6856$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Zakhar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
>>>>>>accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
>>>>>>case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
>>>>
>>>>It's a weasel word. You thought you were buying some
>>>>wriggle room with it, but you weren't.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's a word with a specific meaning.
>>
>>A word with a specific meaning that you are trying to
>>misappropriate.
>
>
> So, according to you ~~jonnie_fucked _brains~~. I'm trying to misappropriate
> a weasel word with a specific meaning, thinking I was buying some "wriggle
> room".
Right. You believe in involuntary vivisection on human
beings, let alone animals, and you *ought* to believe
that it's horrific. But you thought you could buy
yourself some wriggle room by slyly - or so you thought
- inserting "systematic" in there. It doesn't buy you
any room at all. All it does is reveal that you have
on principles. You can give us a dictionary definition
of the word, but you can't give us a practical meaning
that would succeed in providing you the wriggle room.
> When really, it's known that you missed it the first time.
I did not miss it, SkankHar. I saw it, and was
revolted by your lame attempt.
>
>
>
>>>You are trying to wriggle out of your demonstration of laziness in not
>>>seeing it the first time.
>>
>>I saw it. I also saw the dishonest intent, the attempt
>>to weasel.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>In fact, you have no principles to guide you for where
>>>>to draw the line. That's your overall problem: no
>>>>principles. You do everything in your life ad hoc.
>>
>>Your silence is deafening, GregGeorg...WankHar.
Boom boom boom boom boom!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You claim you do not
>>>>>>"support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
>>>>>>later you say it was the right thing to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are hopelessly confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you can't read.
>>>>
>>>>I can read. I can read you trying, and failing, to
>>>>create some room for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>You are morally incoherent.
>>
>>In fact, your silence is thunderous.
Boom boom boom boom boom!
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
What the fuck do you know about the truth, you virus, porn sending little
ponce?
>
Ray
Why talk of 'Lodging houses' ~~ jonnies~~ house is so filthy - even the rats
wear boiler suites.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:laIdb.6941$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>Zakhar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >>>news:axHdb.6856$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Cannon Ball Wrote:-
> Boom boom boom boom boom!
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>You claim you do not
> >>>>>>"support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
> >>>>>>later you say it was the right thing to do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You are hopelessly confused.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No, you can't read.
> >>>>
> >>>>I can read. I can read you trying, and failing, to
> >>>>create some room for yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are morally incoherent.
> >>
> >>In fact, your silence is thunderous.
>
> Boom boom boom boom boom!
More like bum bum bum bum ~~you little nymshifting shirtlifter.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill ~~jonnie~~, you know that.
You take and analyse each and every word, once you have found something that
'may' be considered duplistic you're on to it like a swarm of bees on a jar
of non existent 'Vegan' honey.
Let's get back to basics. (something you don't like) Experiments on humans
known to be terminally ill can do nothing but good. If I were in such a
position I sincerely hope I would agree to such treatment. It can do no
harm.
The feedback from such trials can provide medics with far more information
the killing thousands of animals because you are dealing with 'real' people.
You like playing 'Questions and Answers ~~jonnie~~, answer me this:-
What is the difference between conducting experiments on a terminally ill
person as opposed to ripping the organs from one that is dead?
Don't you dare question *my* stance on 'Vivisection'
>
Derek
you in this one.
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:xyKdb.2258$QH3....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:BzHdb.6864$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > It's not a 'backing off' scenario, it's a subject for
> > > negotiation. You are the most experienced poster
> > > on this NG, you have taught me a hell of lot. In
> > > fact I feel more than a little upset and uneasy with
> > > the present situation. In blunt 'Yorkshire terms' a
> > > continuance of the present dispute means we are
> > > "fucked", and only one side can benefit.
> >
What "side" are you talking about, Ray? Do you
mean "the side" who promotes zoophilia and sex
with kids under the name of animal rights? Do you
mean "the side" who joins a lynch mob after a
hard-working vet who treated a cat for head truma
before any payment? Do you mean "the side" who
pretends to be an ARA while also favouring unethical
vivisection on animals? That's not MY side, Ray. MY
side is with the truth and the animals who are being
used by "the side" to promote themselves in some way.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:laIdb.6941$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>>>news:axHdb.6856$RW4...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Zakhar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then what the FUCK does the sentence "Most of us can
>>>>>>accept that it was the right thing to do, in this sad
>>>>>>case" mean, GregGeorg...Wankhar?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Notice the word "systematic", fuck brains?
>>>>
>>>>It's a weasel word. You thought you were buying some
>>>>wriggle room with it, but you weren't.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's a word with a specific meaning.
>>
>>A word with a specific meaning that you are trying to
>>misappropriate.
>
>
> So, according to you ~~jonnie_fucked _brains~~. I'm trying to misappropriate
> a weasel word with a specific meaning, thinking I was buying some "wriggle
> room".
Dutch put it well: "You exploited the slightest
opportunity to avoid taking a position. As I have said
before, that personifies you."
You thought, incorrectly, that slithering "systematic"
into your bogus position statement would help you. It
doesn't. As I said, you can't give us a practical
meaning that would succeed in providing you the wriggle
room.
You stink.
>
>
>
>>>You are trying to wriggle out of your demonstration of laziness in not
>>>seeing it the first time.
>>
>>I saw it. I also saw the dishonest intent, the attempt
>>to weasel.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>In fact, you have no principles to guide you for where
>>>>to draw the line. That's your overall problem: no
>>>>principles. You do everything in your life ad hoc.
>>
>>Your silence is deafening, GregGeorg...WankHar.
Boom boom boom boom boom!
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You claim you do not
>>>>>>"support" vivisection of humans, then two sentences
>>>>>>later you say it was the right thing to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are hopelessly confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you can't read.
>>>>
>>>>I can read. I can read you trying, and failing, to
>>>>create some room for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>You are morally incoherent.
>>
>>In fact, your silence is thunderous.
Boom boom boom boom boom!
Derek
"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message news:h5Adb.42$kA.1...@wards.force9.net...
Good. Show where I have lied, you little cunt.
> You are a weak man who relies on his temper to avoid difficult situations.
>
I don't avoid questions, Liehar, I answer them in full.
> If anyone wants to take up the vivisection issues with me, please do so.
>
We already know your stance on it: you favour it.
> I do not support systematic vivisection of animals or humans.
>
Yes, you do.
> The real life case of a 19 year old with vCJD being experimented on without
> his consent, is a form of vivisection. Most of us can accept that it was the
> right thing to do, in this sad case. We can take the same decision making
> process, independent of species.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1050656,00.html
>
That example is not of a man being held against his
will and used by a vivisectionist. He is being treated
in a hospital by experts from all over the World with
quinine, a drug which I take every day myself to stop
cramps. His whole family are backing the treatment.
You're just too stupid for this, and you're a lying
fucked up cunt who tried to fool everyone into
believing you are an active advocate of animal
rights.
"Be careful. I consider myself as an active advocate
of animal rights."
Zakhar Date: 2002-07-19
Ray
"Derek" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
news:bl9ih4$8ss5q$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
Is this the 'only' case that leads you to make these accusations against
'Zakhar'?
Ray
I don't think 'Our Side' promotes any of these things Derek.
These 'Newsgroups' are sick, please do not confuse one with t'other.
Ray
>
>
Jonathan Ball
Oh, yes they do, Dump. That sick bitch ~~ratfuck~~
actively promoted pedophilia and zoophilia. The nazi
"feral" joined a usenet lynch mob to "get" a veterinarian.
> These 'Newsgroups' are sick, please do not confuse one with t'other.
"ar" is a sickness, indeed.
Derek
"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:NfZdb.2709$QH3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "Derek" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message news:bl9ih4$8ss5q$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message news:h5Adb.42$kA.1...@wards.force9.net...
> > > "the liar finder general" <no...@nope.com> wrote in message news:bl4k1b$2qi$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> >
>
> Is this the 'only' case that leads you to make these accusations against
> 'Zakhar'?
>
animal rights advocate;
"Be careful. I consider myself as an active advocate
of animal rights."
Zakhar Date: 2002-07-19
yet he also favours vivisection on these animals. If
Liehar favours vivisection and believes it's the proper
way to find medical cures, why aren't his principles
as strong as John Mercer's who studied to do the job
properly and as painlessly as possible?
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
They are not 'My Side' ~~jonnie~~
You simply can not randomly pick a couple of people and say they are
represtative of the AR movement.
It's a little like saying all people from 'Pasadena' are liars - not true.
>
Jonathan Ball
Oh, yes they are, Dump.
>
> You simply can not randomly pick a couple of people and say they are
> represtative of the AR movement.
I'm not picking them randomly, shitwipe. These have
been the loudest proponents of "ar" in the newsgroups.
I forgot, in my earlier list, to include Dreck Nash,
who has tortured cats and beaten his dog so hard with a
broom handle that the broomstick broke in two.
Currently, Dreck is the biggest pro-"ar" hypocritical
loudmouth in the groups. I say hypocritical because it
is well known that he consumes animal products by the
train-load.
Ray
Are we talking at cross purposes here?
I refer to the guy terminally ill, who has already had his life extended by
experimental medication, not that it will do him any good. But my point is
*No life has been taken*. That is miles away from butcher mercer and
'vivisection'.
>
>
Zakhar
snip
> >
> > Thanks Ray. Even though I've been called 'CNUT' on more than one
occasion
> > and an inaccurate new post has been sent, I am prepared to "build
> bridges".
> > Even one of 'pretend it never happened', I hope Derek can do the same.
>
>
> Right Derek,
>
> Job half done,
>
> It's not a 'backing off' scenario, it's a subject for negotiation. You are
> the most experienced poster on this NG, you have taught me a hell of lot.
In
> fact I feel more than a little upset and uneasy with the present
situation.
> In blunt 'Yorkshire terms' a continuance of the present dispute means we
are
> "fucked", and only one side can benefit.
>
> I hope I know you well enough to say "Come on - you miserable old (sorry
> middle aged) fuck - talk to the man. I'll have a word with you missus if
you
> don't! - that's a threat.
Ray, I tried.
I hope you can see the better man.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Zakhar
The guy with vCJD has not consented to these experiments, he is incapable,
as an animal is. If it is acceptable to experimenting on him, surely if an
animal is in the *same* circumstance, then one could conduct the *same*
experiment. All I've done is changed the species.
I do not favour "vivisection" as it is being defined here.
>
> >
> >
>
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
The loudest ~~jonnie~~, but not the most representative.
>
> I forgot, in my earlier list, to include Dreck Nash,
> who has tortured cats and beaten his dog so hard with a
> broom handle that the broomstick broke in two.
> Currently, Dreck is the biggest pro-"ar" hypocritical
> loudmouth in the groups. I say hypocritical because it
> is well known that he consumes animal products by the
> train-load.
"Well Known" ~~jonnie, by whom?
>
Ray
It has often been said on this NG, that I do not know my arse from my elbow.
Right now I am begining to wonder:-)
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
> > Take all
> > > interests into account and then make a decision.
> >
> > You're retreating into vague generalities. What do you think we're doing
> > when we exterminate pests in lodging houses?
> Why talk of 'Lodging houses' ~~ jonnies~~ house is so filthy - even the
rats
> wear boiler suites.
Because we kill mice and rats among other critters by the gazillion in
lodging houses every year in defense of human health. In light of this it
makes no logical sense that ARAs say nothing of this fact, yet make such an
uproar, to the point of threatening researchers' lives, over the generally
humane use of rodents in the name of human health.
Please explain the logic, in your own words, if you can.
Zakhar
Life's too short for arguing, especially here in cyber-land.
Not only that, it's distracting me from my game of playing with
~~jonnie_the_dwarf~~.
~~jonnies~~ like a toy poodle, small, ugly, sometimes funny, sometimes
irritating, but above all, not to be taken seriously.
>
>
Jonathan Ball
The most representative, Dump.
You certainly aren't going to hold yourself up as
representative, are you? You never write a fucking
word about 'ar', Dump.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
The loudest, hacker
>
> You certainly aren't going to hold yourself up as
> representative, are you? You never write a fucking
> word about 'ar', Dump.
Read tonights postings you ignorant piece of virus sending shit. Bt have
already traced you to SF.
Ray
Does that also make me a vivisectionist?
See you at HLS.
Jonathan Ball
>>>>>You simply can not randomly pick a couple of people and say they are
>>>>>represtative of the AR movement.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not picking them randomly, shitwipe. These have
>>>>been the loudest proponents of "ar" in the newsgroups.
>>>
>>>
>>>The loudest ~~jonnie~~, but not the most representative.
>>
>>The most representative, Dump.
>
>
> The loudest, hacker
The most representative, Dump.
What are you suggesting I hacked?
>
>>You certainly aren't going to hold yourself up as
>>representative, are you? You never write a fucking
>>word about 'ar', Dump.
>
>
> Read tonights postings you ignorant piece of virus sending shit. Bt have
> already traced you to SF.
"BT" haven't traced me anywhere, you sack of shit. I
haven't sent any viruses, ever. That's the reason you
have no evidence, Dump: I haven't done it.
Dutch
[..]
> > The guy with vCJD has not consented to these experiments, he is
incapable,
> > as an animal is. If it is acceptable to experimenting on him, surely
if an
> > animal is in the *same* circumstance, then one could conduct the
*same*
> > experiment. All I've done is changed the species.
> >
> > I do not favour "vivisection" as it is being defined here.
> >
> I see the point and I agree with you.
Explain.
Zakhar is also ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection
of the open-heart surgical technique. How do YOU judge that? Would it
make more sense to just kill the unwanted dogs and have their lives end
pointlessly?
> Does that also make me a vivisectionist?
Of course.
Zakhar
I'm am not ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection of the
open-heart surgical technique.
In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description you give above,
you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be experimented on, as
well as the dog or other human.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> What if the pain-free use of 600 pound dogs in research (dogs that would
> have been killed anyway and served no purpose) meant that many thousands
> of people *and* animals' lives could be extended and much awful pain and
> suffering alleviated? Would you support that?
Each case is different, and saying one hypothetical case is OK and another
not serves very little purpose, except to demonstrate that there isn't a
fixed line. From what you have written I would not rule it out. I would not
rule it out even if the word dog was changed to man, or even Zakhar.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Zakhar
Thanks.
>
> Does that also make me a vivisectionist?
I know how anti-vivisectionist you are, so you have understood my point. I'm
glad, as I respect your view.
>
> See you at HLS.
I support the closure of HLS. I have an additional concern that closing HLS
will push their work to other countries where the work is less controlled,
so the effort must also be in changing legislation that cause these
experiments in the first place.
>
>
Zakhar
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ky0eb.46282$TM4.37943@pd7tw2no...
> > "Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > > The guy with vCJD has not consented to these experiments, he is
> > incapable,
> > > > as an animal is. If it is acceptable to experimenting on him, surely
> > if an
> > > > animal is in the *same* circumstance, then one could conduct the
> > *same*
> > > > experiment. All I've done is changed the species.
> > > >
> > > > I do not favour "vivisection" as it is being defined here.
> > > >
> > > I see the point and I agree with you.
> >
> > Explain.
> >
> > Zakhar is also ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection
> > of the open-heart surgical technique. How do YOU judge that? Would it
> > make more sense to just kill the unwanted dogs and have their lives end
> > pointlessly?
>
> I'm am not ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection of the
> open-heart surgical technique.
>
> In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description you give above,
> you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be experimented on,
as
> well as the dog or other human.
The more I think of the more I think of how deceitful you've been.
The question you cited did not state:
1) The experimentation was lethal.
2) It was used to perfect open-heart surgical technique.
My answer did not state:
1) I was ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection of the
open-heart surgical technique.
My answer did state:
1) I would not rule out the use of me in the experiment.
You really are a shit Dutch.
In recent weeks I've noticed a degradation of you honesty and intent. It's
reached a new low, that leaves a bad taste.
Ray
The end of 'vivisection' and it's proponents. I thought we were trying to
make some headway via our oun small efforts on theses forums.
Results are best achieved if we all work in unity, but the last couple of
days seem rather problematical in that respect.
Dwelling on single words and political dogma is not the answer, our
alignment with the truth and our inner feelings are the important issue.
The main reason for my postings on these NGs is to try and get a better deal
for animals in the lousy world, those who place barriers do the cause little
good. I may fail, but sure as hell it will get my best shot.
Personal issues cloud our intentions.
Abuse, sarcasm and general 'rough and tumble' extraction of the urine, are
tools for use on the opposition, not each other.
I will leave you with a 'tried and tested' little maxim - 'Fuck em all'
except two, they can fuck each other.
That encapsulates my feelings on this issue to which I intend to make no
further reference.
Ray
You ask me to explain 'Your Logic', I can't.
You start with the premise that I kill mice and rats, that is a lie - I
don't, so I have nothing to explain. Shove that up your pseudo academic blow
hole.
>
>
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Ray wrote:
>
> >>>>>You simply can not randomly pick a couple of people and say they are
> >>>>>represtative of the AR movement.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm not picking them randomly, shitwipe. These have
> >>>>been the loudest proponents of "ar" in the newsgroups.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The loudest ~~jonnie~~, but not the most representative.
> >>
> >>The most representative, Dump.
> >
> >
> > The loudest, hacker
>
> The most representative, Dump.
>
> What are you suggesting I hacked?
>
> >
> >>You certainly aren't going to hold yourself up as
> >>representative, are you? You never write a fucking
> >>word about 'ar', Dump.
> >
> >
> > Read tonights postings you ignorant piece of virus sending shit. Bt have
> > already traced you to SF.
>
> "BT" haven't traced me anywhere, you sack of shit. I
> haven't sent any viruses, ever. That's the reason you
> have no evidence, Dump: I haven't done it.
OK ~~jonnie~~.
Ray
Also pisses in the corner of the room when nobody's looking.
> >
>
>
Jonathan Ball
>>>See you at HLS.
>>
>>I support the closure of HLS. I have an additional concern that closing HLS
>>will push their work to other countries where the work is less controlled,
>>so the effort must also be in changing legislation that cause these
>>experiments in the first place.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
> We who care about animals
That lets you out, loser. You do not care about
animals. All you care about is a cheap trick for
trying to pat yourself on the back.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
That cheap little remark is not worthy of an insult ~~jonnie~~
>
Dutch
I was being generous, if anything, you supported it wholeheartedly.
>
> In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description you give
above,
> you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be experimented
on, as
> well as the dog or other human.
That means you are prepared to agree with the use of dogs.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > What if the pain-free use of 600 pound dogs in research (dogs that
would
> > have been killed anyway and served no purpose) meant that many
thousands
> > of people *and* animals' lives could be extended and much awful pain
and
> > suffering alleviated? Would you support that?
>
> Each case is different, and saying one hypothetical case is OK and
another
> not serves very little purpose, except to demonstrate that there isn't
a
> fixed line. From what you have written I would not rule it out. I
would not
> rule it out even if the word dog was changed to man, or even Zakhar.
You didn't oppose the use of dogs in the situation I cited, therefore
you agree with vivisection. Saying you would volunteer yourself is
meaningless posturing, you wouldn't volunteer and you know you would not
be accepted anyway.
Dutch
Are you so naive to think that practising open-heart surgery before it
was perfected would not be lethal?
> 2) It was used to perfect open-heart surgical technique.
So what? Is development of open-heart surgery not a worthwhile enough
cause? My follow-up response explained it specifically and you didn't
object.
> My answer did not state:
>
> 1) I was ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection of
the
> open-heart surgical technique.
You don't have to say the word ambivalence to demonstrate it. "From what
you have written I would not rule it out." is ambivalence at best. It's
actually closer to full-out support.
> My answer did state:
>
> 1) I would not rule out the use of me in the experiment.
What do you suppose that means? It is evidence that you support the
process and are trying to appear to level the playing field, which you
aren't doing, because the offer is obviously a token one.
> You really are a shit Dutch.
>
> In recent weeks I've noticed a degradation of you honesty and intent.
It's
> reached a new low, that leaves a bad taste.
You're upset because I am highlighting your true beliefs, you prefer to
hide them in equivocations so you can appear to part of "the side" when
you really aren't. You want the cachet you think being a part of the
side brings, but you can't pull it off because you aren't a good enough
liar.
Dutch
"Society" kills rodents by the carload. You're part of society aren't
you? If they were not killed in habitations, diseases would soon ravage
through the human population as they did regularly many years ago. Is
that what you support? because if you condemn the extermination of
rodents that's what you'll get.
The point is, AR doesn't demonstrate against this, at ALL, yet many
times more rodents die in this way, much more painfully, than in
research labs. In both cases the purpose is the protection of human
health. I can't explain this apparent contradiction, can you?
Dutch
> Also pisses in the corner of the room when nobody's looking.
Cute, that metaphor describes your posting style to a tee.
Radical Moderate
>
> It's not 'OK' to kill mice in houses or for any other reason.
>
The cats aren't going to like that idea.
Radical Moderate
>
> Zakhar is also ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection
> of the open-heart surgical technique. How do YOU judge that? Would it
> make more sense to just kill the unwanted dogs and have their lives end
> pointlessly?
>
In either event the dog is taken to some location and held while someone
injects something into its vein; the dog then loses consciousness. From
the dog's point of view, it's much the same experience either way; what
happens to an insensate body after that point makes a difference only to
human sensibilities - unless, of course, someone is proposing to wake
the dog up after surgery...
Radical Moderate
> "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message
> news:7e60f8898aaf540e...@news.teranews.com...
>
>>The question you cited did not state:
>>
>>1) The experimentation was lethal.
>>
> Are you so naive to think that practising open-heart surgery before it
> was perfected would not be lethal?
>
The idea of surgery is that the patient is supposed to survive it. At
some point someone would have to demonstrate that such outcome is possible.
Dutch
That's irrelevant to AR fanatics because it's the idea of humans
*benefiting from* the death that they claim to oppose. Yet ARAs tolerate
the killing of animals such as rodents when it's a "defensive" manoeuvre
to protect health, but killing animals as a pre-emptive act in the name
of human health is forbidden. Derek has said he wouldn't sacrifice a
single flea in the name of research to save a hundred people, yet when
asked if he killed fleas on his dog, he fell silent. Strange, strange
people these..
Dutch
> >>
> >>1) The experimentation was lethal.
> >>
> > Are you so naive to think that practising open-heart surgery before
it
> > was perfected would not be lethal?
> >
>
> The idea of surgery is that the patient is supposed to survive it. At
> some point someone would have to demonstrate that such outcome is
possible.
Yes, after many tries aamof, I still remember the famous newsreel of
doctor Barnard and the surviving dog with the heart of another.
It's revealing that ARAs cheered when he died in 2001
http://www.european-vegetarian.org/1122.0.html while they and their
children's children benefit in perpetuity from the brilliant work of
pioneers like him.
Ray
If they were not killed in habitations, diseases would soon ravage
> through the human population as they did regularly many years ago.
You mean like HIV in humans?
Is
> that what you support? because if you condemn the extermination of
> rodents that's what you'll get.
I support no killing.
>
> The point is, AR doesn't demonstrate against this, at ALL, yet many
> times more rodents die in this way, much more painfully, than in
> research labs.
That is your opinion not fact.
In both cases the purpose is the protection of human
> health. I can't explain this apparent contradiction, can you?
The purpose of animal experimentation is to line the pockets of the drug
companies, not the protection of human health. There is no contradictiion
other than in your mind.
>
>
Ray
> "Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>
> > Also pisses in the corner of the room when nobody's looking.
>
> Cute, that metaphor describes your posting style to a tee.
Thanks:-)
>
>
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sx_db.9106$NX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I forgot, in my earlier list, to include Derek Nash,
> who has tortured cats and beaten his dog so hard with a
> broom handle that the broomstick broke in two.
I have proved that the person who wrote those
allegations, lied about me;
From: Allison McDowall
To: **my older sister**
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Family man - Derek?
"I can lie about your family if i want, especially after the way you
have behaved towards David even his own mother put the phone
down on him without saying what she was upset about and now
Dave will probably never talk to her again. If she is upset with
him about the news group then that's her problem because Dave
has had nothing to so with that stupid ng for months now."
[end]
From :**my older sister**
To: Allison McDowall
Sent: Date :Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:21:05 +0100
no need for you to get soooooo upset and excited Alison, its
really not good for you my dear :)))))
You will be so pleased to know its all sorted this end.. and
it wasn't that hard to come clean now was it sweetheart???.....
although maybe next time you might try a little harder to own
up a little sooner????
Now that we know that it was YOU who was the instigator,
the liar, the Shafter MY mother is more than happy ......and
that my dear is all I care about..
Im not sure quite how you are going to achieve leaving the
family when you never belonged in the first place, but like all
the other lies you connived and concocted .. Im sure you will
find a way
[end]
And you already know of this admission, so while I'm
completely vindicated by it, your repetition of her lies
makes you equally as bad a liar as she is, and that your
sources of information are thoroughly untrustworthy. It
suits me just fine, liar Jon.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sx_db.9106$NX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>I forgot, in my earlier list, to include Derek Nash,
>>who has tortured cats and beaten his dog so hard with a
>>broom handle that the broomstick broke in two.
>
>
> I have proved that
you are a liar. That's what you've proved. You said
you killfiled me, and here we are only a few weeks
later, and look at you. You've disgraced yourself,
which I thought you couldn't do any worse than you
already had.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:jhheb.10066$NX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sx_db.9106$NX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>I forgot, in my earlier list, to include Derek Nash,
> >>who has tortured cats and beaten his dog so hard with a
> >>broom handle that the broomstick broke in two.
> >
> >
> > I have proved that
>
> you are a liar. That's what you've proved. You said
> you killfiled me, and here we are only a few weeks
> later, and look at you.
It's a good job that I did take you out of my killfile,
else I wouldn't've been able to rectify this situation
here where you've lied about me, again. You're like
a child that needs constant supervision.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:jhheb.10066$NX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:sx_db.9106$NX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I forgot, in my earlier list, to include Derek Nash,
>>>>who has tortured cats and beaten his dog so hard with a
>>>>broom handle that the broomstick broke in two.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have proved that
>>
>>you are a liar. That's what you've proved. You said
>>you killfiled me, and here we are only a few weeks
>>later, and look at you.
>
>
> It's a good job that I did take you out of my killfile,
> else I wouldn't've been able to rectify this situation
> here where you've lied about me
That kind of rationale is what makes you a
*pathological* liar, Dreck. Lots of people are
occasionally situational liars, but they know that
lying is a bad thing, that they're succumbing to a
weakness. You, on the other hand, ALWAYS look for and
- surprise! - find a rationale for your lying and other
bad behavior.
This is the most concrete example of what I mean about
your being a lifelong moral shirker. It is ALWAYS
someone else's - ANYONE else's - fault when you do
something bad, never yours. You think I'm merely
trying to be insulting with this kind of analysis, but
I'm not. I firmly believe it.
This faulty thinking of yours underlays your stupid
claim that there are no "accidents". You are a
lifelong moral shirker, so you falsely believe everyone
else is as well, and when someone says that he had an
accident, you believe that he is simply shirking,
again, just as you always shirk.
I'm not kidding, or merely trying to be insulting, with
a single word of this. You really are an amoral shit.
You made a mistake taking me out of your killfile,
shitbag, because this is going to be a constant theme.
Dutch
news:blbj1o$h1c$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
You're fortunate you don't live in a lodging house, so screw them, is that
it?
> If they were not killed in habitations, diseases would soon ravage
> > through the human population as they did regularly many years ago.
> You mean like HIV in humans?
Far more dangerous. More like Legionnaire's disease and Hunta, the Black
Plague, highly contagious diseases spread through the air via dry mouse
droppings.
> Is
> > that what you support? because if you condemn the extermination of
> > rodents that's what you'll get.
>
> I support no killing.
So you support dying by the million of horrible diseases, because that's the
alternative to the extermination of pests.
> > The point is, AR doesn't demonstrate against this, at ALL, yet many
> > times more rodents die in this way, much more painfully, than in
> > research labs.
>
> That is your opinion not fact.
It's fact. There are no regulations controlling the suffering of vermin. Lab
mice are subject to strict government regs.
> In both cases the purpose is the protection of human
> > health. I can't explain this apparent contradiction, can you?
>
> The purpose of animal experimentation is to line the pockets of the drug
> companies, not the protection of human health. There is no contradictiion
> other than in your mind.
Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!! You're INSANE!!!!
Zakhar
You're doing again, you deceitful bastard. You did NOT state anything about
sugery that I responded to. "dogs in research" is all you stated.
>
> > 2) It was used to perfect open-heart surgical technique.
>
> So what? Is development of open-heart surgery not a worthwhile enough
> cause? My follow-up response explained it specifically and you didn't
> object.
I did not demonstrate ambivalence.
>
> > My answer did not state:
> >
> > 1) I was ambivalent about the use of pound dogs in the perfection of
> the
> > open-heart surgical technique.
>
> You don't have to say the word ambivalence to demonstrate it. "From what
> you have written I would not rule it out." is ambivalence at best. It's
> actually closer to full-out support.
Not rule out what you wrote the first time you lying shitbag.
>
> > My answer did state:
> >
> > 1) I would not rule out the use of me in the experiment.
>
> What do you suppose that means? It is evidence that you support the
> process and are trying to appear to level the playing field, which you
> aren't doing, because the offer is obviously a token one.
From what you wrote it was not token. Research means all sorts of things.
>
> > You really are a shit Dutch.
> >
> > In recent weeks I've noticed a degradation of you honesty and intent.
> It's
> > reached a new low, that leaves a bad taste.
>
> You're upset because I am highlighting your true beliefs, you prefer to
> hide them in equivocations so you can appear to part of "the side" when
> you really aren't. You want the cachet you think being a part of the
> side brings, but you can't pull it off because you aren't a good enough
> liar.
Bollocks liar.
Zakhar
You stated NOTHING about OHS that I responded to.
>
> >
> > In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description you give
> above,
> > you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be experimented
> on, as
> > well as the dog or other human.
>
> That means you are prepared to agree with the use of dogs.
For research. That's ALL you stated RESEARCH. I don't mind be used for some
types of research.
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > > What if the pain-free use of 600 pound dogs in research (dogs that
> would
> > > have been killed anyway and served no purpose) meant that many
> thousands
> > > of people *and* animals' lives could be extended and much awful pain
> and
> > > suffering alleviated? Would you support that?
> >
> > Each case is different, and saying one hypothetical case is OK and
> another
> > not serves very little purpose, except to demonstrate that there isn't
> a
> > fixed line. From what you have written I would not rule it out. I
> would not
> > rule it out even if the word dog was changed to man, or even Zakhar.
>
> You didn't oppose the use of dogs in the situation I cited, therefore
> you agree with vivisection. Saying you would volunteer yourself is
> meaningless posturing, you wouldn't volunteer and you know you would not
> be accepted anyway.
You stated NOTHING about vivisection, you stated RESEARCH.
Research, can be just observation in a natural habitat, right up to
vivisection. You did NOT state vivisection, you lying git.
Zakhar
Very eloquent, and true!
>
>
> The main reason for my postings on these NGs is to try and get a better
deal
> for animals in the lousy world, those who place barriers do the cause
little
> good. I may fail, but sure as hell it will get my best shot.
>
>
> Personal issues cloud our intentions.
> Abuse, sarcasm and general 'rough and tumble' extraction of the urine, are
> tools for use on the opposition, not each other.
>
> I will leave you with a 'tried and tested' little maxim - 'Fuck em all'
> except two, they can fuck each other.
> That encapsulates my feelings on this issue to which I intend to make no
> further reference.
I will try and adopt the same maxim.
>
>
Zakhar
"Radical Moderate" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3F79052A...@home.com...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> >
> > It's not 'OK' to kill mice in houses or for any other reason.
>
> >
> The cats aren't going to like that idea.
You are the epitome of a seagull poster.
>
Ray
Difficult with these little chiwawa's nipping at your heels.
I like all animals, but these little fuckers are just asking for a kick up
the arse.
>
> >
> >
>
>
Dutch
Another typical vague reply...
[..]
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
> > > The question you cited did not state:
> > >
> > > 1) The experimentation was lethal.
> >
> > Are you so naive to think that practising open-heart surgery before it
> > was perfected would not be lethal?
>
> You're doing again, you deceitful bastard. You did NOT state anything
about
> sugery that I responded to. "dogs in research" is all you stated.
Fine, now you understand. Do you support the use of pound dogs in the
development of heart surgery?
Is it better or more moral to allow the animals to be euthanized and to NOT
develop heart surgery techniques on their insensate bodies?
Are you pleased that we have such treatments now nonetheless?
[..]
Zakhar
What about all the lies, Dutch?
Do you mind being used for all research, some research or no research? Not
be vague.
>
>
> [..]
>
>
Zakhar
> "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> [..]
>
> > > > The question you cited did not state:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The experimentation was lethal.
> > >
> > > Are you so naive to think that practising open-heart surgery before it
> > > was perfected would not be lethal?
> >
> > You're doing again, you deceitful bastard. You did NOT state anything
> about
> > sugery that I responded to. "dogs in research" is all you stated.
>
> Fine, now you understand.
NO. You got it WRONG. You LIED. You just accused Derek of not saying sorry.
>Do you support the use of pound dogs in the
> development of heart surgery?
No. There's enough fat Americans to practice on. :-o ;-)
>
> Is it better or more moral to allow the animals to be euthanized and to
NOT
> develop heart surgery techniques on their insensate bodies?
Two wrongs do not make right.
>
> Are you pleased that we have such treatments now nonetheless?
Of course.
>
>
> [..]
>
>
frlpwr
>
> The nazi "feral" joined a usenet lynch mob to "get" a veterinarian.
I've not joined any usenet lynch mob, cocksucker. I simply commented on
Derek's mistaken understanding of eye trauma in cats and his support of
a vet who failed to administer life-saving treatment without
pre-payment.
As I explained to Nash, there is no shortage of people to "get". I
prefer to "get" closer to home.
>
> > These 'Newsgroups' are sick, please do not confuse one with t'other.
>
> "ar" is a sickness, indeed.
So is blind conformity.
frlpwr
(snip)
>
> Do you mean "the side" who joins a lynch mob after a
> hard-working vet who treated a cat for head truma
> before any payment?
A saline drip is not treatment for head trauma. It's stabilization
until the check clears the bank. If you bothered to take any of the
cats and kittens you've injured to the vet, you'd know this.
> MY side is with the truth
That's the same thing Dutch says.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>>These 'Newsgroups' are sick, please do not confuse one with t'other.
>>
>>"ar" is a sickness, indeed.
>
>
> So is blind conformity.
That's what you are guilty of.
Dutch
> > > > > In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description you give
> > > > above,
> > > > > you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be
> experimented
> > > > on, as
> > > > > well as the dog or other human.
> > > >
> > > > That means you are prepared to agree with the use of dogs.
> > >
> > > For research. That's ALL you stated RESEARCH. I don't mind be used for
> > some
> > > types of research.
> >
> > Another typical vague reply...
>
> What about all the lies, Dutch?
What lies are those?
> Do you mind being used for all research, some research or no research? Not
> be vague.
I see, so rather than answer the question you ask me a question. OK, I would
participate in clinical trials if they might help the advancement of
medicine.
I would not volunteer for a lethal experimental procedure, nor would anyone
else, that's why we use animals. You think that's awful? Then you should put
your money where your mouth is and forgo some life-saving medical
treatments. We've had this discussion before, and I recall the red herring
of humans that may have been used against their will was introduced to cloud
the issue. It worked pretty well that time, it won't work again.
Do you support the use of dogs to develop surgical techniques or would you
prefer they just be destroyed? Nonetheless are you happy that those
life-saving procedures are in place now?
Ray
Coming from the "bottom licker" of the groups #1 psychopath, I take that as
a complement.
>
>
Zakhar
> "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> [..]
> > > > > > In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description you
give
> > > > > above,
> > > > > > you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be
> > experimented
> > > > > on, as
> > > > > > well as the dog or other human.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means you are prepared to agree with the use of dogs.
> > > >
> > > > For research. That's ALL you stated RESEARCH. I don't mind be used
for
> > > some
> > > > types of research.
> > >
> > > Another typical vague reply...
> >
> > What about all the lies, Dutch?
>
> What lies are those?
You know what lies, you deceitful sod.
>
> > Do you mind being used for all research, some research or no research?
Not
> > be vague.
>
> I see, so rather than answer the question you ask me a question. OK, I
would
> participate in clinical trials if they might help the advancement of
> medicine.
Sounds vague to me.
>
> I would not volunteer for a lethal experimental procedure, nor would
anyone
> else, that's why we use animals. You think that's awful? Then you should
put
> your money where your mouth is and forgo some life-saving medical
> treatments.
Forgoing life-saving medical treatment won't do anything for dead animals.
Try all you want, you can't change history.
>We've had this discussion before, and I recall the red herring
> of humans that may have been used against their will was introduced to
cloud
> the issue. It worked pretty well that time, it won't work again.
>
> Do you support the use of dogs to develop surgical techniques
No.
> or would you
> prefer they just be destroyed?
No.
>Nonetheless are you happy that those
> life-saving procedures are in place now?
I'm satisfied they are here now. Not how they got here, but there's nothing
I, or you can do about it.
>
>
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > [..]
> >
> > > > > The question you cited did not state:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) The experimentation was lethal.
> > > >
> > > > Are you so naive to think that practising open-heart surgery before
it
> > > > was perfected would not be lethal?
> > >
> > > You're doing again, you deceitful bastard. You did NOT state anything
> > about
> > > sugery that I responded to. "dogs in research" is all you stated.
> >
> > Fine, now you understand.
>
> NO. You got it WRONG. You LIED.
Bullshit, where did I lie?
> You just accused Derek of not saying sorry.
What??
> >Do you support the use of pound dogs in the
> > development of heart surgery?
>
> No. There's enough fat Americans to practice on. :-o ;-)
Cute.. but not a viable alternative.
> > Is it better or more moral to allow the animals to be euthanized and to
> NOT
> > develop heart surgery techniques on their insensate bodies?
>
> Two wrongs do not make right.
Non-sequitor and begging the question. The wrong is to waste an opportunity
to learn a life-saving procedure..
> > Are you pleased that we have such treatments now nonetheless?
>
> Of course.
Are you aware that many more lives have been saved than were lost, and much
more suffering averted than was caused? From a utilitarian point of view the
development of heart surgery using insensate animal subject is a slam dunk.
As an ARA of course that doesn't matter to you. There's reason number one I
HATE AR.
Dutch on shaw
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:vnjk03k...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote
> > >
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > [..]
> > > > > > > In the case you ++ORIGINALLY++ cited (not the description
you
> give
> > > > > > above,
> > > > > > > you deceitful bastard), I said I would be prepared to be
> > > experimented
> > > > > > on, as
> > > > > > > well as the dog or other human.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That means you are prepared to agree with the use of dogs.
> > > > >
> > > > > For research. That's ALL you stated RESEARCH. I don't mind be
used
> for
> > > > some
> > > > > types of research.
> > > >
> > > > Another typical vague reply...
> > >
> > > What about all the lies, Dutch?
> >
> > What lies are those?
>
> You know what lies, you deceitful sod.
Not an answer. You accused me of lying, now you can't tell me where.
Nice going.
> > > Do you mind being used for all research, some research or no
research?
> Not
> > > be vague.
> >
> > I see, so rather than answer the question you ask me a question. OK,
I
> would
> > participate in clinical trials if they might help the advancement of
> > medicine.
>
> Sounds vague to me.
Nothing vague about it. What don't you get?
> > I would not volunteer for a lethal experimental procedure, nor would
> anyone
> > else, that's why we use animals. You think that's awful? Then you
should
> put
> > your money where your mouth is and forgo some life-saving medical
> > treatments.
>
> Forgoing life-saving medical treatment won't do anything for dead
animals.
> Try all you want, you can't change history.
Keep demanding that the system be changed, keep attacking those who
develop life-saving treatments, and all the while keep using them.
Sounds like a win-win approach, you get to feel morally pure and get to
keep your health.
> >We've had this discussion before, and I recall the red herring
> > of humans that may have been used against their will was introduced
to
> cloud
> > the issue. It worked pretty well that time, it won't work again.
> >
> > Do you support the use of dogs to develop surgical techniques
>
> No.
>
> > or would you
> > prefer they just be destroyed?
> No.
There aren't enough homes for hundreds of thousands of stray and
abandoned dogs so there's no other viable option.
> >Nonetheless are you happy that those
> > life-saving procedures are in place now?
>
> I'm satisfied they are here now. Not how they got here, but there's
nothing
> I, or you can do about it.
If you could turn back time you would have those procedures not be
developed. That's what in effect you're advocating now, the development
of medical science is an ongoing process, you would have it effectively
come to a full stop, subjecting future generations to untold unecessary
death and suffering.
You'd be dangerous if you had any power.
Dutch
news:3F79C7...@flash.net...
The difference is, in my case it's true.
pearl
> There aren't enough homes for hundreds of thousands of stray and
> abandoned dogs so there's no other viable option.
Put some of the billion$ now spent on vivi$ection towards
pet-planning education, and spaying and neutering programs?
Put some of those redundant vivisectionists to good use?
Dutch
> > abandoned dogs so there's no other viable option.
>
> Put some of the billion$ now spent on vivi$ection towards
> pet-planning education, and spaying and neutering programs?
> Put some of those redundant vivisectionists to good use?
That's a flippant response. Although I agree with the idea of educating
people about animals and pet ownership, the issue has nothing to do with
the number of researchers. If people protest the humane use of abandoned
pets in research and cause it to be stopped as they have in many places,
that only means research facilities must raise the animals themselves.
Most of those people who want to end the use of pound dogs still want
research to continue to find cures and procedures to improve health.
Those protesters, many of whom agree to allow their own bodies to be
harvested for organs after death, are fighting at cross-purposes not
allowing animals' deaths to be meaningful.
swamp
<camco...@btconnect.com> wrote:
>I support no killing.
Then move to Pluto. Supporting "no killing" isn't really supporting
much.
--swamp
tortrix
> Can we? Are we willing to accept the consequences? You asked why it's OK
> to kill fleas on a dog but not OK to kill them to obtain medical
> advances. Ask yourself why is it OK to exterminate mice in lodging
> houses but not to obtain medical advances.
First, do you understand the concept of "breeding more" of them?
If you did not breed more of them, more of them would not have to die
-- by either deliberate euthanasia or left alone to starve.
Sorry -- gotta go. GREAT pain. I know this does not answer your question,
but it is a start.
Ray
"swamp" <sw...@xxxxspamadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1poknvkg3hr6uru07...@4ax.com...
What is more important than the sanctity of kife?
Ray
I've been mad for ----ing years, absolutely years.
"Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon"
I've got the file on 'Musicmatch', unfortunately I can't post it ~~
somebody~~ may complain to my ISP.
>
>
Ray
That's a difficult one to answer - should of course been "Life".
>
>