Secret Lab Notes
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: Redditch Animal Rights
To: midlands-an...@yahoogroups.co.uk
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: Secret lab notes reveal dog cruelty
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1153457,00.html
Secret lab notes reveal dog cruelty
Mark Townsend
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Beagles have been gassed until they passed out in
secret tests to monitor the effects of a chemical
which was banned more than 15 years ago.
Confidential documents reveal how the bodies of dogs
would convulse violently during recent experiments at
the controversial Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory.
The news has reignited the debate over the use of
animals in experiments. Campaigners vowed last night
to escalate their attempts to close down the
Cambridgeshire site while scientists defended the
experiments as essential.
Scientists used the dogs to test the effects of HCFC
chemicals which, because of their ozone-depleting
properties, Ministers agreed to begin phasing out
under the Montreal Protocol in 1987. They have been
banned in foams and solvents but still exist in old
equipment.
Detailed papers leaked to The Observer record how the
bodies of beagles would shake and sway as the
creatures displayed various symptoms of agitation
until they finally lost consciousness. The effects
increased markedly the greater the dose of the
chemical, a refrigerant once widely used in aerosols
and fire extinguishers.
Protesters claim the tests - to measure the effect of
hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) on the heart - were
futile because the substance is being taken out of
use. However, scientists at the laboratory said the
experiments were crucial to understanding the effects
of the chemical on people.
The laboratory, which is protected by a 10ft security
fence, is the target of an intense closure campaign by
the animal rights organisation SHAC (Stop Huntingdon
Animal Cruelty). Protests against the laboratory began
after a TV documentary in 1997 that showed HLS staff
kicking a beagle and hurling it against a wall.
Last night a spokesman for the controversial group -
which has been at the centre of allegations involving
violent and intimidatory tactics against HLS staff -
condemned the experiments as 'disgusting'. He warned
that support for the laboratory's closure had reached
a historical high with 2,000 hardcore members prepared
to battle until the site is shut down.
'In these experiments you can see dogs struggling,
vomiting and passing out. Where are the politicians
condemning these experiments?' added the spokesman.
Details of the tests come weeks after a proposed
flagship laboratory at the University of Cambridge was
abandoned because of the cost of defending the
building against protesters.
During the beagle testing, which ended last year,
scientists fed HCFC 22 through pipes to gas masks
attached to the faces of male beagles seven to eight
months old. Their notes record the dogs enduring
varying degrees of discomfort from 'pawing of mask',
jerking of heads, 'whole body tremors' and an
inability to focus properly.
Ultimately some of the dogs lost consciousness after
being exposed to the gas for up to 14 minutes during
the experiments, conducted last summer. Some beagles
appeared 'subdued' after the tests. A spokesman for
HLS said the dogs did not suffer lasting effects and
could be re-used in later experiments.
ipse dixit
"Ray" <R...@morebeerandbiggerglasses.com> wrote in message news:c1e3fv$5pe$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1153457,00.html
>
> Secret lab notes reveal dog cruelty
>
> Mark Townsend
> Sunday February 22, 2004
> The Observer
>
> Beagles have been gassed until they passed out in
> secret tests to monitor the effects of a chemical
> which was banned more than 15 years ago.
>
> Confidential documents reveal how the bodies of dogs
> would convulse violently during recent experiments at
> the controversial Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory.
But surely you approve, Ray, because Zaza quoted
his cost to benefit at 1:1000, and you still claim that
he's a "supporter of all animal rights issues", so surely
the people working in Huntingdon Life Sciences are
ARA's too.
Ray
"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:103l4pc...@news.supernews.com...
Please dont start again Derek.
>
>
Zakhar
Blue footed fucker.
You support vivisection. Your money is used to fund vivisection.
My money is used to support anti-vivisection organisations like the BUAV.
You write shit and do fuck all, Derek fucking Nash.
It's what you DO that makes the DIFFERENCE.
You support vivisection in a REAL way, I support its demolition in a REAL
way.
Fuck your imaginary ratios and logic puzzles, it means nothing when your
dead, nothing.
You will only leave a legacy of suffering and death, and you've done NOTHING
to address the balance except posture and puff on an ineffectual medium like
a newsgroup.
You're a nasty fucking CNUT Derek Nash.
>
>
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:103l4pc...@news.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1153457,00.html
>> >
>> > Secret lab notes reveal dog cruelty
>> >
>> > Mark Townsend
>> > Sunday February 22, 2004
>> > The Observer
>> >
>> > Beagles have been gassed until they passed out in
>> > secret tests to monitor the effects of a chemical
>> > which was banned more than 15 years ago.
>> >
>> > Confidential documents reveal how the bodies of dogs
>> > would convulse violently during recent experiments at
>> > the controversial Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory.
>>
>> But surely you approve, Ray, because Zaza quoted
>> his cost to benefit at 1:1000, and you still claim that
>> he's a "supporter of all animal rights issues", so surely
>> the people working in Huntingdon Life Sciences are
>> ARA's too.
>
>Blue footed fucker.
Now now, Zaza. I do realise that being found to be
in support of this vile trade might cause you some
embarrassment, especially as you pretend to be
outwardly against it, but calling people childish names
isn't going to make those feelings disappear or get
you off the hook I put you on.
>You support vivisection.
No, I don't. I'm for its total abolishment.
> Your money is used to fund vivisection.
My money is used to fund plenty of things I don't
support or agree with; vivisection being just one.
>My money is used to support anti-vivisection organisations like the BUAV.
I don't believe you because Google has statements
from you promoting a cost to benefit ratio at 1:1000.
You do support it, both financially and morally.
>Fuck your imaginary ratios
Your stated cost to benefit ratio isn't imaginary;
"Most animals die for experiments that do not save
or extend human life. Some you must know are
devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
of interests, and, if for example if one rabbit would
save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
should die."
Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
You can't escape what you wrote, Zaza.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor *archive script*
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
Omar Khayyam
>You're a nasty fucking CNUT
Oh, that's clever. You've swapped the middle two
letters in a four-letter word.
> Derek Nash.
Ipse dixit.
Zakhar
Where's the rest of my post you COULDN'T even attempt to answer? A dirty
~~jonnie~~ fucking trick.
You support vivisection a REAL way.
I support the abolition of vivisection in REAL way.
**It's what you **DO** that makes the difference.**
You're just full of wind and fuck all else, all you can do is lie a cheat.
You're a dirty fucking evil smelly fucking turd.
You will only leave a legacy of suffering and death, and you've done NOTHING
to address the balance except posture and puff on an ineffectual medium like
a newsgroup.
ipse dixit
>"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:sh7n301g8v71enfa5...@4ax.com...
>
No, I don't.
>I support the abolition of vivisection in REAL way.
No, you don't, and the evidence of that is found by
looking at your earlier statements promoting a cost
to benefit ratio of 1:1000, which is probably similar
to the ratio animal researchers use themselves.
"Most animals die for experiments that do not save
or extend human life. Some you must know are
devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
of interests, and, if for example if one rabbit would
save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
should die."
Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
You can't escape what you wrote, Zaza.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor *archive script*
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
Omar Khayyam
When criticising vivisectionists for what they do,
don't you ever feel a bit of a hypocrite? You
certainly look like one.
Ray
But the rest was correct Derek.
One liners - don't you love em:-)
Zakhar
Why don't you address ALL the points. I'll tell you why because you can't.
You can't even use this ineffectual medium in an ethical way.
"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:92bn30l4r9tom94v9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:48:15 -0000, "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com>
wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:sh7n301g8v71enfa5...@4ax.com...
> >
> >You support vivisection a REAL way.
>
> No, I don't.
Yes you do, YOUR money is being used to fund vivisection. You've admitted to
that.
"My money is used to fund plenty of things I don't
support or agree with; vivisection being just one."
Derek "blue foot" Nash 24 February 2004.
>
> >I support the abolition of vivisection in REAL way.
>
> No, you don't,
Yes I do. I fund the BUAV and other organisations and sanctuaries.
>and the evidence of that is found by
> looking at your earlier statements promoting a cost
> to benefit ratio of 1:1000, which is probably similar
> to the ratio animal researchers use themselves.
That's not promoting it you daft fucker.
>
> "Most animals die for experiments that do not save
> or extend human life. Some you must know are
> devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
> be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
> that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
> of interests, and, *if* for example if one rabbit would
> save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
> should die."
> Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
>
> You can't escape what you wrote, Zaza.
I wrote it. There's nothing wrong with it.
Note the *IF* part.
I've also stated that I don't believe that vivisection could save humans.
>
> The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
> Moves on: nor all your Piety nor *archive script*
> Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
> Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
> Omar Khayyam
>
> When criticising vivisectionists for what they do,
> don't you ever feel a bit of a hypocrite? You
> certainly look like one.
No Derek Nash, you are coming over as a STUPID idiot, that SUPPORTS
vivisection in a REAL way every day of your miserable life.
**It's what you **DO** that makes the difference.**
You're just full of wind and fuck all else, all you can do is lie a cheat.
You will only leave a legacy of suffering and death, and you've done
**NOTHING**
to address the balance except posture and puff on an ineffectual medium like
a newsgroup.
Get this Derek:
Your money kill and maims every day you live, you have a net negative impact
on the world, and we'd be better off without you.
IOW FOAD, the sooner the better.
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:lwO_b.10586$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> Where's the rest of my post you COULDN'T even attempt to answer?
I have nothing to answer for, unlike you, because
I don't support vivisection, like you.
> > >You support vivisection a REAL way.
> >
> > No, I don't.
>
> Yes you do, YOUR money is being used to fund
> vivisection. You've admitted to that.
>
> "My money is used to fund plenty of things I don't
> support or agree with; vivisection being just one."
My money funds it, but that doesn't mean to
say I morally support it in any way. Read that
sentence again and it tells you that.
> > >I support the abolition of vivisection in REAL way.
> >
> > No, you don't,
>
> Yes I do. I fund the BUAV and other organisations and sanctuaries.
Yeah sure, Zaza.
> >and the evidence of that is found by
> > looking at your earlier statements promoting a cost
> > to benefit ratio of 1:1000, which is probably similar
> > to the ratio animal researchers use themselves.
>
> That's not promoting it
Yes, it is, despite your puny denials. Anyone who
accepts the use of rabbits in labs to save human
lives at a cost to benefit ratio of 1:1000 is morally
supporting vivisection and keeping those labs open.
> > "Most animals die for experiments that do not save
> > or extend human life. Some you must know are
> > devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
> > be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
> > that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
> > of interests, and, *if* for example if one rabbit would
> > save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
> > should die."
> > Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
> >
> > You can't escape what you wrote, Zaza.
>
> I wrote it. There's nothing wrong with it.
There's plenty wrong with it because it shows you
are willing to see the continuance of vivisection on
animals.
> Note the *IF* part.
I have. According to you, "if one rabbit would
save1000 human lives, then that rabbit should
die." That an open support for vivisection.
Zakhar
You FUND vivisection:
"My money is used to fund plenty of things I don't
support or agree with; vivisection being just one."
Derek Nash. 24 February 2004.
fund,
noun a sum of money on which some enterprise is founded or financially
*supported*; a supply or source (of money); a store laid up; a supply; (in
plural) permanent government debts paying interest; (in plural) money
available to an organization for a project, etc, or (colloquial; usually
facetious) available to an individual.
You SUPPORT vivisection, in a REAL way every day.
You have a net NEGATIVE effect on the well being and welfare of animals,
particularly those used in VIVISECTION.
FOAD Derek.
Zakhar
a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
organisations.
b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
vivisection.
Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
Do NOT evade this question Derek Nash, just answer it A or B.
A or B?
You will evade it, just as you do everything else, like the responsibility
of you life and actions.
Jonathan Ball
> [shite, except for]
>
> You will evade it, just as you do everything else, like the responsibility
> of you life and actions.
Just answer this simple question, GregGeorge: given
that your vegetarianism is based on the same specious
reasoning as full "vegans", why AREN'T you "vegan"?
Please reply substantively, rather than with your usual
vituperation, as it is plainly a substantive and
pertinent question.
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:9TO_b.10593$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> Derek
Ipse dixit.
> You FUND vivisection:
Yes, I do, but "My money is used to fund plenty
of things I don't support or agree with; vivisection
being just one."
You, on the other hand, support it with more than
just your money, and the proof of that is written in
your quotes found in Google archives.
"Most animals die for experiments that do not save
or extend human life. Some you must know are
devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
of interests, and, *if* for example if one rabbit would
save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
should die."
Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
Your support for it is a moral support, yet you still
seem to think you're in support for animals holding
rights against us in this sort of barbaric treatment. It's
impossible to be in support of both, so it's patently
clear that your slip-up has revealed you to be a fraud,
Zaza.
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:AgP_b.6668$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I have explained it at length, as you know.
>
Jonathan Ball
Substance-free response; about what I expected.
No, you haven't explained it. You've been typically
evasive and abusive. At best, you've mumbled something
wholly inadequate about "weighing of interests", or
some such rubbish, and then have point-blank refused to
elaborate on the criteria used to do the weighing.
Please reply. Be polite, and be substantive, for a
pleasant change.
Zakhar
If I did have moral support, for the sake of argument, is the likely number
animals would be maimed or killed be greater or smaller than caused by your
funding of vivisection?
>
>
Zakhar
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:AgP_b.6668$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Impotence wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>[shite, except for]
> >>>
> >>>You will evade it, just as you do everything else, like the
> >
> > responsibility
> >
> >>>of you life and actions.
> >>
> >>Just answer this simple question, GregGeorge: given
> >>that your vegetarianism is based on the same specious
> >>reasoning as full "vegans", why AREN'T you "vegan"?
> >>Please reply substantively, rather than with your usual
> >>vituperation, as it is plainly a substantive and
> >>pertinent question.
> >
> >
> > I have explained it at length, as you know.
>
> Substance-free response; about what I expected.
>
> No, you haven't explained it. You've been typically
> evasive and abusive. At best, you've mumbled something
> wholly inadequate about "weighing of interests",
So you DO remember it!
> or
> some such rubbish, and then have point-blank refused to
> elaborate on the criteria used to do the weighing.
Morals is not a pure science it is subjective in its evaluation.
My evaluation or weighing will be different from yours and anyone else's.
Zakhar
Derek, I won't lose this thread by ~~jonnies~~ attempted hijacking. I will
remind you of the questions if don't answer.
>
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:e5P_b.10599$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
>
> a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
> organisations.
>
> b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
> vivisection.
>
> Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
Put it all in;
a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
support for the continuance of vivisection"
ipse dixt has the best effect in ridding vivisection. Zaza
will have the worst, even worse than those more open
about their support for it, because Zaza is trying to
pass himself off as an ARA out for its abolishment, and
having impostors within the abolition movement is just
as dangerous to it as any other kind of impostor in
social movements.
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:QoP_b.10613$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
Greater, because your open moral support for it
will mean the continuance of it, whereas my real
efforts to end it won't.
Zakhar
>
> "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:e5P_b.10599$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> >
> > a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
> > organisations.
> >
> > b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
> > vivisection.
> >
> > Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
>
> Put it all in;
Why didn't you answer the question as it was Derek?
> a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
>
> b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> support for the continuance of vivisection"
>
> ipse dixt has the best effect in ridding vivisection.
What do you DO? What ACTIONS do you take?
>Zaza
> will have the worst, even worse than those more open
> about their support for it, because Zaza is trying to
> pass himself off as an ARA out for its abolishment, and
> having impostors within the abolition movement is just
> as dangerous to it as any other kind of impostor in
> social movements.
You're a joke.
You're not part of any movement, you're as stagnant as anyone could get. To
be part of a MOVEment you have to take ACTIONS that are in the SAME
direction of that movement.
All your actions, including your admitted funding of vivisection are actions
in the OPPOSITE direction.
My ACTIONS are in the same direction as the anti-vivisection organisations.
Anybody reading this will see that. It's YOU that is the FRAUD, and every
attempt at discrediting me is working against your case.
You ARE a joke.
LOL.
>
>
Zakhar
> >
> > If I did have moral support, for the sake of argument, is the likely
number
> > animals would be maimed or killed be greater or smaller than caused by
your
> > funding of vivisection?
>
> Greater, because your open moral support for it
> will mean the continuance of it,
How will my THOUGHTS mean the continuance of vivisection? I do not have the
ability to control others actions including vivisectionists by the power of
thought, no matter how much I try.
It's my ACTIONS that make the difference. Like my funding and support of
anti-vivisection groups.
>whereas my real
> efforts to end it won't.
What REAL efforts?
Pontificating on an ineffectual medium like a newsgroup ACHIEVES NOTHING.
You're a fat useless bag of fuck all Derek.
>
>
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:iNP_b.10626$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:103nhhp...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:e5P_b.10599$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> > >
> > > a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
> > > organisations.
> > >
> > > b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
> > > vivisection.
> > >
> > > Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
> >
> > Put it all in;
>
Your effort was too vague and I didn't want
to leave you any wriggling room, so I rewrote
it using our previous quotes for accuracy.
> > a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> > then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
> >
> > b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> > support for the continuance of vivisection"
> >
> > ipse dixt has the best effect in ridding vivisection.
>
> What do you DO? What ACTIONS do you take?
I expose the pretenders in the movement and make
sure they don't get counted alongside the likes of
myself who actively try to abolish vivisection.
> > Zaza
> > will have the worst, even worse than those more open
> > about their support for it, because Zaza is trying to
> > pass himself off as an ARA out for its abolishment, and
> > having impostors within the abolition movement is just
> > as dangerous to it as any other kind of impostor in
> > social movements.
>
> You're a joke.
You're not finding any of it very funny, Zaza.
Dutch
> "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:e5P_b.10599$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
>
>>a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
>>organisations.
>>
>>b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
>>vivisection.
>>
>>Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
>
>
> Put it all in;
> a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
>
> b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> support for the continuance of vivisection"
No it isn't. Supporting vivisection implies that one believes that
virtually any amount of animal sacrifice is justified in the quest for
the advancement of medicine. That means support for 1000 or 1,000,000
animal deaths for a small human benefit, or whatever it takes. His
statement is acceptance of specifically an extremist scenario, a 1000
humans saved for ONE animal death. That does not reflect vivisection
support in any real way whatsoever, it's pure utilitarianism, in fact I
would guess that most opponents of vivisection would accept that
particular hypotethetical. As usual you twist and mess everything up.
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:sWP_b.10632$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:103nht5...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:QoP_b.10613$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
>
> snip
Snip and run, eh?
<unsnip>
ipse dixit
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:d8V_b.614351$ts4.56816@pd7tw3no...
> ipse dixit wrote:
> > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:e5P_b.10599$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> >
> >>a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
> >>organisations.
> >>
> >>b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
> >>vivisection.
> >>
> >>Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
> >
> >
> > Put it all in;
> > a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> > then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
> >
> > b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> > support for the continuance of vivisection"
>
> No it isn't.
Yes, it is, and only a fellow supporter of vivisection
would try to argue that it wasn't. Zaza has found a
new home with the antis.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:d8V_b.614351$ts4.56816@pd7tw3no...
>
>>ipse dixit wrote:
>>
>>>"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:e5P_b.10599$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>a) Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah" and funds anti-vivisection
>>>>organisations.
>>>>
>>>>b) Person B wrote "Person A wrote "If a rabbit...blah blah"" and funds
>>>>vivisection.
>>>>
>>>>Who has the best EFFECT against vivisection A or B?
>>>
>>>
>>> Put it all in;
>>>a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
>>> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
>>>
>>>b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
>>> support for the continuance of vivisection"
>>
>>No it isn't.
>
>
> Yes, it is
Nope, support for vivisection is something, far, far different than
accepting such an absurd hypothetical. He doesn't qualify, we don't want
him.
ipse dixit
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:iRV_b.595939$JQ1.503920@pd7tw1no...
> ipse dixit wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:d8V_b.614351$ts4.56816@pd7tw3no...
> >>ipse dixit wrote:
> >>>a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> >>> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
> >>>
> >>>b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> >>> support for the continuance of vivisection"
> >>
> >>No it isn't.
> >
> > Yes, it is
>
> Nope
Then, if HLS were to announce and promote the
use of one rabbit to save a thousand human lives,
they wouldn't be promoting vivisection? Hah!
You're a fool. To put his quote in context;
"Most animals die for experiments that do not save
or extend human life. Some you must know are
devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
of interests, and, if for example if one rabbit would
save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
should die."
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:iRV_b.595939$JQ1.503920@pd7tw1no...
>
>>ipse dixit wrote:
>>
>>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:d8V_b.614351$ts4.56816@pd7tw3no...
>>>
>>>>ipse dixit wrote:
>
>
>>>>>a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
>>>>> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
>>>>>
>>>>>b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
>>>>> support for the continuance of vivisection"
>>>>
>>>>No it isn't.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is
>>
>>Nope
>
>
> Then, if HLS were to announce and promote the
> use of one rabbit to save a thousand human lives,
> they wouldn't be promoting vivisection? Hah!
No, they would be promoting the killing of one rabbit to save a thousand
human lives, something any sane person would support. Promoting
vivisection is promoting the systematic use of an infinite number of
animals to relieve an indefinite amount of human suffering
> You're a fool.
Perhaps I am, but in this case you are.
ipse dixit
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:ACX_b.596368$JQ1.94396@pd7tw1no...
> ipse dixit wrote:
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:iRV_b.595939$JQ1.503920@pd7tw1no...
> >>ipse dixit wrote:
> >>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:d8V_b.614351$ts4.56816@pd7tw3no...
> >>>>ipse dixit wrote:
> >
> >>>>>a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> >>>>> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> >>>>> support for the continuance of vivisection"
> >>>>
> >>>>No it isn't.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, it is
> >>
> >>Nope
> >
> > Then, if HLS were to announce and promote the
> > use of one rabbit to save a thousand human lives,
> > they wouldn't be promoting vivisection? Hah!
>
> No
Then you're an idiot and a liar if you say you
believe that, because there is no doubting
Zaza'a quote as an open moral support for
vivisection.
"Can you see how Derek and others might easily
interpret your comment "for example if one rabbit
would save 1000 humans, then I could accept that
the rabbit should die", as support for vivisection?"
Pearl Thu, 9 Oct 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2os9t
pearl
Ipse- you have stated that you'd accept an animal's
death to survive if you were starving to death, but
you'd argue strenuously that that doesn't mean that
you support hunting in general. Why isn't Zakhar's
position regarding an acknowledged ("After careful
thought, I do not think that research with rabbits can
actually save humans lives." - Zakhar 2003-10-09)
hypothetical situation comparable to your 'a life for
life' scenario?
ipse dixit
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:c1i2sv$t8t$1...@kermit.esat.net...
Hunting for survival isn't advocating a cost to
benefit ratio with respect to using animals for
vivisection. Eating meat for survival is perfectly
ethical and correct. Using animals in labs to help
find meds, as Zaza proposes is entirely unethical
and completely at odds to his claimed stance on
animal rights.
Before claiming my quote on hunting for survival
somehow makes me an advocate of vivisection,
or that it is at odds to my stance on animal rights
read some of the quotes from other ARA's here
on the issue, including your own.
"BUT in the situation of the person starving on
the ice floe, in that specific moment the need
is a genuine one: hunt or die. At that point,
hunting for survival is ethical. After they get
off the ice floe, we can say they have a real
choice."
Rat 2000/02/16
"IMO, killing is justified only when it is urgently
necessary for survival, to prevent starvation or
in self-defense."
frlpwr 2000/01/20
"Yes, I conclude that hunting animals purely for
'sport' is immoral. If it's a matter of *survival*,
well, that's another kettle of fish."
Lotus 2001-10-23
"If an ARA ever accepts hunting, it is hunting done
for the sole purpose of survival, not some spurious
pleasure."
lilweed 2000/02/17
There is no doubt that Zaza's quote proves he
believes in and secretly promotes vivisection.
Apart from that above quote there are others
which prove he supports the practice as well,
and they cannot be ignored.
"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."
Zakhar 2003-09-28
From that, as well as his other example, he
has unwittingly shown that he does support
vivisection. He believes that "most of us can
accept that it's the right thing to do", and that
"we can take the same decision making process,
independent of species."
And
"I believe that animals have certain interests that
should be protected by law, some might call these
rights, some protected interests could be called
animal welfare. Like humans these protected rights
are overridden, as there is a greater good coming
from the sacrifice of the right."
Zakhar 2003-02-03
That is an open promotion of vivisection for the
"greater good."
And
"There can be cases for animal experimentation
as there can be for human experiments. It would
make sense to test a new antibiotic for guinea
pigs on guinea pigs rather than humans, don't you
think?"
Zakhar 2003-02-17
He has no defence against these statements.
Dutch
"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:103olns...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:ACX_b.596368$JQ1.94396@pd7tw1no...
> > ipse dixit wrote:
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:iRV_b.595939$JQ1.503920@pd7tw1no...
> > >>ipse dixit wrote:
> > >>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:d8V_b.614351$ts4.56816@pd7tw3no...
> > >>>>ipse dixit wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>>a) Zaza wrote, "if one rabbit would save 1000 humans,
> > >>>>> then I could accept that the rabbit should die."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>b) ipse dixit wrote, "That statement is an open moral
> > >>>>> support for the continuance of vivisection"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>No it isn't.
> > >>>
> > >>>Yes, it is
> > >>
> > >>Nope
> > >
> > > Then, if HLS were to announce and promote the
> > > use of one rabbit to save a thousand human lives,
> > > they wouldn't be promoting vivisection? Hah!
> >
> > No
>
> Then you're an idiot and a liar if you say you
> believe that,
Fallacy of poisoning the well..
> because there is no doubting
> Zaza'a quote as an open moral support for
> vivisection.
You have foolishly assumed a literal in extemis interpertation of vivisection. Even killing one rabbit to 'sustain' *one* human
life is nothing more than self-preservation, something that you have admitted you would not oppose if the animal were going to be
used as food, so why is it wrong if the means of saving the human lives is not specified?
> "Can you see how Derek and others might easily
> interpret your comment "for example if one rabbit
> would save 1000 humans, then I could accept that
> the rabbit should die", as support for vivisection?"
> Pearl Thu, 9 Oct 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2os9t
She doesn't say that *she* interperts that way.
I'm going to leave you indulge your folly now, it looks good on you.
pearl
Absolutely right, because vivisection is essentially
experimentation, which can never be guaranteed to be
of benefit, whereas the energy and nutrients contained
in meat would in an extreme situation prolong your life,
- say until rescue. However, it still requires the death
of an animal for your benefit. It is advocating a cost to
benefit ratio with respect to using animals for survival.
> Eating meat for survival is perfectly
> ethical and correct. Using animals in labs to help
> find meds, as Zaza proposes is entirely unethical
> and completely at odds to his claimed stance on
> animal rights.
If you advocate a cost to benefit ratio with respect to
using animals for survival, *if* using one rabbit *would*
save a thousand human lives, or rabbit lives for that
matter, what would you choose? This is an important
point- Zakhar wrote 'would', not 'could'. There are
many reasons to oppose experimentation on animals,
one of them being that there is NO benefit to justify
the cost, with respect to using animals *for survival*.
> Before claiming my quote on hunting for survival
> somehow makes me an advocate of vivisection,
> or that it is at odds to my stance on animal rights
> read some of the quotes from other ARA's here
> on the issue, including your own.
That is not the point-- the point is that BOTH you
(et al.) and Zakhar are advocating a cost to (assured,
certain) benefit ratio, be it 1:1, or 1:1,000, with respect
to using animals for *survival*. NEITHER of you (et
al.) are giving open moral support for senseless abuse.
> "BUT in the situation of the person starving on
> the ice floe, in that specific moment the need
> is a genuine one: hunt or die. At that point,
> hunting for survival is ethical. After they get
> off the ice floe, we can say they have a real
> choice."
> Rat 2000/02/16
>
> "IMO, killing is justified only when it is urgently
> necessary for survival, to prevent starvation or
> in self-defense."
> frlpwr 2000/01/20
>
> "Yes, I conclude that hunting animals purely for
> 'sport' is immoral. If it's a matter of *survival*,
> well, that's another kettle of fish."
> Lotus 2001-10-23
>
> "If an ARA ever accepts hunting, it is hunting done
> for the sole purpose of survival, not some spurious
> pleasure."
> lilweed 2000/02/17
>
> There is no doubt that Zaza's quote proves he
> believes in and secretly promotes vivisection.
Not that quote.
> Apart from that above quote there are others
> which prove he supports the practice as well,
> and they cannot be ignored.
>
> "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."
> Zakhar 2003-09-28
>
> From that, as well as his other example, he
> has unwittingly shown that he does support
> vivisection. He believes that "most of us can
> accept that it's the right thing to do", and that
> "we can take the same decision making process,
> independent of species."
Depends what the experiment involved,- if it was
likely to harm and/or cause distress, or likely to
be of benefit. For example- say I were ill, in a
coma, and the doctor had just been given a new
non-toxic medicine that might help, I'd be happy
for hir to try it on me, even without my express
consent to do so. Same with an animal in my
care- say a dog was poisoned and the vet' thought
the best option was a non-toxic newly-formulated
comprehensive antidote,- need he obtain the dog's
consent in order to use it? On the other hand, if the
doctor wanted to try experimental brain surgery on
me, or see how the poisoned dog responded to
electric-shocks,- I'd want every rights' protection
going, in our defence.
> And
>
> "I believe that animals have certain interests that
> should be protected by law, some might call these
> rights, some protected interests could be called
> animal welfare. Like humans these protected rights
> are overridden, as there is a greater good coming
> from the sacrifice of the right."
> Zakhar 2003-02-03
>
> That is an open promotion of vivisection for the
> "greater good."
Reading the post, it seems nothing more than open
promotion of a cost to (assured, certain) benefit
ratio with respect to sacrificing animals for -survival-,
not some possible benefit, or plain senseless maiming
and killing, similarly to hunting- to survive; or for sport.
> And
>
> "There can be cases for animal experimentation
> as there can be for human experiments. It would
> make sense to test a new antibiotic for guinea
> pigs on guinea pigs rather than humans, don't you
> think?"
> Zakhar 2003-02-17
If it isn't likely to *harm* the guinea pigs- don't you?
> He has no defence against these statements.
Well that was take on it.
Zakhar
>
> "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:sWP_b.10632$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> > "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:103nht5...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:QoP_b.10613$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> >
> > snip
>
> Snip and run, eh?
No I snipped an OLD part of thread you STUPID toss bag.
AND I NOTED it, something you rarely and unethically do.
> <unsnip>
> "Most animals die for experiments that do not save
> or extend human life. Some you must know are
> devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
> be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
> that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
> of interests, and, *if* for example if one rabbit would
> save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
> should die."
> Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
>
> Your support for it is a moral support, yet you still
> seem to think you're in support for animals holding
> rights against us in this sort of barbaric treatment.
> It's impossible to be in support of both, so it's
> patently clear that your slip-up has revealed you to
> be a fraud, Zaza.
Why have you added an old part of the thread, unethically snipped out the
new part, and not noted it?
You have now been exposed by Pearl and Dutch, as well as ~~jonnie~~ Ray and
others for being a STUPID unethical GIT, although they may have used
different words, you are.
It's what you DO that makes the difference.
Therefore Derek Nash you do FUCK ALL, that's all you have, do and will do.
>
>
>
>
Zakhar
>
> If it isn't likely to *harm* the guinea pigs- don't you?
>
> > He has no defence against these statements.
>
> Well that was take on it.
Thanks Pearl, I have been trying to explain these points to the "bull headed
torean" for months now.
Even your astute illustration of my position does not help.
His destiny is being one of life losers, nothing achieved only leaving a
wake of upset, pain and death in his path.
We'd be better off without him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ipse dixit
"Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:5o6%b.10872$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
You both have your wish. Goodbye.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:c1ipmh$48i$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:103p8i7...@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> snip noted, something Derek Nash never does.
>
> > If it isn't likely to *harm* the guinea pigs- don't you?
> >
> > > He has no defence against these statements.
> >
>
> Thanks Pearl, I have been trying to explain these points to the "bull headed
> torean" for months now.
TBH, all I've seen is a lot of snipping and calling names, if there
was anything else there, it was obscured by the clouds of dust.
It's 'taurean' (sc), btb.
> Even your astute illustration of my position does not help.
I live in hope.
> His destiny is being one of life losers, nothing achieved only leaving a
> wake of upset, pain and death in his path.
>
> We'd be better off without him.
Sorry, Zakhar, but I don't accept that.
pearl
I certainly disagree with Zakhar on those last points.
Just admit that you wrongly attacked him, and let it be.
Please.
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> Just admit that you wrongly attacked him, and let it be.
That'll be the day.
Dirk McDougal
Haw haw haw haw haw! You pathetic whore! Do you beg
your "johns" to pay for the lousy blowjobs you provide,
too?
pearl
.. $aT1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
Dutch
pearl didn't wish you gone, neither do I, you're an excellent example of
the mental illness caused by ARism.
> Goodbye.
You'll be back soon in a new incarnation, and when you do you'll be a
cinch to spot.
Ron
> "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:9TO_b.10593$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> > Derek
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> > You FUND vivisection:
>
> Yes, I do, but "My money is used to fund plenty
> of things I don't support or agree with; vivisection
> being just one."
>
> You, on the other hand, support it with more than
> just your money, and the proof of that is written in
> your quotes found in Google archives.
>
> or extend human life. Some you must know are
> devoid of any realistic use. I accept that there may
> be cases where the interests of humans outweigh
> that of some animals. There will always be conflicts
> of interests, and, *if* for example if one rabbit would
> save 1000 humans, then I could accept that the rabbit
> should die."
> Zakhar Sun, 02 Feb 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2w5ps
>
> Your support for it is a moral support, yet you still
> seem to think you're in support for animals holding
> rights against us in this sort of barbaric treatment. It's
> impossible to be in support of both, so it's patently
> clear that your slip-up has revealed you to be a fraud,
> Zaza.
"*if* for example if one rabbit would save 1000 humans, then I could
accept that the rabbit should die."
"ipse dixit", you totally ignored what he actually stated. To brand
him a fraud you have to show that *one* bunny's death actually could
save 1,000 people, otherwise you have to admit that his positon of
opposition to the needless and totally useless deaths by vivisection
are valid.
Dutch
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote
> > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote
> "*if* for example if one rabbit would save 1000 humans, then I could
> accept that the rabbit should die."
>
> "ipse dixit", you totally ignored what he actually stated. To brand
> him a fraud you have to show that *one* bunny's death actually could
> save 1,000 people,
Why would he have to show that? The statement was a hypothetical which
(supposedly) described the limitations of Zakhar's opposition to killing
animals for human benefit. Of course it's all bullshit, in reality he would
accept the death of a hundred boxcars full of rabbits if it would save *his*
life, so would Nash.
> otherwise you have to admit that his positon of
> opposition to the needless and totally useless deaths by vivisection
> are valid.
Nash has just exposed himself as a complete nutcase, that's all it means.
ipse dixit
I was not wrong to attack him, because all the
quotes I've provided here show that he does
support the practice generally. Your readiness
to overlook his tacit promotion of it, even though
initially conceding the fact that at least one of his
comments is seen as a support for it;
"Can you see how Derek and others might easily
interpret your comment "for example if one rabbit
would save 1000 humans, then I could accept that
the rabbit should die", as support for vivisection?"
Pearl Thu, 9 Oct 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2os9t
is yet another reason why I can no longer participate
here. "The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
and horse traders like yourself who don't give a damn
about the issues but rather about protecting each others'
interests instead. For example, you harp on and on at
meat eaters for what they do yet say nothing against
those who openly promote zoophilia here, and this is
purely on the basis that Karen is on "the side". On the
strength of this weakness I'm going to leave you all to
get on with it on your own without me, and on this you
have my word, for I won't associate myself with the
dregs of society and outright liars any longer.
pearl
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:08:14 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message news:103pst7...@news.supernews.com...
> >> You both have your wish. Goodbye.
> >
> >I certainly disagree with Zakhar on those last points.
> >
> >Just admit that you wrongly attacked him, and let it be.
<..>
> I was not wrong to attack him, because all the
> quotes I've provided here show that he does
> support the practice generally.
No, they don't, imho. If you need to discuss this further,
reply to my post of last night which covers each quote.
> Your readiness to overlook his tacit promotion of it,
If it was there, I'd see it.
> even though
> initially conceding the fact that at least one of his
> comments is seen as a support for it;
>
> "Can you see how Derek and others might easily
> interpret your comment "for example if one rabbit
> would save 1000 humans, then I could accept that
> the rabbit should die", as support for vivisection?"
> Pearl Thu, 9 Oct 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2os9t
>
> is yet another reason why I can no longer participate
> here.
.. *might* be seen, and by some, not by everyone.
> "The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
> zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
> and horse traders like yourself
Ipse dixit.
> who don't give a damn about the issues
BS.
> but rather about protecting each others' interests instead.
Pah. Nonsense.
> For example, you harp on and on at
> meat eaters for what they do yet say nothing against
> those who openly promote zoophilia here, and this is
> purely on the basis that Karen is on "the side".
If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
problem with people's personal choices *as long as
they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
human or animal.
Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
(a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
> On the
> strength of this weakness I'm going to leave you all to
> get on with it on your own without me, and on this you
> have my word,
Do what you will.
> for I won't associate myself with the
> dregs of society and outright liars any longer.
Then admit you were wrong.
usual suspect
<...>
> Absolutely right, because vivisection is essentially
> experimentation, which can never be guaranteed to be
> of benefit,
One thing is guaranteed without testing: slowed or no progress. You idiot.
Experimentation does produce results, even when negative. Some of the most
important findings have come through "failed" testing of hypotheses that created
"accidental" findings of greater benefit.
> whereas the energy and nutrients contained
> in meat would in an extreme situation prolong your life,
> - say until rescue. However, it still requires the death
> of an animal for your benefit.
Your grains and beans come with animal deaths for your benefit. Why is it so
wrong to kill one animal you eat, but okay to kill many you won't eat?
> It is advocating a cost to
> benefit ratio with respect to using animals for survival.
Benefits far outweigh the costs of suffering, whether the suffering is in the
form of disease (vivisection) or hunger (eating meat).
<...>
> On the other hand, if the
> doctor wanted to try experimental brain surgery on
> me,
You'd have to visit the Wizard first, Scarecrow.
<...>
Zakhar
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.04022...@posting.google.com...
> "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
news:<103ng49...@news.supernews.com>...
> > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9TO_b.10593$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> > > Derek
> >
>
> "*if* for example if one rabbit would save 1000 humans, then I could
> accept that the rabbit should die."
>
> "ipse dixit", you totally ignored what he actually stated. To brand
> him a fraud you have to show that *one* bunny's death actually could
> save 1,000 people, otherwise you have to admit that his positon of
> opposition to the needless and totally useless deaths by vivisection
> are valid.
Thanks for the support Ron.
It's was all in the use of the word *if*.
Lucky I didn't write "If I could fly to the moon, I'd fly to the dark side"
as he'd be looking out of his window every evening.
usual suspect
<...>
>>Just admit that you wrongly attacked him, and let it be.
>>
>>Please.
>
> I was not wrong to attack him, because all the
> quotes I've provided here show that he does
> support the practice generally. Your readiness
> to overlook his tacit promotion of it, even though
> initially conceding the fact that at least one of his
> comments is seen as a support for it;
>
> "Can you see how Derek and others might easily
> interpret your comment "for example if one rabbit
> would save 1000 humans, then I could accept that
> the rabbit should die", as support for vivisection?"
> Pearl Thu, 9 Oct 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2os9t
>
> is yet another reason why I can no longer participate
> here. "The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
> zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
> and horse traders like yourself who don't give a damn
> about the issues but rather about protecting each others'
> interests instead.
Correct.
> For example, you harp on and on at
> meat eaters for what they do yet say nothing against
> those who openly promote zoophilia here, and this is
> purely on the basis that Karen is on "the side".
Exactly.
> On the
> strength of this weakness I'm going to leave you all to
> get on with it on your own without me, and on this you
> have my word, for I won't associate myself with the
> dregs of society and outright liars any longer.
You'll be back, but I do admire your stance against those who promote bestiality
and pedophilia -- as well as your stance against those who cowardly refused to
address those issues against a member of 'the side.'
usual suspect
<...>
>>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
>>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
>>and horse traders like yourself
>
> Ipse dixit.
No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those
issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty
about you.
>>who don't give a damn about the issues
>
> BS.
Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>>but rather about protecting each others' interests instead.
>
> Pah. Nonsense.
Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>>For example, you harp on and on at
>>meat eaters for what they do yet say nothing against
>>those who openly promote zoophilia here, and this is
>>purely on the basis that Karen is on "the side".
>
> If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
> the whole hog.
Dreck has defended same-sex relations, just not male-human with male-dog. Why
can't you condemn what Karen proudly and openly supports?
> *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
Between human and beast?
> and there's *no coercion or force involved,*
How about *conditioning* an animal to do what it would normally object?
> why should you be concerned?
So you agree with Karen that sex with animals is fine, just don't test them or
eat them.
> Personally, I have no
> problem with people's personal choices *as long as
> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
> human or animal.
That now makes two admitted supporters of bestiality in 'the side.'
> Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
> their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
> (a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
> er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
It IS an issue.
<...>
>>for I won't associate myself with the
>>dregs of society and outright liars any longer.
>
> Then admit you were wrong.
That's precisely and rightly why he's cutting you perverts off.
Zakhar
> "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:5o6%b.10872$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> >
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:c1ipmh$48i$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > > "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:103p8i7...@news.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > snip noted, something Derek Nash never does.
> >
> > > If it isn't likely to *harm* the guinea pigs- don't you?
> > >
> > > > He has no defence against these statements.
> > >
> > > Well that was (my) take on it.
> >
> > Thanks Pearl, I have been trying to explain these points to the "bull
headed
> > torean" for months now.
>
> TBH, all I've seen is a lot of snipping and calling names, if there
> was anything else there, it was obscured by the clouds of dust.
Most of the names came from me! (I think validly, he also started the
downward spiral, by calling me a "C..T").
>
> It's 'taurean' (sc), btb.
Thanks, I guessed it was wrong, but took a flyer.
>
> > Even your astute illustration of my position does not help.
>
> I live in hope.
>
> > His destiny is being one of life losers, nothing achieved only leaving a
> > wake of upset, pain and death in his path.
> >
> > We'd be better off without him.
>
> Sorry, Zakhar, but I don't accept that.
"Each to their own". I admire your patience and tenacity.
One of the reasons for me in using these groups is to explore and understand
different perspectives of animal related ethics. I believe you have most to
learn from those with diffrenet views.
In general Nash *could* have made a valid points, and even make some change
their views, *if* he adopted a rational relationship with other posters. He
also took things out of context to make artificail points. My views *have*
changed on some issues, and to scrape up very quote from when I first posted
would be unrepresentative of my current position.
>
>
Ray
Licking the fucking window would be more to the point. The crazy fucker
should be under lock and key.
>
>
Ray
"Ray" <R...@morebeerandbiggerglasses.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:9lq%b.11678$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
> >
> > "Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:436a5d81.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > > "ipse dixit" <nos...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:<103ng49...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > > "Zakhar" <Zak...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > news:9TO_b.10593$h44.1...@stones.force9.net...
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> > Absolutely right, because vivisection is essentially
> > experimentation, which can never be guaranteed to be
> > of benefit,
>
> One thing is guaranteed without testing: slowed or no progress
"I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may
have led to a useful result."
Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986.
"I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals should be abolished
because they only lead us to error."
Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987.
"As a physician, I am definitely opposed to animal experiments. They
are totally useless, they don't contribute in any way to progress of medicine."
Dr med. Jurg Kym, Physicians Have the Word, ATRA, December 1986.
"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of
experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever
committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933.
"Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no
alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it
should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in
biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and
misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical
research should be called 'scientific methods'... they are NOT
'alternatives'."
Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make, page 21.
"I am fully in agreement with the bills against vivisection, for the
abolition of vivisection can only be seen as an advance in public education"
Dr Josef Drobny, District Physician, Morashitz, Bohemia, October 6 1909.
http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html
'.. vivisector Professor Domer on animal testing: "Differences in the
metabolism of compounds by each species makes this type of
extrapolation a hazardous procedure".
And: "This has resulted in a vast amount of information being generated
at a very large expense. The nagging problem which continues to confront
scientists, industry and the government is that there does not appear to
be any good evidence that this increase in (animal experimental) work
and expense in the development of new compounds has resulted in an
appreciable decrease in the potential hazards for the population at large".
..
Dr Frederick Coulston: "A key issue today, at least in the United States,
is the prediction of chemical carcingenesis from animal data to man.
We've all struggled with the problem over the years and there is as yet
no real answer, it seems to me. The real answer in the field of analysis
will be human experience..."
....
http://www.bava.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/OwnWords.html
usual suspect
>>pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>Absolutely right, because vivisection is essentially
>>>experimentation, which can never be guaranteed to be
>>>of benefit,
>>
>>One thing is guaranteed without testing: slowed or no progress
>
> "I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may
> have led to a useful result."
> Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986.
Dr Grin should consider taking up science rather than activism:
----
MYTH: Animal research has made no contribution to medical progress.”
In fact, every modern prescription medicine is developed using animals
before clinical trials on people!
Some areas of medical research can proceed without the use of any living
animals, for instance: computer, population or tissue culture studies. But it is
impossible to develop a medicine, and make it available at GP surgeries, without
conducting some animal research somewhere along the line.
The simple truth is: Stop animal research and you stop medical progress.
To list every prescription medicine would be rather pointless, but here is
a list of numbers of just a few patients benefiting from developments arising
from animal research in the UK each year:
* 50,000,000 prescriptions for antibiotics
* 30,000,000 prescriptions for asthma
* 3,000,000 operations under local or general anaesthetics
* 180,000 diabetics kept alive with insulin
* 90,000 cataract operations
* 60,000 joint operations
* 15,000 coronary bypasses
* 10,000 pacemakers implanted
* 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements
* 4,000 congenital heart defects corrected
* 2,500 corneal transplants
* 2,000 kidney transplants
* 400 heart or heart/lung transplants
http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/avmyths/avmyths_10.html
---
> "I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals should be abolished
> because they only lead us to error."
> Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987.
Perhaps Dr Griboval has had a chance in the last 17 years to review findings
made from research.
-----
MYTH: “Animals are so different from people that research using animals is not
worthwhile.”
In fact, all mammals have the same basic organs - heart, lungs, kidney,
liver etc.- performing the same functions and coordinated in the same way. These
major similarities outweigh minor differences, although these minor differences
can themselves provide useful information. For example, if we knew why muscular
dystrophy in mice caused less muscle wasting than in humans, this might lead to
a treatment for the disease.
A gauge of the biological similarity between animals and humans is the fact
that insulin from pigs was used successfully to treat human diabetics for
several decades.
Around a third of medicines used by vets are also used in the treatment of
humans. A list of 350 animal diseases with a human counterpart has been compiled
(1) by the veterinarian Charles Cornelius, who states that the study of animal
diseases with a view to providing treatment for the human counterpart is a
"neglected resource". Another reference is the Encyclopaedia Britannica which in
the section on "Animal Disease" lists diseases common to animals and humans and
states that it is likely that for every known human disease, an identical or
similar human disease exists in at least one other species".
http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/avmyths/avmyths_1.html
------
> "As a physician, I am definitely opposed to animal experiments. They
> are totally useless, they don't contribute in any way to progress of medicine."
> Dr med. Jurg Kym, Physicians Have the Word, ATRA, December 1986.
Perhaps Dr Kym should consider the same information provided above to Dr Grin.
They both seem to be operating under the same delusion.
> "My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of
> experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever
> committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity."
> Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933.
Much in the world and in medical science has progressed since Dr Walker made his
comment over 70 years ago. Much of that progress has come from research
involving animal research. See the link to Griboval above, and the rest of the
anti-vivisection myths on this page:
http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/avmyths/index1.html
<snip rest of uninformed activist rants>
usual suspect
<...>
I doubt you're really of Jewish descent (you're not anymore, that's for sure),
but here's what Jewish authorities say of vivisection:
JUDAISM
Judaism recognises that animal experimentation holds many benefits for
humankind and animals.
“Isserles (Ramah) states that anything necessary for medical or other
useful purposes is excluded from the prohibition of cruelty to animals. (1)”
Rabbi John D Rayner, Chairman of the Council of Reform and Liberal Rabbis,
offers this quotation from 'What Does Judaism Say About..?' by Rabbi Dr Peter
Jacobs.
“A very good case can be made out for vivisection of animals provided
safeguards are taken to reduce the pain to a minimum. Here the benefits to
medical progress are considerable and the price worth paying. (8)”
Rabbi Rayner himself adds:
“[I] would regard any experimentation on animals as ethically permissible
provided (a) that it is done in such a way as to cause the least possible
suffering to the animals and (b) that there is real basis for the hope that such
experimentation may lead to the saving of human life or the relief of human
suffering. (9)”
“Indeed, I would be inclined to add a further conditions namely that
authority to permit such experimentation should be vested in an ethics committee
composed of persons who have no interest in the potential commercial value of
any pharmaceutical products that may be [the] result from such experimentation.
(9) ”
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act requires that painkillers and
anaesthetics are used whenever necessary, and that veterinary attention should
be available to animals used in medical research. Furthermore, licenses are
granted (or refused) by Home Office Inspectors who have no commercial interest
in the products of animal procedures. A separate advisory committee, the Animal
Procedures Committee, advises the Home Secretary.
Jonathan Ball
> STOOOOOOOOOPID Lesley propagandized:
>
>
> <snip rest of Lesley's uninformed activist rants>
All you have to do to refute the bogus claim that
animal experimentation hasn't been useful is look at
the history of the polio vaccine. Do a search on
polio+vaccine+"John Mercer" in Google Groups, and
you'll see that he has elaborated pretty thoroughly how
animals were crucial in the development of the polio
vaccine. That's just one; there are innumerable others.
Jonathan Ball
> Lesley bat Mishigas wrote:
> <...>
>
> I doubt you're really of Jewish descent (you're not anymore, that's for
> sure), but here's what Jewish authorities say of vivisection:
I read little of what the trollop writes, and I missed
the original lie where she claimed "I'm Jewish myself
for heaven's sake!", until I looked for it. Has she
been trying to make an issue of this, for some odd reason?
usual suspect
Let's start at the beginning of vaccination with Jenner and smallpox. UCLA has a
fine online exhibit of smallpox and Jenner's discovery.
http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/biomed/smallpox/
From the work of Jenner and others, we've progressed far beyond taking
antibodies from milkmaids exposed to cow pox. A new finding was announced
yesterday about a protein that blocks HIV replication in monkey cells.
Researchers think this may help them narrow down a vaccine or other treatments:
The discovery could also shorten the path to an AIDS vaccine by making
improved animal models of HIV disease possible. Because monkeys are not
susceptible to the human version of AIDS, results of vaccine trials
conducted on them are not directly applicable to humans. Now with a
better understanding of why HIV cannot successfully infect monkey cells,
scientists have a defined target to manipulate and could use that
information to develop animal models that more closely mimic HIV
disease.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040226071346.htm
What the moron Lesley ignores when she quotes that Dr Grin as saying, "I cannot
name one single case in which experiments on animals may have led to a useful
result," or Dr Griboval as saying, "all experiments on animals should be
abolished because they only lead us to error," is that even whittling through
errors is progress: it weeds out variables to help us find the roots we need to
find cures and treatments. Lesley also shows with each post how challenged she
is when it comes to science and the scientific method.
usual suspect
>> Lesley bat Mishigas wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>> I doubt you're really of Jewish descent (you're not anymore, that's
>> for sure), but here's what Jewish authorities say of vivisection:
>
> I read little of what the trollop writes, and I missed the original lie
> where she claimed "I'm Jewish myself for heaven's sake!", until I looked
> for it. Has she been trying to make an issue of this, for some odd reason?
I think so, to counteract criticism of her days as a skinhead and the claim of
holocaust denial. Reminded me, though, of Hillary Clinton's surprise that she
had one Jew in her family tree when she was running for the Senate. The same is
true with John Kerry's new pedigree claims. For years, he'd told the people of
Massachusetts he was just a good Irish lad or at least let them think so. His
mother's side were clan Forbes (great Scots!) and his father's side, we now
know, were Czech Jews who converted to Christianity in the old country.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>> Lesley bat Mishigas wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>
>>> I doubt you're really of Jewish descent (you're not anymore, that's
>>> for sure), but here's what Jewish authorities say of vivisection:
>>
>>
>> I read little of what the trollop writes, and I missed the original
>> lie where she claimed "I'm Jewish myself for heaven's sake!", until I
>> looked for it. Has she been trying to make an issue of this, for some
>> odd reason?
>
>
> I think so, to counteract criticism of her days as a skinhead and the
> claim of holocaust denial. Reminded me, though, of Hillary Clinton's
> surprise that she had one Jew in her family tree when she was running
> for the Senate. The same is true with John Kerry's new pedigree claims.
> For years, he'd told the people of Massachusetts he was just a good
> Irish lad or at least let them think so. His mother's side were clan
> Forbes (great Scots!) and his father's side, we now know, were Czech
> Jews who converted to Christianity in the old country.
Seems to me I saw something mildly snide about Kerry
suddenly "finding" Jewish ancestry in a recent
Economist magazine. I'll look for it.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
> >>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
> >>and horse traders like yourself
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those
> issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty
> about you.
I don't recall reading that support. I seldom read off-topic posts.
> >>who don't give a damn about the issues
> >
> > BS.
>
> Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
> to engage in sexual relations with humans?
They do?
> >>but rather about protecting each others' interests instead.
> >
> > Pah. Nonsense.
>
> Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
> to engage in sexual relations with humans?
I haven't read that.
> >>For example, you harp on and on at
> >>meat eaters for what they do yet say nothing against
> >>those who openly promote zoophilia here, and this is
> >>purely on the basis that Karen is on "the side".
> >
> > If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
> > the whole hog.
>
> Dreck has defended same-sex relations, just not male-human with male-dog. Why
> can't you condemn what Karen proudly and openly supports?
I'd have to read that alleged support for myself first.
> > *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
>
> Between human and beast?
For it to be anywhere near acceptable, from a purely AR POV.
> > and there's *no coercion or force involved,*
>
> How about *conditioning* an animal to do what it would normally object?
Is that what they do? Got a link?
> > why should you be concerned?
>
> So you agree with Karen that sex with animals is fine, just don't test them or
> eat them.
I think it's a perversion. Yet if the criteria stipulated above are
met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from an
AR or AW viewpoint?
> > Personally, I have no
> > problem with people's personal choices *as long as
> > they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
> > human or animal.
>
> That now makes two admitted supporters of bestiality in 'the side.'
I support personal freedom in all areas. Who am I or you to
interfere or pass judgement on people's sexual preferences?
> > Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
> > their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
> > (a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
> > er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
>
> It IS an issue.
That I don't like it, is an issue? How's that?
<..>
pearl
STOOOOOOOOOPID "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> propagandized in message
news:sDu%b.5499$OH4....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> >>pearl wrote:
<...>
> > "I cannot name one single case in which experiments on animals may
> > have led to a useful result."
> > Dr med. Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS, July 1 1986.
> To list every prescription medicine would be rather pointless, but here is
> a list of numbers of just a few patients benefiting from developments arising
> from animal research in the UK each year:
>
> * 50,000,000 prescriptions for antibiotics
> * 30,000,000 prescriptions for asthma
> * 3,000,000 operations under local or general anaesthetics
> * 180,000 diabetics kept alive with insulin
> * 90,000 cataract operations
> * 60,000 joint operations
> * 15,000 coronary bypasses
> * 10,000 pacemakers implanted
> * 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements
> * 4,000 congenital heart defects corrected
> * 2,500 corneal transplants
> * 2,000 kidney transplants
> * 400 heart or heart/lung transplants
>
> http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/avmyths/avmyths_10.html
Ann Med 1991 Apr;23(2):187-93
Recent nutrition research: implications for foods of the future.
Grundy SM.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9052.
Dietary habits and the foods we ingest influence health. Nutrition is
one factor that can be controlled in such a way as to influence an
individual's destiny in such diseases as coronary heart disease
(CHD) hypertension, stroke, cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes and
gall stone disease. The role of nutrition in treatment and prevention
of CHD is one example. It is not only a problem in Western Europe
and in the United States anymore but with "westernization" of Asia
and Africa and in many Eastern European countries, CHD is
increasing at an alarming rate. Led by the American Heart Association,
influential groups have provided dietary recommendations to the
general public over the past 30 years. These recommendations have
been based to a large extent on research carried out to determine the
influence of various dietary components, particularly fatty acids and
dietary cholesterol, on the risk factors leading to CHD. The results
of these investigations can now be used by industry to provide foods
for the future which will provide the public with more healthy choices
and hopefully aid in the control of diseases which can be influenced
by diet.
Publication Types:Review
Review, Academic
PMID: 2069795 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA.
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in males
and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was positively
associated with mortality because of all causes combined (in females),
coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the colon (in males
and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption was positively
associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and cheese consumption
did not have a clear relationship with any cause of death. The consumption
of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not have negative associations with
any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3046303&dopt=Abstrac
t
" Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals
and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and
eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all
those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like
heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and
kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. ..'. "
C. David Coats
(from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)
> > "I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals should be abolished
> > because they only lead us to error."
> > Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987.
>
> Perhaps Dr Griboval has had a chance in the last 17 years to review findings
> made from research.
Drug-Induced Disorders
EILEEN G. HOLLAND, PHARM.D., and FRANK V. DEGRUY, M.D.
University of South Alabama College of Medicine, Mobile, Alabama
'..
Drug-induced disorders, in the form of adverse drug events
or drug interactions, occur daily in all health care environments.
Unfortunately, significant morbidity and mortality are often the
consequence of these reactions. Several studies have reported
that an average of 10 percent of all hospital admissions may be
attributable to drug-induced disorders; this percentage may be
a significant underestimate.1 Furthermore, an evaluation of a
large sample of 30,195 randomly selected hospital records revealed
that 1,133 patients (3.7 percent) experienced a disabling injury
caused by medical treatment while hospitalized.2 Other studies
report that hospitalized patients have a 1.5 to 43.5 percent chance
of having a drug-induced disorder.1 Using the conservative figure,
that 4 percent of hospitalized patients have an adverse event due
to medical treatment, and extrapolating to the United States, each
year over 1 million patients are injured while in the hospital, and
approximately 180,000 die as a result of these injuries.3
In the ambulatory care environment, the incidence of drug-induced
disorders not causing hospitalization or death is less well known
because different, less effective methods are used to collect data.
Reported rates have ranged from 2.6 to 50.6 percent, depending on
the source of the data.4 The lower rates generally reflect data collected
from physicians, and the higher rates come from patient surveys.
..'
http://www.aafp.org/afp/971101ap/holland.html
<..>
pearl
On your head be it.
http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&selm=3BFD817F.16E631E2%40esatclear.ie
frlpwr
>
(snip)
>
> Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition > animals to engage in sexual relations with humans?
Karen made an excellent point. Humans condition animals to perform all
kinds of unnatural acts. The only difference between gratifying human
sexual desires (providing the animal is not hurt in the process) and
sniffing out drugs in the airport is that you think the first is
"naughty". Personally, I think both are exploitive and unethical.
>
(snip)
>
> Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition > animals to engage in sexual relations with humans?
I'd rather someone diddle their dog than train an elephant in a pink
tutu to stand on its head.
(snip)
> > If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
> > the whole hog.
Speaking of whole hog, many years ago a full grown boar tried to
condition me to have sex with it. I got away just in time. I was on
LSD at the time, so I'm positive that's how it happened.
>
(snip)
>
> How about *conditioning* an animal to do what it would normally
> object?
>
Dogs like stinky things. I don't see why a dog would object to a
bottomless usual suspect.
(snip)
> So you agree with Karen that sex with animals is fine, just don't test > them or eat them.
Since testing on them and eating them requires the death of the animal,
I'd say diddling them is a whole lot better from the animal's POV.
(snip)
pearl
news:HdC%b.10265$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > On your head be it.
> >
> > http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&selm=3BFD817F.16E631E2%40esatclear.ie
> When posed with these questions by FBR in December
> 1998, Dr. Robbins responded:
> The statement that animal experimentation delayed the
> "fight against polio" is totally wrong. Indeed, all we
> learned about the disease came from studies with
> animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that there were
> 3 types of polio virus, a crucial piece of information.
> It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that
> the portal of entry for the virus was the
> gastro-intestinal tract.
lotus;
But he also states (below);
"Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available
experimental animal, which seriously handicapped
research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote.'
Which is it?
> that experimenting on the monkey was viewed by
> Robbins and Daniel as a "handicap". NO.. what they
> viewed as a handicap was having
> ONLY the monkeys available, and not other animals.
"all we learned about the disease came from studies with
animals, primarily monkeys. ..
Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could
demonstrate the presence of the virus. Later, one
strain of polio virus was adapted to mice, but it was
only one type (2).
Yes, I can see how not having mice available was a
'serious handicap'. <sarcasm>
"Work on prevention of polio was long delayed
by an erroneous conception of the nature of the
human disease based on misleading experimental
models of the disease in monkeys." -Albert Sabin
1984 House Subcommittee hearing.'
.. J. R. Paul, a clinical
researcher, stated "It was another demonstration that
the problem of preventing human poliomyelitis was not
to be easily solved on the basis of evidence deduced
from the experimental disease in the rhesus monkey."
..
'Primate researchers continued to use rhesus monkeys
infected with viruses obtained from other monkeys,
leading to a more virulent strain of polio that
tended to infect nervous tissue. This resulted in
even more misleading data for development of a
human polio vaccine.'
..
http://www.fbresearch.org/polio_facts.html
pearl
<..>
> 'Primate researchers continued to use rhesus monkeys
> infected with viruses obtained from other monkeys,
> leading to a more virulent strain of polio that
> tended to infect nervous tissue. This resulted in
> even more misleading data for development of a
> human polio vaccine.'
> ..
- was correct link.
----------------------------------------------------------
You call this... PROGRESS, suspect, ball?!?!!....
'Dr. Martin and his colleagues at USC's Infectious
Diseases and Molecular Pathology Laboratories for
the past eight years, have been meticulously culturing
out stealth viruses from patients and, in a stunning
development in early 2000, by using DNA sequence
analysis they successfully identified one of the
viruses as being of African green monkey origin.
Kidney tissues from African green monkeys have
been used to makethe live oral polio vaccine (OPV)
as well as other viral vaccines during the past
three decades.
The monkey-related stealth virus they are studying,
belonging to the herpes virus family that causes
atypical viral infection of the brain – a “stealth
virus encephalopathy”- is a cytomegalovirus that
can produce a spectrum of disease symptoms without
evoking an inflammatory response.
A person can become infected and can carry and
transmit the virus to others without exhibiting
symptoms. The stealth virus can also remain
dormant in an infected individual, without exhibiting
any symptoms, throughout life. However, the virus can
become active, in some infected individuals, triggered
possibly by significant mental or physical stress,
and can go on to cause atypical responses to normal
sensory input into the brain resulting in sudden,
unexplained neurological symptoms. It is thought that
the stealth virus can be transmitted by coming into
direct contact with the virus (such as ingesting or
being injected with a contaminated vaccine) or coming
into contact with the blood or body fluids of an
infected individual, similar to the HIV, hepatitis B,
or polio viruses.
SYMPTOMS/CLINICAL CONDITIONS
The stealth virus is an atypical virus infecting
both children and adults who are exhibiting various
neurological, psychiatric and autoimmune disorder
symptoms with diagnoses including chronic fatigue
syndrome, fibromyalgia, depression, schizophrenia,
anxiety disorder, seizures, developmental delays,
autism, lupus, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, unexplained encephalopathy and chronic
vegetative states.
..'
http://www.emergingworlds.com/ch_viruses_detail.cfm?vPageid=98
Oh, Bravo, Well Done. etc. <sarcasm>
usual suspect
>><...>
>>
>>>>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
>>>>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
>>>>and horse traders like yourself
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those
>>issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty
>>about you.
>
> I don't recall reading that support. I seldom read off-topic posts.
It wasn't off topic.
>>>>who don't give a damn about the issues
>>>
>>>BS.
>>
>>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
>>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>
> They do?
Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) is repeatedly
paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response.
Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to coerce behavior
children and animals would normally not engage.
Bestiality is a paraphilia. Paraphilias are one of the major groups of sexual
disorders; in DSM-IV, this group includes exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism,
pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, transvestic fetishism,
and paraphilias not otherwise specified, which includes necrophilia and
klismaphilia. The paraphilias (also called perversions or sexual deviations)
are recurrent, intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies that involve
nonhuman objects, children or other nonconsenting persons, or the suffering or
humiliation of oneself or the sexual partner.
http://www.mentalhealth.com/whgdata/whlstg0.htm
>>>>but rather about protecting each others' interests instead.
>>>
>>>Pah. Nonsense.
>>
>>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
>>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>
> I haven't read that.
>>>>For example, you harp on and on at
>>>>meat eaters for what they do yet say nothing against
>>>>those who openly promote zoophilia here, and this is
>>>>purely on the basis that Karen is on "the side".
>>>
>>>If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go
>>>the whole hog.
>>
>>Dreck has defended same-sex relations, just not male-human with male-dog. Why
>>can't you condemn what Karen proudly and openly supports?
>
> I'd have to read that alleged support for myself first.
>>>*As long as the feelings are mutual*,
>>
>>Between human and beast?
>
> For it to be anywhere near acceptable, from a purely AR POV.
How do you demonstrate consent on the part of an animal, or separate consent
from conditioning? Do you think sex with comatose or mentally retarded humans is
also acceptable? You're relying on the same arguments of child molestors who
suggest the children want it after they've received enough candy.
>>>and there's *no coercion or force involved,*
>>
>>How about *conditioning* an animal to do what it would normally object?
>
> Is that what they do? Got a link?
I'll search later.
>>>why should you be concerned?
>>
>>So you agree with Karen that sex with animals is fine, just don't test them or
>>eat them.
>
> I think it's a perversion.
So does science, and beyond perversion: sexual deviance.
> Yet if the criteria stipulated above are
> met, and the animal doesn't object,
How do you determine an animal's consent? How do you distinguish consent from a
form of conditioned response?
> what's the concern from an AR or AW viewpoint?
AW: It doesn't serve the animal's welfare to have sexual relations with a
depraved human, and in fact may be quite detrimental to the animal's well-being
(physically and mentally). Same should be true -- I would have thought -- in AR.
I think your endorsement of bestiality should go on your list.
>>>Personally, I have no
>>>problem with people's personal choices *as long as
>>>they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
>>>human or animal.
>>
>>That now makes two admitted supporters of bestiality in 'the side.'
>
> I support personal freedom in all areas. Who am I or you to
> interfere or pass judgement on people's sexual preferences?
This isn't only about people's sexual preferences, it's also about the animals'
preferences (and tangentially as it's been raised, children's).
>>>Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm
>>>their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read
>>>(a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their
>>>er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue.
>>
>>It IS an issue.
>
> That I don't like it, is an issue? How's that?
As Derek rightly noted, he was the *only* pro-AR person here to disagree with
Karen over the issues of pedophilia and bestiality. Your spineless non-position
on the morality of fucking animals contrasts unfavorably to your rejection of
medical testing on animals. A greater good is served from the latter, for
mankind as well as other species; the former only serves the selfish, sick, and
dangerous fetishes of depraved individuals who condition animals to engage in
cross-species sexual activity.
> <..>
usual suspect
>>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition > animals to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>
> Karen made an excellent point.
No, she did not.
> Humans condition animals to perform all
> kinds of unnatural acts.
It is natural for a dog to use its olfactory senses. It is natural for a dog to
interact with humans. It isn't unnatural for a dog to combine the two for
rewards and praise. It IS unnatural for a dog to be receptive to sexual
relations with humans.
> The only difference between gratifying human
> sexual desires (providing the animal is not hurt in the process) and
> sniffing out drugs in the airport is that you think the first is
> "naughty".
No, Mary, a dog also cannot demonstrate consent to such an activity. We grant
animals protections under the law, just as we do for children and
mentally-deficient (retarded, comatose, etc.) humans. The lack of non-consent is
not consent, particularly in a conditioned setting (e.g., pedophilia and
bestiality).
> Personally, I think both are exploitive and unethical.
How is the dog exploited from the act of working?
> (snip)
>
>>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition > animals to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>
> I'd rather someone diddle their dog than train an elephant in a pink
> tutu to stand on its head.
It figures you would, you pervert.
<...>
usual suspect
> <..>
>
>>'Primate researchers continued to use rhesus monkeys
>>infected with viruses obtained from other monkeys,
>>leading to a more virulent strain of polio that
>>tended to infect nervous tissue. This resulted in
>>even more misleading data for development of a
>>human polio vaccine.'
>>..
>
> http://www.emorylies.com/your_child_or_your_dog.htm
> - was correct link.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> You call this... PROGRESS, suspect, ball?!?!!....
Once again you don't comprehend what you're offering. Dr Martin heads the Center
for Complex Infectious Diseases (CCID). From their website:
The primary mission of CCID is to determine the nature, origin, disease
associations, modes of transmission, methods of diagnosis and responses
to therapy of complex infectious diseases, and to disseminate such
information. CCID is currently specializing in the detection and
characterization of viruses which have undergone a "stealth" adaptation
to avoid elimination by the immune system.
http://www.ccid.org/
Unfortunately, Martin is into pseudoscience. On his faculty are a Reike master,
a horse trainer, a chiropractitioner, a "hands on" spiritual healing
practitioner, a moderator of several web sites, a television host, an
acupuncturist, at least two bio-feedback therapists, and a distributor of ion
magnetic induction devices (sounds like the Zapper). This comes from the
alternate site for his information. S3 means "science, social, spiritual."
http://www.s3support.com/faculty.cfm
> 'Dr. Martin and his colleagues at USC's Infectious
> Diseases and Molecular Pathology Laboratories...
W. John Martin, M.D., Ph.D. has been stripped of his license to do any
clinical laboratory testing and his clinical laboratory license has been
suspended. But does he even have a laboratory to shut down anymore, and
did he ever find a virus that he has continued to call the "stealth
virus"? The most amazing fact we found out was that his license
suspension was due to the work of one lone individual who is merely a
patient! But let's give you some background first.
http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/Johnmartin.html
Also:
...Martin's testing wasn't limited to just humans. He also tested
Grewal's Chihuahua, Minnie. Martin confirmed in a letter Grewal and
Minnie had the stealth virus, and he claimed to have reported it to the
County Health Department. But, according to Fannin, the County Health
Department never looked at any samples or anything related to the Martin
stealth virus.
That is where it all seemed to start to unravel. Around 1995, Martin's
lab at USC closed. Martin says his work was too controversial. USC
refuses to tell us why the lab was closed, citing pending litigation.
All USC will confirm is that Martin is still a tenured professor there.
In 1999, Peters was hospitalized. That's when she heard the words that
changed her life -- again.
"That pathologist came back to me and said, 'Susan, you do not have the
stealth virus,'" said Peters.
So what is this "stealth virus?" Team 4 Reports went to one of the
premier research institutions in the United States for answers.
Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta
tell us it's unlikely anyone has the stealth virus because they say they
haven't seen any proof the virus even exists.
"There's no such virus that's been validated, or shown to be true," said
Dr. Brain Mahi of the CDC.
Peters now says she's confident she never had the Martin stealth virus.
But what did she have? Peters says it was lyme disease, but for years
she went without antibiotics because she was convinced she had the
Martin stealth virus. After all, she says, Martin told her blood tests
confirmed it.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/May/27/DiseaseOrDeception27.htm
Read it all, Lesley. The guy is on indefinite leave from USC and has been for
some time. He sounds like a bad apple.
Now tell me if this sounds familiar, you supporter of Hulda Clark:
Martin preyed upon patients who were desperately ill, telling them that
he knew what they had (a "stealth" virus) and only he could save them
from their "fatal" disease.
http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/Johnmartin.html
<snip of stuff you'd never understand even if it were true>
> http://www.emergingworlds.com/ch_viruses_detail.cfm?vPageid=98
Your source is as bogus as your discredited "expert."
> Oh, Bravo, Well Done. etc. <sarcasm>
You don't even understand what you posted -- you know nothing about viruses,
vectors, or viral infections, much less about viral evolution or DNA sequencing.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:HdC%b.10265$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>On your head be it.
>>>
>>>http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&selm=3BFD817F.16E631E2%40esatclear.ie
>
> <..>
>
>> Among other things from that thread:
>
> Ball:
> > 1998, Dr. Robbins responded:
> > The statement that animal experimentation delayed the
> > "fight against polio" is totally wrong. Indeed, all we
> > learned about the disease came from studies with
> > animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that there were
> > 3 types of polio virus, a crucial piece of information.
> > It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that
> > the portal of entry for the virus was the
> > gastro-intestinal tract.
>
> But he also states (below);
> "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available
> experimental animal, which seriously handicapped
> research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote.'
> Which is it?
>
>
>>that experimenting on the monkey was viewed by
>>twat: what they viewed as a handicap was having
>>ONLY the monkeys available, and not other animals.
>
>
> "all we learned about the disease came from studies with
> animals, primarily monkeys. ..
> Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could
> demonstrate the presence of the virus. Later, one
> strain of polio virus was adapted to mice, but it was
> only one type (2).
> Yes, I can see how not having mice available was a
> 'serious handicap'. <sarcasm>
You go ahead and be sarcastic, chump - you
misinterpreted Robbins's comment, and we all can see
it. Having monkeys was NOT the handicap; ONLY having
monkeys was the handicap, you stupid, STUPID twat.
>
> "Work on prevention of polio was long delayed
> by an erroneous conception of the nature of the
> human disease based on misleading experimental
> models of the disease in monkeys." -Albert Sabin
> 1984 House Subcommittee hearing.'
Which is NOT saying that developing the model based on
monkeys was "bad", you stupid, STUPID twat. All he's
saying is that the *actual* model that was developed
was, in his *particular* view, somewhat misleading.
>
> .. J. R. Paul, a clinical
> researcher, stated "It was another demonstration that
> the problem of preventing human poliomyelitis was not
> to be easily solved on the basis of evidence deduced
> from the experimental disease in the rhesus monkey."
Which does not say that the evidence was wrong.
> ..
> 'Primate researchers continued to use rhesus monkeys
> infected with viruses obtained from other monkeys,
> leading to a more virulent strain of polio that
> tended to infect nervous tissue. This resulted in
> even more misleading data for development of a
> human polio vaccine.'
> ..
> http://www.fbresearch.org/polio_facts.html
Twat; that page doesn't exist. Here's a page from FBR
that DOES exist:
Science, Not Fiction
Animal Studies Were Essential to Developing the Polio
Vaccine
Opponents of animal research often allege that polio
researchers were misled by animal studies during the
1920s and 1930s and only achieved a true understanding
of this devastating disease when they stopped testing
on animals (and animal tissue) and began studying human
cell cultures.
These activists contend that a non-animal method used
by John Enders, Frederick Robbins and Thomas Weller in
1949 – the cultivation of the polio virus in human
tissue culture – rescued the polio vaccine effort after
decades of futility working with lab animals. In his
book, The Cruel Deception, Robert Sharpe wrote, "By far
the most important advance in the development of polio
vaccine came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins
showed that all three main types of polio virus could
be grown in human tissue culture."1
More recently, activists Neal Barnard and Stephen
Kaufman, in a guest column for Scientific American
wrote: "During the 1920s and 30s, studies on monkeys
led to gross misconceptions that delayed the fight
against poliomyelitis." 2 This unfounded claim was
repeated in a letter to Harper's, when novelist Joy
Williams wrote: "Misleading animal experiments delayed
an effective polio vaccine for decades." 3
Recently, FBR referred these oft-repeated and dubious
assertions to an unimpeachable authority: the two
living Nobel laureates who conducted the research that
led to the development of the polio vaccine, Dr.
Frederick Robbins, Dean Emeritus of the School of
Medicine at Case Western Reserve University; and Dr.
Thomas Weller, Professor of Tropical Public Health,
Emeritus, at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr.
Robbins responded:
“The statement that animal experimentation delayed
the ‘fight against polio’ is totally wrong. Indeed, all
we learned about the disease came from studies with
animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that there were
three types of polio virus, a crucial piece of
information. It was shown that monkeys could be
immunized and that the portal of entry for the virus
was the gastro-intestinal tract.
“Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one
could demonstrate the presence of the virus. Later, one
strain of polio virus was adapted to mice, but it was
only one type (2). In our early tissue culture
experiments, it was necessary to inoculate animals to
demonstrate virus in the cultures. Far from misleading
us, animals led us to the truth and made possible the
eventual solution." 4
Indeed, a description of the experiment's procedure,
reported in Science in 1949, clearly shows that animals
were needed in every phase of the research:
*
First, human cell cultures taken from various
parts of the body were suspended in a mixture of salt
solution and serum from an ox. 5
*
The cultures were then inoculated by a
suspension of mouse brain infected with the Lansing
strain of poliomyelitis virus. 6
*
The researchers then watched for evidence that
the virus was replicating in subcultures. Enders,
Weller and Robbins wrote, "The identity of the virus
was verified by (a) the character of the disease it
produced in white mice following intra cerebral
inoculation; and (b) its neutralization by specific
antiserum." (A footnote explained that the antiserum
"was prepared by hyperimmunization of rhesus monkeys.")
Further evidence of the virus's presence came when
fluids from a cell subculture caused "flaccid paralysis
within 7 and 10 days respectively, in two rhesus
monkeys." 7
Clearly, any representation of this experiment as one
that didn't need animals is patently false. Yet,
activists continue to perpetuate this fiction – in what
appears to be a dishonest attempt to convince Americans
that animal research is not essential to medical
progress and scientific advancement.
The design of the polio study was based on animal
research conducted during the previous decades. In his
book Polio, Dr. Robbins explained in detail the
incremental discovery process regarding the disease. He
reported that animal studies were essential at
virtually every stage in helping researchers piece
together information about the virus:
*
In 1908, Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper first
identified the causative agent of poliomyelitis when
the two Viennese scientists inoculated into the abdomen
of two monkeys spinal cord material from a
nine-year-old boy who had died of polio. Seventeen days
later, the monkeys developed paralytic poliomyelitis.
"This dramatic discovery was quickly confirmed in
others, and it was shown that the infectious agent was
a virus." 8
*
In 1939, virologist Charles Armstrong was able
to establish a strain of poliovirus in rodents. "Prior
to that time, the monkey was the only available
experimental animal, which seriously handicapped
research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote. "Although
the monkey was a difficult and expensive experimental
animal, a great deal was learned about polio from
experiments on these animals. In confirmation of the
early autopsy of [Jean Martin] Charcot, studies in
monkeys demonstrated conclusively that poliovirus
infected the nerve cells (anterior horn cells) in the
spinal cord that normally supply stimuli to muscles." 9
*
Other experiments showed that certain species of
monkey and other primates, including chimpanzees, could
be infected with the polio virus by mouth. The same
situation was found to be the case with humans.
Additional animal tests at Yale University and Johns
Hopkins "supported the hypothesis that polio was
primarily an infection of the throat and intestines,
progressing from there to the central nervous system." 10
*
In 1949, scientists were not even certain of how
many types of poliovirus could infect humans, so they
conducted a large experiment involving monkeys to
answer this question. As Robbins and Daniel explained,
"The experiments confirmed that there were three types
of virus that did not completely cross-immunize. In
other words, a monkey that was immune to one type was
not protected against infection from the other two. All
of the viruses tested could be classified as Type 1, 2
or 3. Fortunately, the poliovirus has remained stable
to the present, and no new strains have emerged.
Current poliovirus vaccines contain a mixture of the
three types." 11
Barnard and Kaufman further argued in their Scientific
American piece that even after the virus was cultivated
in 1949, researchers proceeded to use cell cultures
from monkeys rather than humans for vaccine production.
"As a result," they noted ominously, "millions of
people were exposed to potentially harmful monkey
viruses." 12
But Dr. Robbins rejects this argument as well: “Our
early experiments with tissue culture were mostly done
with human tissue including human fetal tissue from
abortuses, that raises questions even more
controversial than the use of animals. We later shifted
to monkey kidney." 13
In addition, animals were needed, and still are, to
make sure polio vaccines are safe. As Weller pointed
out, "Even today, every lot of Salk 'killed virus'
vaccine and of Sabin 'live virus' vaccine is tested for
safety by inoculation of monkeys. So no matter what
tissue they use, the vaccine still has to be injected
into monkeys." 14
And while it is true that monkey kidney cells proved to
be latently infected with Simian Virus 40, careful
follow-up studies have failed to demonstrate any harm
resulting from this. 15 As Dr. Weller noted, special
colonies of clean, locally bred monkeys are used to
ensure there are no contaminated viruses.
http://www.fbresearch.org/education/myth-polio.htm
ANIMAL RESEARCH WORKS!
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
> >>>>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
> >>>>and horse traders like yourself
> >>>
> >>>Ipse dixit.
> >>
> >>No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those
> >>issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty
> >>about you.
> >
> > I don't recall reading that support. I seldom read off-topic posts.
>
> It wasn't off topic.
If I didn't read it, it was within an off-topic post/thread.
> >>>>who don't give a damn about the issues
> >>>
> >>>BS.
> >>
> >>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
> >>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
> >
> > They do?
>
> Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) is repeatedly
> paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
> unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response.
> Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to coerce behavior
> children and animals would normally not engage.
Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.
> Bestiality is a paraphilia. Paraphilias are one of the major groups of sexual
> disorders; in DSM-IV, this group includes exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism,
> pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, transvestic fetishism,
> and paraphilias not otherwise specified, which includes necrophilia and
> klismaphilia. The paraphilias (also called perversions or sexual deviations)
> are recurrent, intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies that involve
> nonhuman objects, children or other nonconsenting persons, or the suffering or
> humiliation of oneself or the sexual partner.
> http://www.mentalhealth.com/whgdata/whlstg0.htm
Is repeatedly verbally abusing non-consenting others with overtly sexual
terms and slander, as you and ball do, a form of sexual sadism? - It is.
> >>>>but rather about protecting each others' interests instead.
> >>>
> >>>Pah. Nonsense.
> >>
> >>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
> >>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
> >
> > I haven't read that.
>
> http://snipurl.com/4rgt
I added 'conditioned' to the search and found this;
2004-02-18 11:11:30 PST
u-s:
>> Animals can be conditioned to be receptive to such depraved behavior,
>> but they do not seek out humans for sex.
R:
> Ever see a dog hump someone's leg?
u-s:
Sure, but is that more often brought on by someone being on her period
or by dogs who want quickies? Dogs and other animals pick up the smell
of sex and hormones and react by instinct -- not trans-species desires.
(me: But haven't you just admitted that sexual instinct can be trans-species?)
R:
> Why is it right to condition a dog to follow obedience commands or
> not pee in the house -- which are as unnatural for a wild dog --
> and wrong to condition a dog to see a human as a sexual partner?
u-s:
You really have to ask the difference? You are amoral.
(me: But haven't you just admitted that sexual instinct can be trans-species?)
R:
> I think one has to condemn all conditioning as a violation of the
> animal's freedom and personhood, or not condemn conditioning _per
> se_.
u-s
I don't think so, but you're the extremist here.
(me: 1. Why not? 2. Rat just condemned all conditioning, contrary
to your implying that she defended it).
--end insert--
<snip>
To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
instinct and requires conditioning or abuse, I _strongly_ condemn it.
pearl
HOW BLOODY CONVEEEENIENT.
'Martin says his work was too controversial. USC refuses to
tell us why the lab was closed, citing pending litigation.
All USC will confirm is that Martin is still a tenured professor there.'
The name ROYAL RAYMONDE RIFE comes to mind.
Thanks for another superb demonstration of the injustice and
persecution of those who don't fit in with your nefarious agendas.
Stealth Viruses
Copyright 2001 by W. John Martin, M.D., Ph.D., USA
(Explore Issue: Volume 10, Number 4)
http://www.explorepub.com/articles/martin_10_4.html.
Now let's hear your take on this;
http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_brain_damage.htm
<hears the doors to usual suspect's 'Damage Limitation Propaganda Vault' creaking open>
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:HdC%b.10265$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >
> > <..>
> >
> >>>On your head be it.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&selm=3BFD817F.16E631E2%40esatclear.ie
> >
> > <..>
> > > 1998, Dr. Robbins responded:
> > > The statement that animal experimentation delayed the
> > > "fight against polio" is totally wrong. Indeed, all we
> > > learned about the disease came from studies with
> > > animals, primarily monkeys. We learned that there were
> > > 3 types of polio virus, a crucial piece of information.
> > > It was shown that monkeys could be immunized and that
> > > the portal of entry for the virus was the
> > > gastro-intestinal tract.
> >
> > But he also states (below);
> > "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available
> > experimental animal, which seriously handicapped
> > research on polio," Robbins and Daniel wrote.'
> > Which is it?
> >
> >>By which you meant to suggest,
> >>Robbins and Daniel as a "handicap".
> >>ONLY the monkeys available, and not other animals.
> >
> > "all we learned about the disease came from studies with
> > animals, primarily monkeys. ..
> > Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could
> > demonstrate the presence of the virus. Later, one
> > strain of polio virus was adapted to mice, but it was
> > only one type (2).
> > Yes, I can see how not having mice available was a
> > 'serious handicap'. <sarcasm>
>
> You go ahead and be sarcastic, chump - you
> misinterpreted Robbins's comment, and we all can see
> it. Having monkeys was NOT the handicap; ONLY having
> monkeys was the handicap,
If all they learned about the disease came from studies
with animals, *primarily* monkeys. How was ONLY
having monkeys such a '*serious* handicap', eh ball?
His comments appear to be a pro-vivisection fudge.
> > "Work on prevention of polio was long delayed
> > by an erroneous conception of the nature of the
> > human disease based on misleading experimental
> > models of the disease in monkeys." -Albert Sabin
> > 1984 House Subcommittee hearing.'
>
> Which is NOT saying that developing the model based on
> monkeys was "bad", All he's
> saying is that the *actual* model that was developed
> was, in his *particular* view, somewhat misleading.
**MISLEADING**. **LONG DELAYED**.
> > .. J. R. Paul, a clinical
> > researcher, stated "It was another demonstration that
> > the problem of preventing human poliomyelitis was not
> > to be easily solved on the basis of evidence deduced
> > from the experimental disease in the rhesus monkey."
>
> Which does not say that the evidence was wrong.
It was *misleading*.
> > ..
> > 'Primate researchers continued to use rhesus monkeys
> > infected with viruses obtained from other monkeys,
> > leading to a more virulent strain of polio that
> > tended to infect nervous tissue. This resulted in
> > even more misleading data for development of a
> > human polio vaccine.'
No comment, ball?
> > ..
> > http://www.fbresearch.org/polio_facts.html
>
> that page doesn't exist.
I gave the correct link in another post, but that page has changed.
That was the link to your Robbins piece.
Here's a page from FBR
> that DOES exist:
<Snip pro-vivisection propaganda>
pearl
pearl wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:d4K%b.10489$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> >>>"all we learned about the disease came from studies with
> >>>animals, primarily monkeys. ..
> >>> Inoculation of monkeys was the only way that one could
> >>>demonstrate the presence of the virus. Later, one
> >>>strain of polio virus was adapted to mice, but it was
> >>>only one type (2).
> >>> Yes, I can see how not having mice available was a
> >>>'serious handicap'. <sarcasm>
> >>
> >>You go ahead and be sarcastic, chump - you
> >>misinterpreted Robbins's comment, and we all can see
> >>it. Having monkeys was NOT the handicap; ONLY having
> >>monkeys was the handicap,
> >
> > If all they learned about the disease came from studies
> > with animals, *primarily* monkeys. How was ONLY
> > having monkeys such a '*serious* handicap', eh ball?
> > His comments appear to be a pro-vivisection fudge.
>
> Because they could have learned EVEN MORE if they had
> been able to model the disease in other animals.
> All that they *did* learn, which was a LOT,
> came from experiments and research on monkeys; but they
> *might* have learned EVEN MORE, had they been able to
> model the disease in other animals ALSO.
A. "all we learned about the disease came from studies with
animals, primarily monkeys. "
PRIMARILY: ..
Definition: [adv] for the most part; ..
[adv] of primary import; ..
..
Synonyms: chiefly, in the first place, in the main, mainly, principally
Antonyms: secondarily
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/primarily
PRIMARY: ..
Definition: ..
[adj] of primary importance; ..
[adj] of first rank or importance or value; direct and immediate
rather than secondhand; "primary goals"; "a primary effect";
"primary sources"; "a primary interest"
[adj] of or being the essential or basic part; ..
..
1. That which stands first in order, rank, or importance;
a chief matter.
..
Antonyms: secondary
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/primary
secondary
Definition: ..
[adj] not of major importance; ..
[adj] depending on or incidental to what is original or primary; ..
..
Synonyms: alternate, alternative, auxiliary, collateral, incident, incidental,
indirect, inferior, junior, junior-grade, lower, lower-ranking, low-level,
lowly, minor, petty(a), secondary coil, secondary winding, secondhand,
second-string, standby, subaltern, subordinate, subsidiary, substitute(a),
supplemental, supplementary, thirdhand, tributary, utility(a), vicarious
..
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/secondary
B. "Prior to that time, the monkey was the only available
experimental animal, which seriously handicapped
research on polio,"
SERIOUS:
Definition:
..
[adj] of great consequence; ..
..
Synonyms: capital, critical, dangerous, difficult, earnest, good,
grave, grievous, hard, important, in earnest(p), intellectual, of import,
overserious, real, sedate, sensible, severe, sincere, sober, sobering,
solemn, thoughtful, unplayful
..
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=serious
HANDICAP:
[n] something immaterial that interferes with or delays action or progress
[v] put at a disadvantage;
..
Synonyms: balk, baulk, check, deterrent, disability, disable, disablement,
hamper, hinder, hindrance, impairment, impediment, incapacitate, invalid
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=handicap
"secondary" [not of major importance] =/= "serious handicap"
[impediment of great consequence].
*You* are hopeless, ball.
usual suspect
>>>>>>"The side" is wall to wall with paedophiles,
>>>>>>zoophiles, blackmailers, would-be human vivisectionists
>>>>>>and horse traders like yourself
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's substantiated by posts over the last three weeks addressing those
>>>>issues. Your silence over Karen's repeated support of bestiality tells us plenty
>>>>about you.
>>>
>>>I don't recall reading that support. I seldom read off-topic posts.
>>
>>It wasn't off topic.
>
> If I didn't read it, it was within an off-topic post/thread.
No, it only means you didn't read it.
>>>>>>who don't give a damn about the issues
>>>>>
>>>>>BS.
>>>>
>>>>Why did you remain silent when Karen was defending those who condition animals
>>>>to engage in sexual relations with humans?
>>>
>>>They do?
>>
>>Yes: A learning process whereby a previously neutral stimulus (CS) is repeatedly
>>paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that reflexively elicits an
>>unconditioned response (UR). Eventually the CS will evoke the response.
>>Pedophiles do this with children, and zoophiles with animals, to coerce behavior
>>children and animals would normally not engage.
>
> Ok. This sort of treatment of animals is clearly unethical.
I'm glad you agree.
>>Bestiality is a paraphilia. Paraphilias are one of the major groups of sexual
>>disorders; in DSM-IV, this group includes exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism,
>>pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, transvestic fetishism,
>>and paraphilias not otherwise specified, which includes necrophilia and
>>klismaphilia. The paraphilias (also called perversions or sexual deviations)
>>are recurrent, intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies that involve
>>nonhuman objects, children or other nonconsenting persons, or the suffering or
>>humiliation of oneself or the sexual partner.
>>http://www.mentalhealth.com/whgdata/whlstg0.htm
>
> Is repeatedly verbally abusing non-consenting others with overtly sexual
> terms and slander, as you and ball do, a form of sexual sadism? - It is.
Examples where I've abused anyone with sexual terms or slander, please.
<snip>
> To repeat- I think it is a perversion, and if it is contrary to an animals'
> instinct
It is.
> and requires conditioning or abuse,
It does.
> I _strongly_ condemn it.
I hope you'll be a little more vocal next time Karen offers her support for
bestiality.
usual suspect
Of course he would say that. The question is, What work did he actually carry
out? There's reason to believe his lab did *no* work.
> USC refuses to
> tell us why the lab was closed, citing pending litigation.
Valid and legitimate reason for staying off the record until the litigation has
run its course. Ask yourself why Dr Martin won't discuss the matter, either:
Last summer, health officials ordered Martin to stop testing patients.
But, as recently as a few weeks ago, on his Web site, he was still
offering to test your blood for the stealth virus at $250 a pop at his
Rosemead office.
So, we decided to pay Martin a visit. But each time we went, the lab was
closed. So we went to Martin's home in South Pasadena.
"Good morning Dr. Martin, we've been trying to reach you. Could we
please talk with you?" said NBC4 reporter Vikki Vargas.
Martin ran away from us so fast, that he ran right out of his sandals
and left his Birkenstocks in the driveway.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/May/27/DiseaseOrDeception27.htm
> All USC will confirm is that Martin is still a tenured professor there.'
The State of California and the CDC have commented on Martin's "work." That's
why he and his lab are out of business.
> The name ROYAL RAYMONDE RIFE comes to mind.
>
> Thanks for another superb demonstration of the injustice
Injustice? The man admitted he took money for work he never did.
By the early 90's, The CFIDS Association had funded him for $231,000.
Dr. Martin had said he had discovered "Epione" which was a "potential
therapy of stealth viral infection." He named it after the wife of a
Greek God of medicine known for skills in "soothing pain". He assured
the CFIDS Association that Epione was already in stage 2 testing with an
IND number through the federal government. They cut off his funding but
never told the patient community why. The reason they cut off funding?
They checked with the FDA and found out all Martin had told them about
the status of Epione was a lie. If the CFIDS Association (CAA) had, at
that time, been more forthcoming about this to the patient community,
which they claim to represent, it may well have ended the destructive
path that Martin was taking. But they kept those facts to themselves
and have, subsequently, caused a lot of harm to hundreds and, perhaps,
thousands, of patients in the decade since this happened. When one of
the authors of this piece asked Dr. Martin why the CFIDS Association
stopped funding him, he said it was a "mere misunderstanding."
http://www.ncf-net.org/forum/Johnmartin.html
Last August, after an inspection of Martin's practices, the government
shut down his lab because of "immediate jeopardy" and ordered him to
"cease and desist." Team Four Reports has learned Martin's federal lab
certificate was suspended and his state license was revoked. The reports
cite dozens of violations, including failure to maintain records and
throwing out blood samples. The CDC says Martin's actions border on
fraudulent activity.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/May/27/DiseaseOrDeception27.htm
> and
> persecution of those who don't fit in with your nefarious agendas.
My agenda isn't nefarious, and I don't support persecution. Neither do I support
fraud.
> Stealth Viruses
> Copyright 2001 by W. John Martin, M.D., Ph.D., USA
> (Explore Issue: Volume 10, Number 4)
> http://www.explorepub.com/articles/martin_10_4.html.
That lab is no longer in business, and Dr Martin is not allowed to practice or
perform research.
> Now let's hear your take on this;
> http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_brain_damage.htm
Search my posts on Aspartame and Splenda, especially at AFV. I discourage people
from using artificial and refined products, period. That said, many people
consume Aspartame and Splenda and saccharin without ever experiencing problems.
> <hears the doors to usual suspect's 'Damage Limitation Propaganda Vault' creaking open>
Shut up, you little retard. One can distinguish between pseudoscience and
science and still favor natural, whole foods.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >..>
'Dr. Martin and his colleagues at USC's Infectious
SYMPTOMS/CLINICAL CONDITIONS
> >..>
<..>
> > USC refuses to
> > tell us why the lab was closed, citing pending litigation.
>
> Valid and legitimate reason for staying off the record until the litigation has
> run its course. Ask yourself why Dr Martin won't discuss the matter, either:
> Last summer, health officials ordered Martin to stop testing patients.
> But, as recently as a few weeks ago, on his Web site, he was still
> offering to test your blood for the stealth virus at $250 a pop at his
> Rosemead office.
'Scientists in several private labs across the country are finding what
are termed "stealth pathogens" in much of the chronic illness population.
These microbes have no cell walls. Mycoplasmas and the cyst form
of the lyme disease pathogen are examples of these very crafty germs.
They are capable of changing form and hiding out in areas of the body
where they evade detection and treatment. There are government
scientists who are very aware of the evasion techniques used by these
stealth organisms. The United States Army actually has a patent on
at least one strain of mycoplasma. They've named it mycoplasma
fermentens.
The private researchers who are finding these stealth pathogens in
many patients with autoimmune disease evidently are not very popular
with the mainstream medical establishment or the government. We
must stand up and support these private labs which do not recieve
government funding. Many are struggling to survive. We desperately
need them to balance out research and propaganda put forth by
government agencies and certain university labs which are also
funded by the government.
As many of you know, not only are private labs being silenced but
quite a few key microbiologists have also recently disappeared from
the scene.
For more information concerning mycoplasma and lyme disease
please visit the following websites.
www.wildernetwork.org
www.bowen.org
http://congregator.net
www.roadback.org
www.immed.org
http://rense.com/general50/private.htm
<..>